Another US Campus mass shooting.

[creampuff]

> Cause for celebration?

No, just to note there are other places with the same problem, even if it is funny to laugh at fat stupid Americans but not at Finns.

The number of mass shootings in the US has increased, without any real increase in the number of guns or any significant changes in gun laws. This suggests that something can be done about it and since the increase was not related to more guns, a decrease in mass shooting can be achieved without changing any laws and without disarming ordinary peaceful gun owners.

[gavsdavs]

AJL308 said:

The answer is precisely what I said many pages ago; the Americans need to learn to stop treating the less fortunate in society like st. As I correctly predicted, the person who carried out this latest shooting was a weirdo loner type withe few friends and mental issues. I'm sure it will come out that he was treated like crap by pretty much everyone else for most of his life too.

They need to produce far fewer violent movies, far fewer ultra-violent video games, tone down the reporting of shootings like this (or just don't report them) and get some decent public mental health programs in place.

That's standard NRA guff, deflect to blame the individual. Do you not think that without the ease of access to guns that the individuals unhappiness might possibly have been less damaging ?

I also don't really buy the 'violent games 'n' movies, innit' line, I will watch violent films and heartily enough violent games - but oddly I don't ever feel the desire to own or use a real gun. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

[gavsdavs]

creampuff said:

without any real increase in the number of guns or any significant changes in gun laws.

Hold up a minute, I do remember there being a huge jump in gun sales when Obama was elected as the population reacted to the *possibility* of him imposing more gun laws by........drumroll.........buying more guns !

It's not just the NRA who don't want any ammendment to the second ammendment, though they are the best funded and most practised proponent - it's deep in the psyche, and the NRA have spent much time and money putting it there.

An article with some balance:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/paul-vale/virginia...

[Matt Harper]

doogz said:

You're trying to be too clever about it. It's not working. Keep it simple.

Way too many people keep dying in the USA, as a result of being shot. What's the simplest way to stop someone shooting someone else?

So, answer your own simple question - but state how, please.....

[creampuff]

longblackcoat said:

creampuff said:

Not that there are any more suicides in the US than the UK, Americans just tend to use guns..

You continue to make yourself look foolish. Unless you think the World Health Organisation just make stuff up, the suicide rate in the US is 12.1/100,000 population. The comparable figure in the UK is 6.2.

But yeah, the rates are the same.

creampuff said:

The authors actually bothered to do research

Unlike you, perhaps?

Err no. You looked at the first Google result when you typed in "UK suicide" or similar, which is a Wikipedia article which is wrong because Wiki can be written by anyone. I prefer to use more reliable sources like the Office of National Statistics, which you are free to look up for yourself. But why bother, it's more fun to laugh at cowboy Americans.

The UK rate is just under 12 per 100k per year. The US rate is just over 12.

[AJL308]

Corpulent Tosser said:

Huge levels?
I don't think that is correct but if you have a reference to early levels of gun ownership I would be interested to see it, there were laws against carrying guns in the 1800s, though they were still legal to own it was not commonplace like it was and still is in the US.

There were essentially no laws relating to carrying or owning/acquiring guns prior to the Pistols Act 1903. There was the Gun Licence Act in the 1870's, I think it was, but that was just a revenue raising measure which said that you had to purchase a Gun Licence to have one outside the curtilage of a dwelling house.

I don't have the figures but they are out there. Like I said, there were hundreds of gun makers in Birmingham alone. Pocket pistols, purse pistols, muff pistols (no sniggering at the back), parlour guns and a myriad of others were very common and produced in the hundreds of thousands. The fact that they are very commonly possessed as antiques today says a lot.

Other countries had large firearms industries as well; Liege in Belgium is a very well known place for gun making and churned out vast quantities of firearms. Many were cheap and of somewhat low quality which were meat to sell to people with low incomes. The numbers of them still around tells you Europe was awash with guns and a lot of it still is.

Gun ownership in the UK was very common indeed in the not to distant past, every decent department store in every town in the land had a gun department. People forget that it is less than thirty years ago that you could buy a shotgun mail order from the Littlewoods catalogue!

[creampuff]

doogz said:

You're trying to be too clever about it. It's not working. Keep it simple.

Way too many people keep dying in the USA, as a result of being shot. What's the simplest way to stop someone shooting someone else?

You want to take everyone's guns, I can see that. Ok, tell me a nice simple way how that can happen? Given that about half of households have one, they are guaranteed the right to one in the constitution and most of them are unregistered. Keep your answer simple, so simple minded shooters can understand it.

(Edited due autocorrect failure)

Edited by creampuff on Monday 5th October 18:37

[creampuff]

> Gun ownership in the UK was very common indeed in the not to distant past, every decent department store in every town in the land had a gun department. People forget that it is less than thirty years ago that you could buy a shotgun mail order from the Littlewoods catalogue!

---

I have a (English Heritage I think) picture book of London street scenes from late 1800s to WW2. There are gun dealers everywhere. There is one on the Strand with a sign outside "Gun Dealers to the World"

[anonymous-user]

Amend the second amendment to suit the current climate. Don't say there's no precedent.

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

You want to take everyone's guns, I can see that. Ok, tell me a nice simple way how that can happen? Given that about half of households have one, they are gust rented the right to one in the constitution and most of them are unregistered. Keep your answer simple, so simple minded shooters can understand it.

As I mentioned before:
1) Tax new gun/ammunition sales extremely heavily to prevent the flow of new guns/bullets into the market
2) Set up a buyback scheme that pays silly money for guns currently out there

[mike9009]

The fact is, in the US, 'life' is less valued than other western societies. If you take a look at statistics for gun related deaths, work place deaths, road traffic deaths,suicide rates etc. the rates per capita are always towards the higher end of the spectrum in the USA.

Thus it appears to me a cultural difference between US society and other western societies. This cultural, care-free attitude probably produces a demographic where individuals in the extreme tails of the population distribution are more likely to take a gun into a school. (personal opinion!)

This cultural difference and care free attitude to life is ably demonstrated by some posters on here.

I think the US needs a cultural shift rather than more legislation. Maybe multiple pieces of legislation 'could' change the current culture that 'life' is cheap. Unfortunately under the current constitution and amendments there is nothing really stating that life is precious and should be protected. The US is the ultimate, extreme capitalist society - which most of the US citizens seem to value over life. It is okay for high road deaths, shootings in schools, deaths in the work place, muggings at county fairs, etc. as long as it does not affect number 1.


Unfortunately, a downward spiral until there is a ground swell within the culture - however, the NRA (and other organisations) will smother and smear any political figure, business leader or movement willing to put their head too far above the parapet and attempt to change legislation/ cultural acceptance.

On the flip side, has this cultural acceptance of death, led to a society which rewards risk, innovation and development leading to greater growth and prosperity? Greater acceptance of risk also means higher crime rates too.

Mike

[AJL308]

gavsdavs said:

That's standard NRA guff, deflect to blame the individual. Do you not think that without the ease of access to guns that the individuals unhappiness might possibly have been less damaging ?

I also don't really buy the 'violent games 'n' movies, innit' line, I will watch violent films and heartily enough violent games - but oddly I don't ever feel the desire to own or use a real gun. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

Of course the blame lies with the individual you fool!

If American society wasn't seemingly so directed towards making certain sections of it feel unhappy then they would have no reason to murder lots of people.

I never really bought into the violent films and video games thing either but I'm coming to the conclusion that there is something there. It's not just violent images in isolation; when you have a culture of bullying and cutting off the vulnerable in society and when those people have mental issues and easy and unrestricted access to endless amounts of fantasy violence and real life weapons then you are going to have problems. It's not guns, or violent games or bullying or mental illness it's a combination of all of them.

More restrictions on the ownership of firearms will not work because of the reasons I've already given. People like Hilary Clinton can kid her self all she wants but it is never going to happen - ever! The real solutions are much harder and require a lot of Americans to change their cultural ideas of how to treat one another. Again, that isn't likely to happen either.

Another important factor here, I think, is the way in which these things are reported. It is blatantly obvious that the people who do these things get the idea from seeing other people doing it. If they weren't reported, or at least not as sensationally, then their frequency might decrease. Simply not reporting the name of the perpetrator might have an effect. The police chief who refused to name the shooter had the right idea, I think.

[AJL308]

cookie118 said:

As I mentioned before:
1) Tax new gun/ammunition sales extremely heavily to prevent the flow of new guns/bullets into the market
2) Set up a buyback scheme that pays silly money for guns currently out there

And as has been pointed out (repeatedly) that will not work as many places simply will not enforce it. Even if you could do that then it will make no difference as there are nearly 300 million guns already in circulation and paying people who want to keep them a lot of money won't make them surrender them. I know I've already mentioned it but somewhere like Texas would never, ever enforce that.

Besides, who is going to pay for it?

Anyone who keeps parroting the old line of 'more laws' or 'just ban guns' as a solution to the problem shows that he simply does not understand the problem in the first place. Put simply - there are too many guns in the USA for the problem to be dealt with by restrictive legislation.

[anonymous-user]

Two points:

1 Why do the gun lobby always miss out the bit about a WELL REGULATED militia? Wandering about a school, shopping mall or whatever shooting down random dudes doesn't sound all that well regulated to me. No doubt creampuff will tell me that I don't know anything about militias (despite studying them as part of a degree at a reasonably well thought of university) but, hey.

2. Er, this:-

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 6th October 14:26

[anonymous-user]

Corpulent Tosser said:

Breadvan72 said:

There is not much sporting use for weapons such as semi-automatic rifles* and automatic pistols (unless you count combat style shooting as a sport, but the whole point of that is to simulate the use of a gun in combat, so the sport is derived from fighty stuff). You can do target shooting with a specialised single shot handgun or rifle.

Practical Pistol is probably what you are calling combat style shooting, it is a competition so why would you not considered it as sport ?

You are correct that target shooting can be done with a single shot handgun or rifle, but to be honest it is a bit of a pain in the arse doing it.

Practical Pistol - the nomenclature makes my point. What is the practical use for a pistol? It is not a hunting weapon, unless you count taking pot shots at rats in the corner of your shack or dugout as hunting. It is an anti person weapon (whether used offensively or defensively).

[AJL308]

Breadvan72 said:

Practical Pistol - the nomenclature makes my point. What is the practical use for a pistol? It is not a hunting weapon, unless you count taking pot shots at rats in the corner of your shack or dugout as hunting. It is an anti person weapon (whether used offensively or defensively).

So what? Practical pistol is derived from the 'fighty' use of guns but most of the traditional Olympic sports, for instance, have their origins in warfare - even running. It's the reality of the situation which matters though and practical pistol is not in the least about the offensive - or defensive - use of firearms. It's simply a sport just like throwing a javelin is.

Also, you are wrong about a pistol not being a hunting tool. Hunting with pistols is well established in the USA and has been for a very long time. The .44 Magnum, for instance, was designed as a hunting round and is used extensively for that. It is far less suited to personal protection. One of the many, many exemptions to the prohibition on pistols in the UK is for the humane dispatch of animals. Many people who shoot deer with rifles have them quite lawfully for that purpose as it is safer then discharging a rifle at close range. I believe that in Germany it is actually a requirement that you have one as a condition of your hunting licence.

[VX Foxy]

ATG said:

No point escalating the coming confrontation, disastrous if the weapons fell into the wrong hands. If someone is coming over to try to kill you, then by all means try and kill them. If they are coming over to rob you, best not to up the ante to the point that they decide to try to kill you.

Edited by ATG on Monday 5th October 13:07

There is no way the (pseudo)septics will be able to cope with the subtlety of this.

[creampuff]

Breadvan72 said:

Two points:

1 Why do the gun lobby always miss out the bit about a WELL REGULATED militia? Wandering about a school, shopping mall or whatever shooting down random dudes doesn't sound all that well regulated to me. No doubt creampuff, will tell me that I don't know anything about militias (despite studying them as part of a degree at a reasonably well thought of university) but, hey.

Don't ask me, we already worked out I'm an nutter gun toting ignoramus with no penis remember, what would I know?

Ask US Supreme Court Justice Scalia who in ruling on this specific meaning of militia said:

" The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998)."

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.[Footnote 6]

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

“ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

There's more obviously, but you can read the full text of Justice Scalia's opinion, in the Heller case where it was found that US citizens DO have the right to INDIVIDUALLY bear arms here:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/57...

Edited by creampuff on Monday 5th October 20:48

[anonymous-user]

AJL308 said:

cookie118 said:

As I mentioned before:
1) Tax new gun/ammunition sales extremely heavily to prevent the flow of new guns/bullets into the market
2) Set up a buyback scheme that pays silly money for guns currently out there

And as has been pointed out (repeatedly) that will not work as many places simply will not enforce it. Even if you could do that then it will make no difference as there are nearly 300 million guns already in circulation and paying people who want to keep them a lot of money won't make them surrender them. I know I've already mentioned it but somewhere like Texas would never, ever enforce that.

Well it might at least stem the flow of new guns-you've got to start somewhere!
And while for 'gun nuts' it won't make a difference for a casual owner it might persuade them away from keeping or buying multiple weapons.

AJL308 said:

Besides, who is going to pay for it?

Number 1 pays for number 2?

AJL308 said:

Anyone who keeps parroting the old line of 'more laws' or 'just ban guns' as a solution to the problem shows that he simply does not understand the problem in the first place. Put simply - there are too many guns in the USA for the problem to be dealt with by restrictive legislation.

I'm trying to get away from the idea of ban them or take them, so why not buy them? And as above you've got to start somewhere!

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

Don't ask me, we already worked out I'm an nutter gun toting ignoramus with no penis remember, what would I know?

How many times are you going to misrepresent what he said?

creampuff said:

Err no. You looked at the first Google result when you typed in "UK suicide" or similar, which is a Wikipedia article which is wrong because Wiki can be written by anyone. I prefer to use more reliable sources like the Office of National Statistics, which you are free to look up for yourself. But why bother, it's more fun to laugh at cowboy Americans.

The UK rate is just under 12 per 100k per year. The US rate is just over 12.

It's a shame you didn't show such statistical diligence when you declared knife crime was on the rise in the UK.