Right, and the price you pay for that is the fact that a dangerous nutcase is easily able to kill 50 people in a bar because they can easily access the weaponry needed to do so.Originally Posted by Mert
We have the same nutters in other western countries but they simply don't have access to that killing power.
Apparently there were armed police in the club, so I wonder how many people died in the crossfire as opposed to being directly targeted by the madman.
Think the Death Penalty has kinda proved that one true.
There is, but neither of those things are impossible.
Where exactly do you draw the line?
Before the gunman attacked? Are they that afraid of gays?
I'm sure every gun-carrying criminal in the US immediately jumps to murder.Ya I'm sure that the person about to murder you will wait for the police to show up to protect you before proceeding.
I don't understand why you don't get this. Our gun crime levels are very similar when you compare European nations and the US along demographic lines. There is no problem.
Link.
Just goes to show that police men aren't sufficientnly reliable to protect citizens and that private individuals need to be armed to protect themselves.
The point is simple; you don't have time to wait for the police to protect you if your life or the lives of your family are in danger.
'We have no crime issues, except where we do. But apart from those places, yes, no crime issues here.'
The point is there are areas with very high gun ownership with very low crime, lower even that of European nations with gun control. If little or no gun regulation is the independent variable responsible for higher rates of gun crime, these anomalies would not exist.
No link; heard it on the radio last night so could be bollocks. Just interested in the possibilities rather than making any specific point.
Everyone but you is focusing on mass shootings, not general crime. While I don't think gun availability is the #1 reason for the stupidly high amount of mass shootings that occur over here, I find it hard to believe that it has nothing to do with it. Then you have to consider the number of accidental gun deaths that happen every year.
As for 'general crime,' I would think gun availability is a secondary factor and not just a matter of more guns = more crime.
I understand that (some) Americans like the feeling of self-reliability that guns give them. I just don't think that feeling is enough of a positive to balance the negatives. Still, gun control isn't one of my top priorities, there are many more issues I would prefer were tackled first and if anything, the fact that the response to every shooting (how many do we get? something like two a month?) is yet another shoutfest about gun control gets a bit boring.
He didn't listen 3 pages back so don't get your hopes up.
Well if we're focusing on mass shootings only, there's the whole debate about how to define a "mass shooting", how the vast majority of them happen in gun-free zones, etc. It gets messy and I don't think non-Americans are really equipped to go that deep into the gun debate.
And yes, I am happy to concede that it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that higher gun ownership does correspond with higher suicide rates and accidental shootings. The morbid / dark side of me might half-jokingly respond that that's just Darwinism at work.
I would argue that even if the negatives outweigh the positives (in terms of short term safety), this does not justify taking away our freedom as individuals. Heck, you could probably argue that a society which implemented sexual segregation outside a heavily regulated / monitored mating process / IVF insemination would probably suffer from far fewer sexual assaults as a result; but what's the point of safety without the freedom to exercise your freewill? Maximum safety shouldn't even be a desired end in and of itself.
Four or more is the definition of 'mass' in this context.
Deaths or casualties?
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43004.pdf
There is no broadly agreed-to, specific conceptualization of this issue, so this report uses its own definition for public mass shootings. These are incidents occurring in relatively public places, involving four or more deaths—not ncluding the shooter(s)—and gunmen who select victims somewhat indiscriminately.
Sorry, it's the definition of Mass Killings initially put forward by the FBI and then re-assessed by Congress. They seem to disagree if it should be three or four so I'm taking the higher number.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ando-sexuality
Now I might be being thick, but my take on Jones having a mardy last night was that it was because he wanted it to only be reported as a homophobic attack. When watching I thought he was a knob and that whilst it was clearly a homophobic attack, it was also some other things too.
Now he is making the opposite argument to the one I thought he was making.
You know, I do have some respect for the 'freedom' arguments and a few people out there do manage to show at least a degree of consistency with it. But it seems that the only 'freedom' right-wing Americans care about is the freedom to own guns. They are happy to jump aboard the 'ban abortion/gay marriage/drugs/anything-I-don't-like-train,' freedom be damned in all those cases. How about shit like, say, the speed limit? Why is no one chimping out about that clear violation of our freedom to drive as we please? Society is built on the premise of resigning some freedom in the name of stability. I don't think giving up the right to own firearms is that big of a deal. Obviously about half of the country disagrees with me, that's fine. I would gladly take something like universal healthcare over any sort of ban on guns, for example.
"Today, the 'we only care about LGBT rights if Muslims are involved' brigade are out in force."
Yeah, fuck off mate.
That's pretty lol.
A lot of truth in that sadly.
'Out in force' is such a shithouse phrase.
It was not so much only wanting to portray it as homophobic as not making it about Muslims, which the other two were groping towards without also really wanting to say it (like this bloke lives for).
In fairness, it is morbidly interesting watching social conservative figures express their condolences while carefully tip-toeing around the LGBT component of the crime.
Sick bastard to get off on something like that. Mea Maxima Culpa.
Also, this guy really does seem like the type who wouldn't be able to get a gun if they weren't easily for sale. He seems to have been a lone operator with a very short fuse. It's not like had a network of criminal contacts who could import it for him.
The "bad guys will still get guns" argument seems to collect everyone into a great big criminal bloc, with all the access that provides. The reality is that a lot of these loners are quite isolated, and would never be able to find that kind of equipment in, for example, the UK.
Has anyone mentioned he actually had a firearm license?
This sort of thing breaks various people's brains, as depending on which side of the spectrum they're on, they think Muslims and gays are both violently evil / can do no wrong (delete as appropriate) and find it difficult to add nuance.
Drugs are illegal and easy to buy. Don't know why guns wouldn't be the same.
That's a fatuous argument because drugs are far harder to buy than normal groceries.
Yeah but if you wanted to buy drugs you can easily do it. If you wanted to buy a gun you could easily do it. I would think that if you have the resolve to kill a bunch of people, you're not going to be deterred by having to put a little bit extra effort.
Those 'conservatives' are frauds; the issue isn't the ideology.
I agree there should be democratically/legislatively delineated restraints on freedom, but last time I checked the 2nd Amendment still existed.
The lack of gun proliferation in countries with gun restrictions like Australian and the UK suggests otherwise.
However, I do agree with you on the second amendment. As much as I wouldn't write it if I were writing a constitution, it's definitely there. I mean, you could argue what constitutes a militia, etc., but it seems like the current interpretation has generally held up in court.
So because people could still break the law there's no point in having one?
You're going to have a lot of spare room in your statute book if you follow that logic.
The 'criminals will still get them' argument is pretty weak. At least use the 'how are we going to remove them?' one, it is a bit stronger.
They are islands, it is much easier to control your borders.
US v. Heller (2008)
It's about reciprocal application. If I have a traffic law, everyone is safer if most people follow that law. If I have a gun regulation, those who follow the law are less safe than those who don't.
Toggle Spoiler
Okay let's go with that:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ones-full-data
There have been 81 mass shooting in the last 35 years; or about 2.3 per year with an average of 17 deaths per year. Hardly an epidemic. Yes every death is a tragedy, but to put that into perspective 450 people die falling out of their bed per year in the USA; it is literally 2,600% more likely for you to die getting out of bed than you are from being a victim of a mass shooting.
Nice spoiler. Considering how many durwoods shoot themselves by accident I would imagine it is total bollocks.
It's about safety from others, not from yourself and/or something about intent.
I'm fairly sure it's been shown that your overall 'safety' goes down if you own a gun (ie it is more likely to cause you harm than save you from harm). You can't only assess it's relative value in an armed intruder situation. Even then, seeing as I would imagine any sane individual would keep it locked away somewhere it's probably still fairly useless. You should just scatter landmines about before going to bed each night.
Yes that's why I was precluding injury done to self and/or requiring intent.
So let's spin this for a second and say that there's a mental health crisis in the United States. For the sake of that, gun restrictions seems like a good idea, right? You have to stop seeing guns as a defence weapon and see it more as a weapon that can end more lives quicker than knives or homemade explosives. I mean, look at the perps of these massacres. All headcases. Headcases with easy access to firearms.
Britain arguably has a similar issue but, without the access, our headcases maybe get away with one brutal murder, rather than 20+.
The liberal media and its usual BS:
http://www.thenation.com/article/com...inger-fantasy/
I could quote half of the article, so you should read it instead. I will, however, quote this part:
A case in Texas two weeks ago highlights the risks of civilians intervening in chaotic situations. Police say that as two carjackers struggled with the owner of a car at a gas station in northeast Houston, a witness decided to take action into his own hands. He fired several shots, but missed the perpetrators and shot the owner of the car in the head. He then picked up his shell casings and fled the scene. Police are still looking for the shooter.
Imagine opening fire at a petrol station. What could possibly go wrong?
Whats the hymn/song referenced here? My ears are absolutely awful at understanding lyrics when sung by crowds.
Bridge over troubled water. Sounds pretty clear.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote