US Journalists Shot Dead On Air
Discussion
dudleybloke said:
Though an inexcusable arrogant gaffe by the ATF - relatively a drop in the bucket numerically.As usual, with this recurring debate on Pistonheads, we get a fairly strong reaction from people who's massive intellect has allowed them to come to the conclusion that if guns are simply banned in the US, the problem goes away. Thank you, brainiacs, we are so grateful for this wisdom, which would otherwise have never been tabled.
Other than the few meatballs, who reckon that merely changing legislation will do the trick, it would be slightly more productive to suggest "how" to effect this great change.
Matt Harper said:
Other than the few meatballs, who reckon that merely changing legislation will do the trick, it would be slightly more productive to suggest "how" to effect this great change.
If that were the solution, having a look at what the UK and Australia did in the 1990s would be a starting point. Ultimately, despite the outrage everytime a bunch of kids gets killed, the majority of Americans don't care enough to do anything about the control of guns.
If there were huge public demonstrations all over the country, picketing of senators who are in the pocket of the arms manufacturers, then eventually, the tide will turn. At the moment all we get is a bit of outrage for a fortnight, then people move on, until the next one.
How bad a massacre will it take to get the tide of public opinion to turn so that it overcomes the influence of bodies like the NRA?
creampuff said:
Banning guns would be unconstitutional.
AMENDMENT.Do you think the constitution hasn't changed since it was originally written????
Of course not.
It has changed with the times - like every country's laws - they evolve.
I am obviously being facetious about the ease of it - it would be a total nightmare.
BUT I find the whole "crims would be the only ones with guns" argument flawed for one simple reason.
If you banned guns from non-crims you would save huge numbers of accidental deaths and suicides (although some would find another way).
So that's GOOD.
Most crimes involving guns WOULD STILL INVOLVE GUNS.
So for the criminal part - nothing changes.
In fact, one important bit does - the people getting robbed won't have a complete lack of experience and a gun to wave around so won't get shot/shot themselves/shoot a family member innocently hiding in the loo - for example.
So - I just don't buy the argument that without guns the criminal fraternity goes on a massive spree.
They ALREADY have guns and commit plenty of home invasions - I don't think they worry much about a homeowner being armed or not.
In any case, HERE IN THE UK we have exactly what you are talking about - only crims have guns.
Yet somehow we manage to survive the marauding hordes of violent armed criminals out there - for the most part!
creampuff said:
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...
So if it's gangbangers killing gangbangers all the time, just ban guns and no one is any worse off.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...
The whole "protects families from violent crime" argument is empirically false unless every single gangbanger suddenly switched to home invasions rather than turf wars and selling drugs.
The number of lives saved from accidental deaths would swamp the odd family losing their HDTV to a home invasion.
No criminal is just going to go on a random killing spree with an armoury MORE than he was before.
They aren't put off by others having guns.
Honestly - at worse you will have a rise in insurance costs as more home invasions are successful.
That is a TINY price to pay for all the obvious lives saved, isn't it!?
jogger1976 said:
My decision isn't based purely on that one incident. It's an accumulation of incidents which I've experienced.
You need to stick to the West Coast!!- 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
I lived there for four years or so and NONE of that bothered me.
- No dealings with the cops, except for one minor speeding offence and they guy was charming.
- Literally witnessed ZERO racism, and there were plenty of brown people around.
- Sun = mellow people.
- No one watches Fox news.
- Saw not one gun, other than on the aforementioned charming police man.
NoNeed said:
walm said:
You need to stick to the West Coast!!
LaurasOtherHalf said:
NoNeed said:
walm said:
You need to stick to the West Coast!!
Still true about the happy people and lack of overt racism!
Damn... 894 since Jan 2013.
That is quite literally one of the most insane things I have ever read.
NEARLY 1,000!!
How many of those were "criminals" (before the shooting) rather than just nutters getting easy access to guns...?
La Liga said:
Matt Harper said:
Other than the few meatballs, who reckon that merely changing legislation will do the trick, it would be slightly more productive to suggest "how" to effect this great change.
If that were the solution, having a look at what the UK and Australia did in the 1990s would be a starting point. All legal UK handguns were registered and easily traceable, so a ban was enforceable. Not so in Murica.
Compare with the changes to shotgun legislation in the 80's where magazines were limited to 2 rounds and shotguns had to be modified/proofed. Thousands and thousands of shotguns in the UK disappeared overnight. They are not all lying at the bottom of a lake somewhere.
There's not really a shortage of handguns in the UK now either, they are just better hidden. This is what makes me think that there is a total difference in psyche in the US that makes it acceptable to actually shoot people. Call it mental illness, immaturity, the obsession with 'meds', whatever...
jshell said:
La Liga said:
Matt Harper said:
Other than the few meatballs, who reckon that merely changing legislation will do the trick, it would be slightly more productive to suggest "how" to effect this great change.
If that were the solution, having a look at what the UK and Australia did in the 1990s would be a starting point. All legal UK handguns were registered and easily traceable, so a ban was enforceable. Not so in Murica.
Compare with the changes to shotgun legislation in the 80's where magazines were limited to 2 rounds and shotguns had to be modified/proofed. Thousands and thousands of shotguns in the UK disappeared overnight. They are not all lying at the bottom of a lake somewhere.
There's not really a shortage of handguns in the UK now either, they are just better hidden. This is what makes me think that there is a total difference in psyche in the US that makes it acceptable to actually shoot people. Call it mental illness, immaturity, the obsession with 'meds', whatever...
La Liga said:
f that were the solution, having a look at what the UK and Australia did in the 1990s would be a starting point.
Even less restrictive laws (i.e. restricting entire classes of guns) than the Australian laws in the US have already been found to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. That won't work. The right to bear arms is in the constitution, the right to bear handguns has been affirmed by the supreme court. MarshPhantom said:
jshell said:
La Liga said:
Matt Harper said:
Other than the few meatballs, who reckon that merely changing legislation will do the trick, it would be slightly more productive to suggest "how" to effect this great change.
If that were the solution, having a look at what the UK and Australia did in the 1990s would be a starting point. All legal UK handguns were registered and easily traceable, so a ban was enforceable. Not so in Murica.
Compare with the changes to shotgun legislation in the 80's where magazines were limited to 2 rounds and shotguns had to be modified/proofed. Thousands and thousands of shotguns in the UK disappeared overnight. They are not all lying at the bottom of a lake somewhere.
There's not really a shortage of handguns in the UK now either, they are just better hidden. This is what makes me think that there is a total difference in psyche in the US that makes it acceptable to actually shoot people. Call it mental illness, immaturity, the obsession with 'meds', whatever...
This is not an anti-US rant, I just think their society/environment has developed certain views/beliefs/illnesses/problems in large numbers of people. That, I believe is more behind shootings than the child-simple belief that access to guns is the driving factor.
creampuff said:
Even less restrictive laws (i.e. restricting entire classes of guns) than the Australian laws in the US have already been found to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. That won't work. The right to bear arms is in the constitution, the right to bear handguns has been affirmed by the supreme court.
THE CONSTITUTION CAN BE AMENDED.THERE'S LOADS OF AMENDMENTS.
27!
Sure, it's not easy. But isn't it worth trying? (Again?)
jshell said:
They were, but it's a small sample. It also perhaps helps explain the relative mental stability levels between Europeans and Americans.
This is not an anti-US rant, I just think their society/environment has developed certain views/beliefs/illnesses/problems in large numbers of people. That, I believe is more behind shootings than the child-simple belief that access to guns is the driving factor.
Europe produces far many disaffected young men who go off and join ISIS than the United States does. Don't give me this US is full of unstable mentally ill people when Europe is the breeding ground for large numbers of ISIS recruits and the US basically isn't, despite also having a large muslim population. This is not an anti-US rant, I just think their society/environment has developed certain views/beliefs/illnesses/problems in large numbers of people. That, I believe is more behind shootings than the child-simple belief that access to guns is the driving factor.
walm said:
THE CONSTITUTION CAN BE AMENDED.
THERE'S LOADS OF AMENDMENTS.
27!
Sure, it's not easy. But isn't it worth trying? (Again?)
No amendment has ever cancelled a previous amendment. The hurdles to changing the 2nd amendment would be overwhelming... but like old Ricky Gervais, feel free to go over there as a Brit, poke fun at them and tell them they are all wrong and you know everything.THERE'S LOADS OF AMENDMENTS.
27!
Sure, it's not easy. But isn't it worth trying? (Again?)
Everyone is getting bothered about gun control here already: most countries do not have gun laws anywhere near as strict as the UK gun laws and most countries don't have a big problem with illegally used guns either. Like I said, guns aren't the problem, guns in the hands of criminals and mentally ill people are the problem.
creampuff said:
No amendment has ever cancelled a previous amendment. The hurdles to changing the 2nd amendment would be overwhelming... but like old Ricky Gervais, feel free to go over there as a Brit, poke fun at them and tell them they are all wrong and you know everything.
Are you saying that Ricky and I can't have an opinion because we don't live there?Doesn't that make your opinion equally invalid then?
I can't feel sorry for Ukrainians getting invaded by Putin because I don't live there?
"Not living there" has absolutely nothing to do with the validity or not of someone's opinion.
I am not poking fun - there is nothing "fun" about the horrendous unnecessary death toll.
I didn't realise that about the amending an amendment thing though - that's interesting.
Perhaps they should just interpret the 2nd amendment as intended and recognise that it is limited to a "well regulated militia" rather than "every Tom, Dick and Dirty Harry with $100 and a driving licence".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff