US Journalists Shot Dead On Air
Discussion
YankeePorker said:
I recall reading somewhere that around 2/3rds of the annual gun death tally in the US are suicides. That's the other aspect of gun availability, it gives the people passing a "bad patch" an extremely efficient way of topping themselves, making certain that a bout of depression ends badly.
Everyone goes through a bad patch now and then, allowing them a tool to kill themselves with on the spur of the moment is a pretty brutal means of population control.
Seems to be the case. 32,000 gun deaths per year. 60% suicide. About a third homicide. Everyone goes through a bad patch now and then, allowing them a tool to kill themselves with on the spur of the moment is a pretty brutal means of population control.
Alfa numeric said:
creampuff said:
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.THERE'S LOADS OF AMENDMENTS.
27!
Sure, it's not easy. But isn't it worth trying? (Again?)
Yeah we probably shouldn't worry about all our citizens killing themselves and others quite easily.
Oakey said:
Thomas Jefferson didn't seem to think so
Yes, I mentioned practically impossible, not impossible. Practically impossible because few Americans want guns banned. Gun laws in the US are not uniform. If the laws of all states were made similar to California (a more restrictive state), this may well satisfy the many Americans who would like more restrictions on guns, but still want their constitutional right to bear arms.
creampuff said:
Gun laws in the US are not uniform. If the laws of all states were made similar to California (a more restrictive state), this may well satisfy the many Americans who would like more restrictions on guns, but still want their constitutional right to bear arms.
And therein lies the problems (which many outside the USA fail to understand) People in the UK forget it's the United States of America, with an association of states with hugely differing laws, plus a few overseeing Federal Laws.With such diverse agendas from state to state, it really isn't a simple task to achieve even a universal set of regs for firearms over there.
From the 'shooting people' I've mixed with over there from time to time, (mind you I've not mixed with anyone from Texas though!) a lot aren't anti to better regulation, they just can't see it happening due to the complexity and political nature of the task.
walm said:
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!
You're just taking the piss now, right?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:
No, it's like saying don't discuss the Queen being th head of the Church of England, because that is a fact of the British system of government.
You mean like this: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/472324/Nick-Clegg...walm said:
creampuff said:
No, it's like saying don't discuss the Queen being th head of the Church of England, because that is a fact of the British system of government.
You mean like this: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/472324/Nick-Clegg...http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/19/the...
And look what happen to Nick Clegg. Totally obliterated by popular vote. There is no point talking about disenfranchising the Queen or compulsorily disarming Americans because both require major constitutional change which nobody wants.
It is just not going to happen. If you think it is, then you fundamentally misunderstand what it takes to change the US constitution, the millions of American who regularly shoot lawfully, the desire of Americans to remain armed and the huge number of firearms in the United States which would immediately go underground because they aren't required to be registered now anyway even if the impossible happened and they did get banned.
I may as well discuss what to do when Beyoncé, Kiera Knightly and the current playmate of the month have a b
hfight in my living room about who will be my girlfriend, because that is about as likely to happen and just a pointless topic of discussion.
But if you think changing the constitution is the answer, go over and tell those dumb Yanks how to do things.
It is just not going to happen. If you think it is, then you fundamentally misunderstand what it takes to change the US constitution, the millions of American who regularly shoot lawfully, the desire of Americans to remain armed and the huge number of firearms in the United States which would immediately go underground because they aren't required to be registered now anyway even if the impossible happened and they did get banned.
I may as well discuss what to do when Beyoncé, Kiera Knightly and the current playmate of the month have a b
hfight in my living room about who will be my girlfriend, because that is about as likely to happen and just a pointless topic of discussion. But if you think changing the constitution is the answer, go over and tell those dumb Yanks how to do things.
In fairness there does not really need to be a change to the second amendment, just a reinterpretation of it would suffice or a clause for acceptable means of compliance. 44 state constitutions may also need amending, though. 
The Second Amendment......
'A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' 15th December 1791
(so bang up to date to deal with life in the twenty first century, rather than at the time of the formation of the USA where uncertainty in state security was high!)
The main purpose or intent of the amendment was to protect the individual States security and governance, not for personal protection - although many legal cases (probably supported by NRA or similar funding (??)) have supported an individual right to bear arms. So in theory, the State police 'could' hold fire arms for the benefit of the security of a free State and thus the 'people' of said state.
I worked quite frequently in a factory in South Carolina which had signs stating that firearms were not allowed on the premises (which filled me with confidence!). Surely this notice on the front door was, in itself, infringing individuals right to the second amendment??
The fact is that a vocal majority in some States enjoy the deluded security that owning a gun or guns will protect them from marauding vigilantes. Unfortunately, despite the high gun ownership, you rarely hear of a shooting event where the perpetrator was shot by the intended victim(s).
If the second amendment was amended, felons above the law will 'generally' shoot other felons. A little extrapolation using a Darwin type evolution, this will reduce the crime rate in itself. But not many in the US subscribe to Darwins theories anyway....
...and so the thirty fold rate of gun related deaths over other western nations will continue ad infinitum.........
Mike
The Second Amendment......
'A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' 15th December 1791
(so bang up to date to deal with life in the twenty first century, rather than at the time of the formation of the USA where uncertainty in state security was high!)
The main purpose or intent of the amendment was to protect the individual States security and governance, not for personal protection - although many legal cases (probably supported by NRA or similar funding (??)) have supported an individual right to bear arms. So in theory, the State police 'could' hold fire arms for the benefit of the security of a free State and thus the 'people' of said state.
I worked quite frequently in a factory in South Carolina which had signs stating that firearms were not allowed on the premises (which filled me with confidence!). Surely this notice on the front door was, in itself, infringing individuals right to the second amendment??
The fact is that a vocal majority in some States enjoy the deluded security that owning a gun or guns will protect them from marauding vigilantes. Unfortunately, despite the high gun ownership, you rarely hear of a shooting event where the perpetrator was shot by the intended victim(s).
If the second amendment was amended, felons above the law will 'generally' shoot other felons. A little extrapolation using a Darwin type evolution, this will reduce the crime rate in itself. But not many in the US subscribe to Darwins theories anyway....
...and so the thirty fold rate of gun related deaths over other western nations will continue ad infinitum.........
Mike
Edited by mike9009 on Saturday 29th August 14:12
mike9009 said:
I worked quite frequently in a factory in South Carolina which had signs stating that firearms were not allowed on the premises (which filled me with confidence!). Surely this notice on the front door was, in itself, infringing individuals right to the second amendment??
Not an expert by any means but I think this may vary from state to state. There was a case recently where a feminist videogame blogger had been receiving specific rape/death threats over Gamergate (google that if the NRA aren't crazy enough for you) and was due to speak at (I think) a local university, despite a specific threat to kill people there. She wanted to go ahead with it anyway, and has ignored previous such threats before, except that in this case the State's concealed Carry law meant that the police couldn't lawfully stop people carrying guns to the lecture!! Total madness!
I'm guessing there must be some exemption for the Prez, surely.
Edit- It was in Utah:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/...
croyde said:
Do Canadians have the same easy access to guns that the Americans do? I'm sure I read once that many in Canada possess pistols and rifles yet they don't seem to go round killing each other with the same frequency as the Americans do.
There are other countries in the world where gun ownership is normal yet they don't keep shooting up schools or shopping malls.
Yeah, but do Canadians have this attitude?There are other countries in the world where gun ownership is normal yet they don't keep shooting up schools or shopping malls.
creampuff said:
An entire branch of my family is in the US, I've spent a long time in the US, I've shot a lot of guns. I go out with my family and shoot guns, they bring their kids and everybody shoots guns.
raftom said:
croyde said:
Do Canadians have the same easy access to guns that the Americans do? I'm sure I read once that many in Canada possess pistols and rifles yet they don't seem to go round killing each other with the same frequency as the Americans do.
There are other countries in the world where gun ownership is normal yet they don't keep shooting up schools or shopping malls.
Yeah, but do Canadians have this attitude?There are other countries in the world where gun ownership is normal yet they don't keep shooting up schools or shopping malls.
creampuff said:
An entire branch of my family is in the US, I've spent a long time in the US, I've shot a lot of guns. I go out with my family and shoot guns, they bring their kids and everybody shoots guns.
mike9009 said:
The fact is that a vocal majority in some States enjoy the deluded security that owning a gun or guns will protect them from marauding vigilantes. Unfortunately, despite the high gun ownership, you rarely hear of a shooting event where the perpetrator was shot by the intended victim(s).
I think you do, actually.mike9009 said:
If the second amendment was amended, felons above the law will 'generally' shoot other felons. A little extrapolation using a Darwin type evolution, this will reduce the crime rate in itself. But not many in the US subscribe to Darwins theories anyway....
How, on earth did you arrive at this conclusion? Why would those that prey upon the general populace, stop doing that if the general populace were unable to defend themselves - and rather take on other heavily armed criminal predators? Matt Harper said:
mike9009 said:
The fact is that a vocal majority in some States enjoy the deluded security that owning a gun or guns will protect them from marauding vigilantes. Unfortunately, despite the high gun ownership, you rarely hear of a shooting event where the perpetrator was shot by the intended victim(s).
I think you do, actually.Matt Harper said:
mike9009 said:
If the second amendment was amended, felons above the law will 'generally' shoot other felons. A little extrapolation using a Darwin type evolution, this will reduce the crime rate in itself. But not many in the US subscribe to Darwins theories anyway....
How, on earth did you arrive at this conclusion? Why would those that prey upon the general populace, stop doing that if the general populace were unable to defend themselves - and rather take on other heavily armed criminal predators? 
(and the fact that heavily armed predators don't exist in other modern western societies.... or is it the general ineffectiveness of US police? .... or the general disregard for human life in the US?...... I just don't know!)creampuff said:
Almost half of households in the US have a gun and in the overwhelming majority of cases, they are used responsibly and safely.
Because I'm a dumb-ass brit you're going to have to help me here.Please explain what a gun is 'used for'. It's not like they have a secondary purpose like opening tins of paint or checking tyre pressures.
Do Americans just fire their guns because they want to ? You know, a bit like some of us smoke or drink ? Are they an 'addiction' ? What do they fire their guns at ?
- or -
Do Americans regularly find themselves having to to defend themselves from armed assailants coming to kill them and their families ?
- or -
Do many Americans (I think this one counts for canadians a lot more) - have to scare off wild animals ?
- or -
Do Americans have a firing range with targets in their back gardens and they're all secret competitive marksmen ? If not, why don't Americans clean up in all Olympic events involving shooting things ?
I'm afraid it doesn't wash. There isn't a 'responsible' use for a gun, unless you are police, or military. I don't think a firearm has a place in the hands of the general population in the 21st century. 1780s maybe, but we've come a long way since circling waggons and fighting off the commanche.
Most Americans would say that responsible use of a gun is never to have to use it - and in most cases they never do.
It is very hard to get into the mindset of another nation and culture - and I wouldn't even dare to try to do so. However, if I was to take a stab at how most Americans look at why they might own a gun, I think it is best looked on as another form of insurance policy rather than a deadly weapon.
It is very hard to get into the mindset of another nation and culture - and I wouldn't even dare to try to do so. However, if I was to take a stab at how most Americans look at why they might own a gun, I think it is best looked on as another form of insurance policy rather than a deadly weapon.
gavsdavs said:
creampuff said:
Almost half of households in the US have a gun and in the overwhelming majority of cases, they are used responsibly and safely.
Because I'm a dumb-ass brit you're going to have to help me here.Please explain what a gun is 'used for'. It's not like they have a secondary purpose like opening tins of paint or checking tyre pressures.
Do Americans just fire their guns because they want to ? You know, a bit like some of us smoke or drink ? Are they an 'addiction' ? What do they fire their guns at ?
- or -
Do Americans regularly find themselves having to to defend themselves from armed assailants coming to kill them and their families ?
- or -
Do many Americans (I think this one counts for canadians a lot more) - have to scare off wild animals ?
- or -
Do Americans have a firing range with targets in their back gardens and they're all secret competitive marksmen ? If not, why don't Americans clean up in all Olympic events involving shooting things ?
I'm afraid it doesn't wash. There isn't a 'responsible' use for a gun, unless you are police, or military. I don't think a firearm has a place in the hands of the general population in the 21st century. 1780s maybe, but we've come a long way since circling waggons and fighting off the commanche.
I've done it and I enjoyed it.
Culture and history will be hard to shake though, the American 'renegade' psyche, media paranoia, prescription drug culture, employment law situation and hard work ethic means for a high pressure environment where frustrations build and build, then they go bang.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff