US Journalists Shot Dead On Air

[RobinBanks]

creampuff said:

It seems this nutter had made a some threats, was known to the station staff to be a nutter and had posted a number of nutter online comments. It would be sensible to modify gun laws so that this was sufficient to prohibit gun ownership. Perhaps also combined with allowing a subsequent search warrant to be issued so the police can check for illegally held guns.

Things like this would be practical and help prevent nutters from getting guns, while being consistent with the second amendment right to bear arms and also consistent with the overwhelming majority of safe and lawful gun owners.

Quite similar to the laws in the UK then, which I think are overall fairly successful.
I'm not trying to champion the UK as a special, clever case. I'd like to make that clear. But a mental illness of that type would make owning a gun hazardous.

Then again, as it was he could've just as easily have stabbed them all right there.

[hornetrider]

Harry H said:

It's convincing the Americans to give them up though which is impossible as underneath they're all batst crazy. They just look sane on the surface. It's just a thin venire though and you don't have to scratch to deep to bring out the nutter in all of them.

Check out the RAGE.

https://youtu.be/B_r37sYhXsM

[Matt Harper]

RobinBanks said:

creampuff said:

It seems this nutter had made a some threats, was known to the station staff to be a nutter and had posted a number of nutter online comments. It would be sensible to modify gun laws so that this was sufficient to prohibit gun ownership. Perhaps also combined with allowing a subsequent search warrant to be issued so the police can check for illegally held guns.

Things like this would be practical and help prevent nutters from getting guns, while being consistent with the second amendment right to bear arms and also consistent with the overwhelming majority of safe and lawful gun owners.

Quite similar to the laws in the UK then, which I think are overall fairly successful.
I'm not trying to champion the UK as a special, clever case. I'd like to make that clear. But a mental illness of that type would make owning a gun hazardous.

Then again, as it was he could've just as easily have stabbed them all right there.

I'm unsure how local legislation applies in VA, but in Florida his threats/rants would have been justification to have him "Baker Act'ed" - involuntary detention for mental evaluation, which would have given law enforcement justifiable cause to confiscate his firearms until he was deemed competent.

[jogger1976]

Baryonyx said:

jogger1976 said:

On a side note, I think this footage has finally convinced me that I'm done with the USA as a holiday destination.

Why do people in times like this strive to outdo each other with their most ridiculous asseverations? Virginia is an absolutely wonderful place, you'd be poorer for not going. You're far more likely to be killed by a runaway donkey cart in the UK than you are getting shot whilst on holiday in America.

Thanks for your expert travel advice Alan Whicker
Just so you know, I'm not trying to outdo anyone with ridiculous asseverations.

I've actually been to the USA several times and visited different states. Each time I went back I liked it a little bit less, and since 9/11, it's become an increasingly paranoid, insular and unpleasant place.

For these reasons I doubt I'll ever go back and the shooting just conformed this in my mind.

[creampuff]

jogger1976 said:

Thanks for your expert travel advice Alan Whicker
Just so you know, I'm not trying to outdo anyone with ridiculous asseverations.

I've actually been to the USA several times and visited different states. Each time I went back I liked it a little bit less, and since 9/11, it's become an increasingly paranoid, insular and unpleasant place.

For these reasons I doubt I'll ever go back and the shooting just conformed this in my mind.

Why? The Raoul Moat shootings or the murder of the two police in Manchester or the regular gang stabbings in London could just as well make you want to migrate to the United States. Why pick on one outrageous act to write off an entire country?

[RobinBanks]

Matt Harper said:

I'm unsure how local legislation applies in VA, but in Florida his threats/rants would have been justification to have him "Baker Act'ed" - involuntary detention for mental evaluation, which would have given law enforcement justifiable cause to confiscate his firearms until he was deemed competent.

That seems like a reasonable approach to the problem.

It's of course open to the possibility that you're never brought to the attention of the police but as with any law, it isn't successful 100% of the time.

Otherwise, as stated before a 'no killing' law would be enough and we could all not worry about it.

[creampuff]

RobinBanks said:

Then again, as it was he could've just as easily have stabbed them all right there.

Well it is quite difficult to kill several people with a knife. Guns are very effective at killing, if put to that use. But that is a use that almost no gun owners put them, so the simple solution is to ban nutters from guns, not ban guns. I think the UK laws are quite restrictive, even law abiding people with no suggestion at all of any aggression ever can't get any more than a shotgun without a major PITA. From a public health perspective, you are better off cracking down on dangerous driving than cracking down on guns, but I never see much of a crackdown on dangerous driving.

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

If there was ever a collapse of government and lawlessness (and your general zombie apocalypse scenario), I'd much rather be in the US with a lot of guns than in the UK with few guns. When things go pear shaped, the criminals get guns and the innocent people get shot. You can google up Mexico, where there are FAR more homicides than the US and it's hard for ordinary Mexicans to own guns.

The problem with that scenario and the hypothetical one where the state (who have tanks and aircraft) attacking it citizens, is the sheer improbability. Thousands of unnecessary deaths with the justification of something that isn't practically ever going to occur is wholly irrational.

It is more complex than simply 'ban guns', as high ownership isn't necessary correlated with greater deaths (e.g. Switzerland), but it's the rejection of 'any' reform or curbing on firearms in the US that is disturbing.

creampuff said:

Well it is quite difficult to kill several people with a knife. Guns are very effective at killing, if put to that use. But that is a use that almost no gun owners put them, so the simple solution is to ban nutters from guns, not ban guns. I think the UK laws are quite restrictive, even law abiding people with no suggestion at all of any aggression ever can't get any more than a shotgun without a major PITA. From a public health perspective, you are better off cracking down on dangerous driving than cracking down on guns, but I never see much of a crackdown on dangerous driving.

It's a bit apples and oranges since driving is fundamental to our economic survival, where as owning a firearm isn't. So tolerating extreme driving events is more justified than extreme firearm ones, since there's no real benefit along with the latter.

I think it's about what works for each country. There are few countries in the world that have fewer deaths from firearms than we do. Especially homicide or used in crime (as opposed to suicide etc). The same applies to deaths on the roads, too.

Whatever the solution to the USA's outrageously high figures, what they're doing at the moment isn't working.

[Matt Harper]

hornetrider said:

Check out the RAGE.

https://youtu.be/B_r37sYhXsM

That clip's been around for a while and depicts a felony carrying an automatic custodial sentence - even in Alabama.
Pretty certain that moron will have done time for that little display of bad-assery.

[creampuff]

La Liga said:

creampuff said:

If there was ever a collapse of government and lawlessness (and your general zombie apocalypse scenario), I'd much rather be in the US with a lot of guns than in the UK with few guns. When things go pear shaped, the criminals get guns and the innocent people get shot. You can google up Mexico, where there are FAR more homicides than the US and it's hard for ordinary Mexicans to own guns.

The problem with that scenario and the hypothetical one there the state (who have tanks and aircraft) attacking it citizens, is the sheer improbability. Thousands of unnecessary deaths with the justification of something that isn't practically ever going to occur is wholly irrational.

Well the zombie apocalypse is a hypothetical scenario, which is why I mentioned zombies. The best weapons are those which are never used. An armed population raises the stakes for a government if it wants to act against its own citizens, just having national armed forces raises the stakes for foreign powers up to no good, even of the foreign powers have their own armed forces themselves and even of the armed forces are never used. At the time the US constitution was written, the immigrants who had made the United States their home had seen plenty of tyrannical governments and they liked an armed populace. Almost half of American households are armed and the US supreme court has affirmed the right of individuals to bear arms. Americans seem to like it that way.

[RobinBanks]

creampuff said:

Well it is quite difficult to kill several people with a knife. Guns are very effective at killing, if put to that use. But that is a use that almost no gun owners put them, so the simple solution is to ban nutters from guns, not ban guns. I think the UK laws are quite restrictive, even law abiding people with no suggestion at all of any aggression ever can't get any more than a shotgun without a major PITA. From a public health perspective, you are better off cracking down on dangerous driving than cracking down on guns, but I never see much of a crackdown on dangerous driving.

You are right. It's easy to get shotguns but it was annoying to get the two rifles I have.

However I think it was about the right level of checking and ensuring.

[NoNeed]

[redacted]

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

La Liga said:

creampuff said:

If there was ever a collapse of government and lawlessness (and your general zombie apocalypse scenario), I'd much rather be in the US with a lot of guns than in the UK with few guns. When things go pear shaped, the criminals get guns and the innocent people get shot. You can google up Mexico, where there are FAR more homicides than the US and it's hard for ordinary Mexicans to own guns.

The problem with that scenario and the hypothetical one there the state (who have tanks and aircraft) attacking it citizens, is the sheer improbability. Thousands of unnecessary deaths with the justification of something that isn't practically ever going to occur is wholly irrational.

Well the zombie apocalypse is a hypothetical scenario, which is why I mentioned zombies. The best weapons are those which are never used. An armed population raises the stakes for a government if it wants to act against its own citizens, just having national armed forces raises the stakes for foreign powers up to no good, even of the foreign powers have their own armed forces themselves and even of the armed forces are never used. At the time the US constitution was written, the immigrants who had made the United States their home had seen plenty of tyrannical governments and they liked an armed populace. Almost half of American households are armed and the US supreme court has affirmed the right of individuals to bear arms. Americans seem to like it that way.

It was more the "collapse of government and lawlessness" rather than The Walking Dead

I think you raise an important point, 'at the time'. Times change. I'm not saying what the US should and shouldn't do with its own laws, I am saying what they have at the moment doesn't work and the that numbers of deaths isn't justified by some ultra-improbable occurrence.

[creampuff]

La Liga said:

t was more the "collapse of government and lawlessness" rather than The Walking Dead

I think you raise an important point, 'at the time'. Times change. I'm not saying what the US should and shouldn't do with its own laws, I am saying what they have at the moment doesn't work and the that numbers of deaths isn't justified by some ultra-improbable occurrence.

The justification now for Americans is that lawful gun ownership protects the gun owner and their families from violent crime. That is the basis on which US gun laws, such as the concealed carry laws (allowing the possession of a concealed handgun in public) are formed. It is not an unfounded justification, since the majority of gun deaths are from illegally held firearms and usually gangbangers shooting other gangbangers.

This is drifting off-topic (actually the thread has drifted off topic, as we are now on gun control rather than the murder of a reporter and cameraman) but here is an interesting article by a PhD former cop, now morgue worker on which handgun calibers are most effective at killing. Of interest too is that most of the corpses arriving at his morgue are... criminals.

http://www.gunthorp.com/Terminal%20Ballistics%20as...

[jogger1976]

creampuff said:

jogger1976 said:

Thanks for your expert travel advice Alan Whicker
Just so you know, I'm not trying to outdo anyone with ridiculous asseverations.

I've actually been to the USA several times and visited different states. Each time I went back I liked it a little bit less, and since 9/11, it's become an increasingly paranoid, insular and unpleasant place.

For these reasons I doubt I'll ever go back and the shooting just conformed this in my mind.

Why? The Raoul Moat shootings or the murder of the two police in Manchester or the regular gang stabbings in London could just as well make you want to migrate to the United States. Why pick on one outrageous act to write off an entire country?

Did you actually bother to read my post?

My decision isn't based purely on that one incident. It's an accumulation of incidents which I've experienced.

• Increasingly rude, surly and aggressive customs/Homeland Security types
• Increasingly rude surly and aggressive police officers
• Increasingly overt and shameless racism
• Less and less tolerance and patience and general satisfaction from within the general populous. Most people I met seemed more and more pissed off each visit
• The general negativity that pervades the print and TV media - and I don't mean just FOX News!
• The fact that each time I visited, the gun nuts i.e., NRA, seemed to have even more control and influence

So in summary: I've been - several times. Some of it was good, very good, but the bad has outweighed it for me. So to quote Duncan Bannatyne "Ahhm Ooot!"

[RobinBanks]

It's one of the countries that I really quite like and would move to.

It's not my favourite but it's one of the ones I like more than not.

[Matt Harper]

jogger1976 said:

Did you actually bother to read my post?

My decision isn't based purely on that one incident. It's an accumulation of incidents which I've experienced.

• Increasingly rude, surly and aggressive customs/Homeland Security types
• Increasingly rude surly and aggressive police officers
• Increasingly overt and shameless racism
• Less and less tolerance and patience and general satisfaction from within the general populous. Most people I met seemed more and more pissed off each visit
• The general negativity that pervades the print and TV media - and I don't mean just FOX News!
• The fact that each time I visited, the gun nuts i.e., NRA, seemed to have even more control and influence

So in summary: I've been - several times. Some of it was good, very good, but the bad has outweighed it for me. So to quote Duncan Bannatyne "Ahhm Ooot!"

I'm sure we'll all miss you terribly.

Edited by Matt Harper on Friday 28th August 01:00

[Oakey]

creampuff said:

If there was ever a collapse of government and lawlessness (and your general zombie apocalypse scenario), I'd much rather be in the US with a lot of guns than in the UK with few guns. When things go pear shaped, the criminals get guns and the innocent people get shot. You can google up Mexico, where there are FAR more homicides than the US and it's hard for ordinary Mexicans to own guns.

Edited by creampuff on Thursday 27th August 20:05

And where are those Mexican criminals getting their guns from?

[creampuff]

Oakey said:

And where are those Mexican criminals getting their guns from?

Well a lot would be illegal exports of firearms from the United States to Mexico. This is criminals possessing guns which is the problem, not law abiding citizens possessing guns. Mexico has a low prevalence of firearms (including illegal firearms) but a lot of shootings. The US has a high prevalence of legal firearms and a lot less shootings.

[dudleybloke]

Oakey said:

And where are those Mexican criminals getting their guns from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal