Another mass shooting in USA

giant_man

Frank the tank wrote:

Until the American populous demand that something be done about gun laws they will (I'm affraid) have to keep putting up with nutters killing their children. The gun lobby is too powerful for the politicians to ignore because it's all about money and power and all the dead people are collateral damage.

+1 - absolutely agree, it's written in the American constitution as part of the second amendment the 'right to keep and bear arms' so that makes it too damn easy to buy, own and abuse firearms. I don't know how many more people including children have to be slaughtered to make them realise they have a problem. Not enough yet I doubt. Been going on too long and too much. This is the worst thing about America and americans imo, they really are too dumb to get it. The gun lobby needs to be restructured and that's not going to happen anytime soon.

schweiz

The_Special_One wrote:

West Germany, how old is that poster ?

Well 'Handgun Control Inc.' became the 'Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence' in 2001, so it's pre 2001.

Hoopdriver

schweiz wrote:

The_Special_One wrote:

West Germany, how old is that poster ?

Well 'Handgun Control Inc.' became the 'Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence' in 2001, so it's pre 2001.

West Germany? Pre-1990 more like it

schweiz

1990 is pre 2001 is it not?

Frank the tank

8 in Great Britain. :shock:

That'd be good nowadays.

dynamicbrick

Frank the tank wrote:

8 in Great Britain. :shock:

That'd be good nowadays.

I think that 8 excluded Northern Ireland.

Even now, I think it's under 50 per annum, which for a population of 60-70million is pretty good going - the figures include people shot by police, and I think also accidents, but not suicides and military NDs

bagpusscp

Estimated number of lawfully held firearms in the USA ......270,000,000 :shock: Takes a bit to get ones head round. :?:

rick_chasey

bagpusscp wrote:

Estimated number of lawfully held firearms in the USA ......270,000,000 :shock: Takes a bit to get ones head round. :?:

Some people are obviously making some good money out of it.

That's ultimately the problem from a legislative perspective.

giant_man

bagpusscp wrote:

Estimated number of lawfully held firearms in the USA ......270,000,000 :shock: Takes a bit to get ones head round. :?:

'kin ell, thats astounding

dynamicbrick

giant man wrote:

bagpusscp wrote:

Estimated number of lawfully held firearms in the USA ......270,000,000 :shock: Takes a bit to get ones head round. :?:

'kin ell, thats astounding

Especially since gun ownership is falling against rising gun sales in the States (as far as I can work out) - i.e. less people are owning more firearms.

mallorcajeff

it said on the news when they went into a gun store in the next town where this has just taken place, Families of victims have been into the shop to enquire about gun ownership? Why the bloke is dead? I caan understand getting one to go and shoot him but hes dead? Will they then kill themselves with it or go and shoot others? Cant think of another reason why they would want one at this moment in time?

rick_chasey

mallorcajeff wrote:

it said on the news when they went into a gun store in the next town where this has just taken place, Families of victims have been into the shop to enquire about gun ownership? Why the bloke is dead? I caan understand getting one to go and shoot him but hes dead? Will they then kill themselves with it or go and shoot others? Cant think of another reason why they would want one at this moment in time?

It's a standard reaction to shootings in the states. Not "if he didn't have a gun we'd be in a better state" but "had we had guns too..."

steve6690

It's an impossible situation in the U.S. There are simply too many firearms in the hands of criminals prepared to use them. Against that backdrop how can anyone even think about disarming the population ?

nickyboy zz

steve6690 wrote:

It's an impossible situation in the U.S. There are simply too many firearms in the hands of criminals prepared to use them. Against that backdrop how can anyone even think about disarming the population ?

I think you're right. US right to bear arms has been enshrined in their constitution for such a long time it is embedded in the national psyche.

There is no justification for owning handguns, semi-automatic or automatic weapons other than to shoot people. Getting these under control would have a significant effect on mortality rates. However, with so many in circulation I think it is practically speaking impossible to do. It seems the US has gone beyond the tipping point where you could take these guns effectively out of circulation

So it seems that there are only 2 "safe" scenarios re handguns and the like. Either nobody has them or everybody has them. The "nobody" scenario cannot and will not happen, so I can only assume that US society will move towards "everyone". Of course the broader issue is why do we have a society that produces people who perpetrate these atrocities but that's a whole different issue......

briantrumpet

You can only despair when in response to the tragedy, a congressman is saying that instead of tighter gun control, the school should have had its own armed response unit. And they call it a civilised nation...

tiredofwhiners

Yup, only Americans think that by putting even more guns in circulation will reduce the use of guns.

The school head might have saved a few lives but just imagine th carnage at hundreds of other schools every year when the head has a bad day and goes on a rampage.

Sadly for them, the horse has bolted and they are completely screwed forever more. You know you're stuffed when in a new employee induction someone asks what the company policy is on handguns in the workplace, and is told that they are not permitted in the building under any circumstance. At which point the guy next to you excuses himself and goes out to the car for a few minutes. I never looked at him the same way again - he seemed so normal prior to that.

nickyboy zz

briantrumpet wrote:

You can only despair when in response to the tragedy, a congressman is saying that instead of tighter gun control, the school should have had its own armed response unit. And they call it a civilised nation...

My natural reaction is always fewer guns, more gun control. However, I have been thinking a lot about the issue since the shooting and I am really struggling to come up with a coherent policy to increase gun control in US. As I said, I think they have gone beyond the tipping point and you just can't get them out of society, even if there was the political will to do so.

The "armed response unit" comment is a fallacy. That would only deal with schools, what about cinemas, workplaces, sports stadiums, shopping malls? You can't protect everywhere.

MichaelW

I thing Pres Obamas words about wanting to reduce access to guns in the USA would carry a lot more weight with American gun-owners if he lead by example. He could start by declaring his own house, car and aircraft and workplace a gun-free zone. He could insist that the safety and security of his own family are ensured by local Law Enforcement Officers.

dynamicbrick

Americans are funny lot when it comes to their constitution and their firearms - it is deeply ingrained in the national psyche. Having worked out there a lot, it's difficult to say we Brits have a parallel; The nearest thing we have is probably the NHS - it is a sacred cow which politicians can only ever tinker with.

Tighter regulation of guns won't happen, mainly because of the hugely partisan political system out there. The debt crisis is a prime example of this; even when something needs to be done which is blatantly needed for the good of the country as a whole, the other side will block it purely on principal, no matter the damage. On something as contentious as gun ownership it'll stall immediately.

Hoopdriver

MichaelW wrote:

I thing Pres Obamas words about wanting to reduce access to guns in the USA would carry a lot more weight with American gun-owners if he lead by example. He could start by declaring his own house, car and aircraft and workplace a gun-free zone. He could insist that the safety and security of his own family are ensured by local Law Enforcement Officers.

I don't think Obama needs to concern himself much with home or personal security - he is very jealously guarded 24/7 by teams of highly trained and well armed Secret Service agents, courtesy of the US Treasury Dept.

Declaring himself and his home 'gun free' would just draw a laugh.

Akirasho

.. forgive me for not reading each post in this thread but I'm gonna comment anyway...

There is little doubt that the original concept of "Right To Bear Arms" has been perverted (originally, the country had no standing army and this was how we were supposed to defend ourselves against King George's cronies) to some extent, and I won't try to do a tit for tat debate on the pros and cons per se, but this event will probably be a watershed.

I think it's fair to say that the American system may appear static from any generation's perspective, but this is still an ongoing 230+ year experiment... a fact that is lost many of the American public. The amendment can be ammended... the Constitution was designed to be a flexible, albeit not easily flexed document. I think there will be change.

And again, while trying to avoid a tit for tat... such tragedies have occured in lands with stiffer gun laws. But the level of senselessness availed by some disgruntled NUT is too sweeping... and from my POV, painful at the moment to discuss in depth with a clear head... but there will be change... it may take generations to completely impliment, but as an African American, I also think back that sometimes, it may require the swipe of a Presidential pen (Lincoln must have contemplated the consequences of trying to Emancipate in stages and thought better to yank the bandage off instead).

Again, forgive me for not reading all your threads as I suspect that some of what I've said has already been posted.. Peace.

tiredofwhiners

Eddie Izzard solution - have all the guns you want, but make it illegal to sell bullets. Put severe penalties on bullet ownership - unlikely I know.

Until a real, 100+ massacre happens, America will not have the slightest chance of change. Its their country and they are all free to live and die as they see fit. Money talks so unless someone can come up with a way of making gun ownership carry a financial penalty then they are screwed - so screwed that in one Texas town, you are fined for not carrying a gun.

MichaelW

Hoopdriver wrote:

I don't think Obama needs to concern himself much with home or personal security - he is very jealously guarded 24/7 by teams of highly trained and well armed Secret Service agents, courtesy of the US Treasury Dept.

The very guns he is in a position to eliminate, thereby making the world a safer place.

Hoopdriver

MichaelW wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

I don't think Obama needs to concern himself much with home or personal security - he is very jealously guarded 24/7 by teams of highly trained and well armed Secret Service agents, courtesy of the US Treasury Dept.

The very guns he is in a position to eliminate, thereby making the world a safer place.

I don't think Obama's world - or indeed that of any first world leader - would become a safer place without armed bodyguards. You might not like that thought. It might not be in accord with your fanciful thinking, but that is the way it is.

rob churchill

Probably too late to do much to control guns in the US, just too many in circulation. The Americans maybe need to look at why they're so keen on killing each other, given that there are other countries with similar rates of gun ownership but much lower gun crime.

This could be part of the solution though - it's going the rounds of social media and it's attributed to Morgan Freeman:

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."