US Gun Violence

[Innovindil]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Would that really happen in the US without massacres?

 

I mean, there's massacres happening already, but even more so?

Judging by the amount of the usual die hard "you'll never take muh guns" nobbers who were telling Ukrainians to surrender to save lives I dare say there would be more than you think willing to give them up without a fight. Barring, of course, that it was the right person(s) telling them to give them up. 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Judging by the amount of the usual die hard "you'll never take muh guns" nobbers who were telling Ukrainians to surrender to save lives I dare say there would be more than you think willing to give them up without a fight. Barring, of course, that it was the right person(s) telling them to give them up. 

Yeah, it's possible.

 

But is you imply with the last part here, mentality change in the right way has to go with it for it to work.

[Daggers]

34 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Would that really happen in the US without massacres?

 

I mean, there's massacres happening already, but even more so?

Not sure I follow the logic of massacres taking place following seizures tbh. 
 

They do nothing, they repeat the sins of the past - that much is a guarantee. 
 

It’s moot anyway, the US won’t act. 

[leicsmac]

Just now, Daggers said:

Not sure I follow the logic of massacres taking place following seizures tbh. 
 

They do nothing, they repeat the sins of the past - that much is a guarantee. 
 

It’s moot anyway, the US won’t act. 

The massacres would take place during the attempts at seizures, I think. Or by those who think the seizures are coming and would rather take as many people with them as possible than give up their guns and "freedom". That's the mentality of some there.

 

I absolutely agree that right now it's just a cycle of death and misery, but I think it needs to be done in the right way involving a lot of factors in order for there not to be so much more.

[Daggers]

Just now, leicsmac said:

The massacres would take place during the attempts at seizures, I think. Or by those who think the seizures are coming and would rather take as many people with them as possible than give up their guns and "freedom". That's the mentality of some there.

 

I absolutely agree that right now it's just a cycle of death and misery, but I think it needs to be done in the right way involving a lot of factors in order for there not to be so much more.

Okies. 
 

Must admit I’m perfectly fine with gun nut freedumbs being wasted by authority raids. Good luck defending the right to bare arms against a drone strike. Would also act to reduce future demand for weapons. Win win. 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Okies. 
 

Must admit I’m perfectly fine with gun nut freedumbs being wasted by authority raids. Good luck defending the right to bare arms against a drone strike. Would also act to reduce future demand for weapons. Win win. 

I wouldn't shed too many tears either, but I'm also sure that they'd then go off the reservation entirely and ensure that during those raids - or even before them - a great many innocent people end up getting caught in the crossfire one way or another.

[marbles]

Looks like I’m starting to see the Americanization of some FT members LOL

 

”just take ‘em!”

”drone strikes!”

”yee haw!”

 

Easy sitting on the outside looking in and saying “geez, the solution is so simple.  They really are stupid”

 

Well I’m telling you, taking the guns is an impossibility.  We can’t even take guns from criminals. 
The mindset here has to be changed.  Until that happens, the guns will not be turned over.

 

 

[Foxdiamond]

53 minutes ago, marbles said:

Looks like I’m starting to see the Americanization of some FT members LOL

 

”just take ‘em!”

”drone strikes!”

”yee haw!”

 

Easy sitting on the outside looking in and saying “geez, the solution is so simple.  They really are stupid”

 

Well I’m telling you, taking the guns is an impossibility.  We can’t even take guns from criminals. 
The mindset here has to be changed.  Until that happens, the guns will not be turned over.

 

 

Agree. Too many people are in favour of guns so force or amnesty would not work. There are just so many weapons in circulation from what I understand.  Would more control be possible or at least reduce the military type weapons. Seems even this would not receive enough support. The good people of the US have my sympathy for this impasse.

[foxes1988]

The US and the UK are so similar in so many ways but when it comes to Guns and Religion its a totally different world.

 

Its very weird how they cannot be honest with themselves and just say that death and gun massacres is the consequence of the 2nd amendment.  You cannot have the 2nd amendment without violence and death.  The way the constitution is held up weirdly as some kind of holy document is very bizarre also.  Its hundreds of years old and was created when the US had a population similar to that of Birmingham's metropolitan area.

 

The only solution is tighter gun controls but they cannot admit that to themselves, not in the land of the 'free-ist nation the world has ever seen'.  Despite locking up more of its citizens in prison then any other nation has ever done so.  Even more then China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and other 'undemocratic' countries.

[marbles]

2 minutes ago, foxes1988 said:

The US and the UK are so similar in so many ways but when it comes to Guns and Religion its a totally different world.

 

Its very weird how they cannot be honest with themselves and just say that death and gun massacres is the consequence of the 2nd amendment.  You cannot have the 2nd amendment without violence and death.  The way the constitution is held up weirdly as some kind of holy document is very bizarre also.  Its hundreds of years old and was created when the US had a population similar to that of Birmingham's metropolitan area.

 

The only solution is tighter gun controls but they cannot admit that to themselves, not in the land of the 'free-ist nation the world has ever seen'.  Despite locking up more of its citizens in prison then any other nation has ever done so.  Even more then China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and other 'undemocratic' countries.

You're not the first person to have said this within this thread.

Ill try my best to explain it, but I understand completely that it makes no sense outside of this country

 

This is what we all learn as children.

The Constitution protects the rights of US Citizens.  Its the foundation of our country.  Its the way we were built.

When it was created, it was meant to be a permanent contract between the government and the people. 

Its not meant to be changed just because a group of people don't like something - you simply cannot make everyone happy all the time.

There are provisions written in that allow it to be amended -  but there are hurdles that must be overcome, so that the amendments are not at the whim of whomever controls the presidency/congress at the time.

Its our rulebook.  Without rules, there is no society - so yes, it is held up as a holy document.

 

 

Now for the final reason it should not be abolished....and its a reason that many on here can agree with: 

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63851751

 

 

 

Now, I'm not saying something should be done.

The 2nd Amendment has been distorted to the point of ridiculousness.

They SHOULD NOT change the 2nd Amendment (or any other Amendment).  What they should do is regulate what is allowed to be manufactured and sold.  .

They should find a way to make the citizens feel more safe and secure, so that we don't feel the need to "defend" ourselves. 

Quit talking about taking guns from law abiding citizens, and talk about how they will be taken from criminals - you know, so that we can FEEL SAFE.

 

 

 

[spacemunky]

Was really impressed with the bodycam footage from the officers that went in and took the shooter out.

 

Never understood in all these shootings how all police are so hesitant to enter a building when children are being murdered. It's certainly dangerous, but it's your job.

[Foxdiamond]

25 minutes ago, marbles said:

You're not the first person to have said this within this thread.

Ill try my best to explain it, but I understand completely that it makes no sense outside of this country

 

This is what we all learn as children.

The Constitution protects the rights of US Citizens.  Its the foundation of our country.  Its the way we were built.

When it was created, it was meant to be a permanent contract between the government and the people. 

Its not meant to be changed just because a group of people don't like something - you simply cannot make everyone happy all the time.

There are provisions written in that allow it to be amended -  but there are hurdles that must be overcome, so that the amendments are not at the whim of whomever controls the presidency/congress at the time.

Its our rulebook.  Without rules, there is no society - so yes, it is held up as a holy document.

 

 

Now for the final reason it should not be abolished....and its a reason that many on here can agree with: 

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63851751

 

 

 

Now, I'm not saying something should be done.

The 2nd Amendment has been distorted to the point of ridiculousness.

They SHOULD NOT change the 2nd Amendment (or any other Amendment).  What they should do is regulate what is allowed to be manufactured and sold.  .

They should find a way to make the citizens feel more safe and secure, so that we don't feel the need to "defend" ourselves. 

Quit talking about taking guns from law abiding citizens, and talk about how they will be taken from criminals - you know, so that we can FEEL SAFE.

 

 

 

How many gun crimes in US are by people who had no previous criminal or mental health record? 

[marbles]

17 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

How many gun crimes in US are by people who had no previous criminal or mental health record? 

That’s a very good question.

Not sure the answer will be easy to find - or even out there.

Ive seen lots of different stats, but none that cover what you ask.  Not saying they aren’t out there, just that I haven’t come across them.

 

 

 

 

 

[foxes1988]

1 hour ago, marbles said:

You're not the first person to have said this within this thread.

Ill try my best to explain it, but I understand completely that it makes no sense outside of this country

 

This is what we all learn as children.

The Constitution protects the rights of US Citizens.  Its the foundation of our country.  Its the way we were built.

When it was created, it was meant to be a permanent contract between the government and the people. 

Its not meant to be changed just because a group of people don't like something - you simply cannot make everyone happy all the time.

There are provisions written in that allow it to be amended -  but there are hurdles that must be overcome, so that the amendments are not at the whim of whomever controls the presidency/congress at the time.

Its our rulebook.  Without rules, there is no society - so yes, it is held up as a holy document.

 

 

Now for the final reason it should not be abolished....and its a reason that many on here can agree with: 

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63851751

 

 

 

If thats the way its taught i would argue thats perhaps the problem. I guess what I mean is that it's not particularly revolutionary or unique to US. Lots of countries have as many rights as the US whether they have a codified Constitution or not.  I'm not necessarily saying the US needs to be rid of or rewrite their Constitution tbh. I suppose I'm just noting how rigid having a Constitution makes things whereas not having a codified one whilst making things more complicated can allow for much needed reform from time to time 

 

1 hour ago, marbles said:

Now, I'm not saying something should be done.

The 2nd Amendment has been distorted to the point of ridiculousness.

They SHOULD NOT change the 2nd Amendment (or any other Amendment).  What they should do is regulate what is allowed to be manufactured and sold.  .

They should find a way to make the citizens feel more safe and secure, so that we don't feel the need to "defend" ourselves. 

Quit talking about taking guns from law abiding citizens, and talk about how they will be taken from criminals - you know, so that we can FEEL SAFE.

 

 

 

I don't think you can feel safe with the 2nd ammendment. You can never truly feel safe even if you didn't have the 2nd ammendment. In my mind accepting the right to bear arms means accepting the statistical inevitability of these deaths. You have to acknowledge this is what will happen. Maybe you can reduce murders slightly with better mental healthcare or some restrictions on guns but not drastically.

Edited 29 March 2023 by foxes1988

[marbles]

15 minutes ago, foxes1988 said:

 

If thats the way its taught i would argue thats perhaps the problem. I guess what I mean is that it's not particularly revolutionary or unique to US. Lots of countries have as many rights as the US whether they have a codified Constitution or not.  I'm not necessarily saying the US needs to be rid of or rewrite their Constitution tbh. I suppose I'm just noting how rigid having a Constitution makes things whereas not having a codified one whilst making things more complicated can allow for much needed reform from time to time 

 

I don't think you can feel safe with the 2nd ammendment. You can never truly feel safe even if you didn't have the 2nd ammendment. In my mind accepting the right to bear arms means accepting the statistical inevitability of these deaths. You have to acknowledge this is what will happen. Maybe you can reduce murders slightly with better mental healthcare or some restrictions on guns but not drastically.

There are contingencies for reform from time to time though.  Maybe that's what outsiders (no offense) aren't clear on.  Its not ironclad.

Those are the Amendments - changes made to the original Constitution.

Luckily no one group of people can make changes to it. 

If they could, what happens when a group decides the best way to stop crime is allow law enforcement uninhibited access to your property? (illegal search and seizure - 4th)

Or another group decides that since you were arrested and a confession was beaten out of you (due process - 5th, cruel and unusual punishment - 8th), you don't get a lawyer or a trial (right to counsel/trial - 6th)

Amendments should be difficult to change.  Whether you personally agree with them or not.

 

I feel safe with the 2nd Amendment and am against changing it because it could open the door to change others, and I quite like the other ones.

Like I said, there are ways to change/abolish it, but its not an easy task, and would be looked upon as going against its initial intent - to give citizens the means to fight back against a tyrannical government.

 

[Foxdiamond]

27 minutes ago, marbles said:

There are contingencies for reform from time to time though.  Maybe that's what outsiders (no offense) aren't clear on.  Its not ironclad.

Those are the Amendments - changes made to the original Constitution.

Luckily no one group of people can make changes to it. 

If they could, what happens when a group decides the best way to stop crime is allow law enforcement uninhibited access to your property? (illegal search and seizure - 4th)

Or another group decides that since you were arrested and a confession was beaten out of you (due process - 5th, cruel and unusual punishment - 8th), you don't get a lawyer or a trial (right to counsel/trial - 6th)

Amendments should be difficult to change.  Whether you personally agree with them or not.

 

I feel safe with the 2nd Amendment and am against changing it because it could open the door to change others, and I quite like the other ones.

Like I said, there are ways to change/abolish it, but its not an easy task, and would be looked upon as going against its initial intent - to give citizens the means to fight back against a tyrannical government.

 

I could see why the 2nd Amendment made sense back in 1791 after the revolution and again after the civil war.  There does though seem a lack of confidence in your elected governments and democracy in modern times. Perhaps this is justified. Again from the outside the real danger seems to be vested interest in guns that wants to forever have the bogeyman of a tyrannical government that has never existed.  In the meantime thousands of your citizens die. 

[ClaphamFox]

There’s a Republican on twitter banging on about the need to arm teachers. His name is such a perfect aptronym that I feel like I’ve inadvertently stumbled into the pages of an early Martin Amis novel. 
 

 

Edited 29 March 2023 by ClaphamFox

[Jon the Hat]

46 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

There’s a Republican on twitter banging on about the need to arm teachers. His name is such a perfect aptronym that I feel like I’ve inadvertently stumbled into the pages of an early Martin Amis novel. 
 

 

I suppose the question that comes to mind is whether armed teachers would mean greater or fewer dead kids.  My bet is greater.  We would see the advent of "teacher kills threatening teen with his gun" and I bet kids being violent in the classroom is a lot more common than school shooters.

[KFS]

Saw some idiot making the claim that drug/drink driving kills too and ‘we don’t ban cars’. Stupid argument when 99% of car based activity is to further day to day life. A gun has one use only. 
 

Also, what’s the point in being open to amendments if the constitution is supposedly untouchable? People running around exercising the wrong perception of written doctrine sounds a little bit like why the US stormed into the Middle East to ‘bring democracy’. 
 

I’m willing to bet you could mask the quotes of a gun lobbyist and an ISIS nut job and they’d come out pretty similar on this topic. 

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, marbles said:

That’s a very good question.

Not sure the answer will be easy to find - or even out there.

Ive seen lots of different stats, but none that cover what you ask.  Not saying they aren’t out there, just that I haven’t come across them.

 

 

 

 

 

That's right, and that's because the Republicans in Congress blocked research into gun violence by the CDC for over two decades via the Dickey amendment, thankfully now effectively repealed.

 

Sorry for making that party political, but it's a matter of record.

 

54 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I suppose the question that comes to mind is whether armed teachers would mean greater or fewer dead kids.  My bet is greater.  We would see the advent of "teacher kills threatening teen with his gun" and I bet kids being violent in the classroom is a lot more common than school shooters.

I think that's a pretty safe bet tbh.

 

1 minute ago, KFS said:

Saw some idiot making the claim that drug/drink driving kills too and ‘we don’t ban cars’. Stupid argument when 99% of car based activity is to further day to day life. A gun has one use only. 
 

Also, what’s the point in being open to amendments if the constitution is supposedly untouchable? People running around exercising the wrong perception of written doctrine sounds a little bit like why the US stormed into the Middle East to ‘bring democracy’. 
 

I’m willing to bet you could mask the quotes of a gun lobbyist and an ISIS nut job and they’d come out pretty similar on this topic. 

Barring a few exceptions, they'd certainly come out similar on the topics of women's and LGBT rights, but then I've said that before too. They don't like each other because they look in the mirror and see the other.

[marbles]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

That's right, and that's because the Republicans in Congress blocked research into gun violence by the CDC for over two decades via the Dickey amendment, thankfully now effectively repealed.

 

Sorry for making that party political, but it's a matter of record.

 

 

Those dang Republicans!

 

Anyway, found this info - as of 2022 @Foxdiamond

 

64.5% had prior criminal history

62.8% had a history of violence

27.9% had a history of domestic violence

28.5% had military experience 

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/public-mass-shootings-database-amasses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings

 

also found this explaining the difficulty of discerning if mental illness played a role

 

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mental-illness-risk-factor-for-gun-violence.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, marbles said:

Those dang Republicans!

 

Anyway, found this info - as of 2022 @Foxdiamond

 

64.5% had prior criminal history

62.8% had a history of violence

27.9% had a history of domestic violence

28.5% had military experience 

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/public-mass-shootings-database-amasses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings

 

also found this explaining the difficulty of discerning if mental illness played a role

 

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mental-illness-risk-factor-for-gun-violence.html

 

 

I'm glad there was still some work going on to supply these numbers, but there's still no good reason at all to block further research into such incidents for two decades. I'm not sure how that can be argued. 

[Foxdiamond]

2 hours ago, marbles said:

Those dang Republicans!

 

Anyway, found this info - as of 2022 @Foxdiamond

 

64.5% had prior criminal history

62.8% had a history of violence

27.9% had a history of domestic violence

28.5% had military experience 

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/public-mass-shootings-database-amasses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings

 

also found this explaining the difficulty of discerning if mental illness played a role

 

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mental-illness-risk-factor-for-gun-violence.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose for the gun lobby they need to understand that other countries will also have criminals and mentally fragile people that become violent. The difference is that the ease to obtain a gun is so much easier in the US. Obviously someone with a knife can do serious harm but you have to get up close and personal but a gun especially a rifle user can kill from a distance multiple times before anyone can react.

[Captain...]

10 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

There’s a Republican on twitter banging on about the need to arm teachers. His name is such a perfect aptronym that I feel like I’ve inadvertently stumbled into the pages of an early Martin Amis novel. 
 

 

Great use of the word aptronym. Sadly very predictable response from the gun nuts.

 

There just seems to be a massive cultural difference in what guns represent. UK - guns equal danger and death. US - guns equal safety and protection.

 

Maybe we don't hear all the stories of US folk protecting themselves successfully with guns, whereas we have the case of Tony Martin over here. Link below for those not familiar with his case.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

 

Interested in @marbles view on the Tony Martin incident and how he thinks it would have been viewed stateside.

 

[abc]

10 hours ago, KFS said:

Saw some idiot making the claim that drug/drink driving kills too and ‘we don’t ban cars’.

It's not worth the breath trying to debate it with them, They know that for cars, you have to pass a test, to get a licence, then are policed in the use of that car, and then at risk of having the license removed if you do not behave properly,  or your health deteriorates. As well as having to register your car, and annually ensure it is safe and have insurance. Applying this to gun ownership would go along way to solve the problem. NRA and gun manufacturer's money in the government will ensure it does not change. I can not imagine what it is like to parent your way through a situation like this. They have my sympathy but at 51 I am becoming world weary of their weekly shootings.