School Shooting in Parkland, Florida

muppetshow1451

Chrongen wrote: »

Missed it completely, didn't you.

You missed the jab or got knocked out?

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

You realise in your first question that you are dumping absolutely every single form of mental health issue together? You are equating someone with dyslexia or agoraphobia with someone who is a raving psychotic. You can have a mental impairment which Social Security may feel will affect your ability to control your finances, and not be in any way a threat to public safety, which is precisely why the various disability advocacy and civil rights groups opposed the implementation of the rule and supported the repeal.

That is a separate question to the third. I, too, would be curious to see what proposal Trump or the Republicans come up with to address the issue of mental health in general, and firearms safety with mental health specifically.

I did not equate every single form of mental health issue together. Trump did in his response which was my point. You want to argue that Obama's legislation had issues then that is fair enough but don't give me any bull**** that Trump reversed it because it was too broad brush. Trump replaced it with nothing. Trump did not differentiate when he put all the blame for this incident on mental health issues. That is my point. That the reasons you gave for Trump reversing Obama's policies are inconsistent with Trump's own statements.

If Trump had replaced it with a more appropriate piece of legislation he would not he getting this flak. If Trump believed those reasons for getting rid of Obama's rules why did he not replace it with something more appropriate and why did he use such a wide brush when putting the blame on mental health issues?

(Answer: gun lobby wanted it gone so he did it and it reversed a piece of Obama legislation. The pinning all blame on mental health issues was to put the blame somewhere that was not guns)

I agree that not all mental health issues are the same. Off hand I can't think of any I would trust with a gun but not their own finances but I am open to the legislation being too broad as I do not know enough about the full spectrum of mental health issues.

I would not hold my breath on the Republicans piece of legislation. I expect nothing but thoughts and prayers from them.

BattleCorp

Obama wanted tighter gun control. Under Obama gun sales went through the roof.

Trump wants looser gun control. Under Trump gun sales have dropped.

Vote gun supporter Trump if you want less guns.

Strange but true.

El_Duderino 09

Manic Moran wrote: »

However, they are not in the US, they don't have the US's societal problems leading to our own levels of criminal behaviour, and they don't already have some 300mil firearms in circulation which cannot be simply legislated into non-existence.

Solving the societal problems would be incredibly unpopular. Assuming crime results from lack of education, poverty and lack of prospects, lack of safe places for young people to burn off steam (sports clubs, parks etc.) and culture if violence and crime.

Solving the first few issues of education and social mobility would be expensive and would only work over the medium term. Safe places for young people to urn off steam could be achieved more quickly and at lower cost. But the culture of gangs and violence would take generations to tackle.

Given the neo-liberal attitude in the US I can’t see them standing for spending large amounts of tax dollars on poor schools with expected results in the Medium term future.

Social mobility is at an all time low in the US so I don’t think wealthy people would be happy with encouraging greater social mobility. After all social means clever, hard working poor people will tend to be one richer, but stupid, lazy rich people would become poorer.

I don’t see the US being capable of tackling either guns or the reasons for shootings. So Imagine what will happen is exactly what has happened up to now: one side calls for thoughts and prayers, the other side calls for gun control and nothing changes.

pitifulgod

BattleCorp wrote: »

Obama wanted tighter gun control. Under Obama gun sales went through the roof.

Trump wants looser gun control. Under Trump gun sales have dropped.

Vote gun supporter Trump if you want less guns.

Strange but true.

That's because the nra and individuals like Alex Jones ran scare mongering campaigns against gun control whenever action was attempted...

Herb Powell

The response to this seems to be different than usual.

I'm happy to see lots of people, especially young people, starting to say enough is enough and calling out the NRA bull****. There's a nationwide school walkout being organised.

Fair play, and hopefully they continue to push for change.

Akrasia

BattleCorp wrote: »

Obama wanted tighter gun control. Under Obama gun sales went through the roof.

Trump wants looser gun control. Under Trump gun sales have dropped.

Vote gun supporter Trump if you want less guns.

Strange but true.

Yeah, all these 'law abiding citizens' who rush out to buy guns in case they will be made illegal later on.
The kind of people who rush out to buy an AR15 the day after a school shooting are exactly the type of people who shouldn't be allowed within a country mile of a firearm.
America where you have a 'right' to own a gun, but not a right to healthcare

Where you can be shot in a public school and then your family gets bankrupted by the medical bills as you try to piece your body and life back together

Every single gun in america should have to be legally registered, legally tracked and anyone caught in posession of an unregistered or falsely registered firearm should have the gun confiscated and destroyed, and they should get a hefty fine and prison for multiple repeat offenses.

Nobody should have to endure 'open carry' culture where you can't walk down your own public street without being intimidated by arseholes parading their military grade weapons to compensate for their tiny penis and smaller brain.

El_Duderino 09

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

He looks Spanish - Eastern European to me.

He was adopted. Cruz is his adopted name.

Billy86

Herb Powell wrote: »

The response to this seems to be different than usual.

I'm happy to see lots of people, especially young people, starting to say enough is enough and calling out the NRA bull****. There's a nationwide school walkout being organised.

Fair play, and hopefully they continue to push for change.

They won't. This is exactly what we can expect pretty much all 'round. It's a complete copy-and-paste response from them at this point.

No quote from Sandy Hook in that clip, which he accused Obama of trying to use as a 'distraction'.

Bottom line: they really, genuinely, do not seem like they could care any less.

Billy86

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He was adopted. Cruz is his adopted name.

Complete guess since it's hard to tell, but I'd reckon he may be partly Hispanic - I think someone mentioned the boxer Canelo Alvarez earlier who is Mexican:

BattleCorp

Akrasia wrote: »

Yeah, all these 'law abiding citizens' who rush out to buy guns in case they will be made illegal later on.
The kind of people who rush out to buy an AR15 the day after a school shooting are exactly the type of people who shouldn't be allowed within a country mile of a firearm.
America where you have a 'right' to own a gun, but not a right to healthcare

How do you know that someone who buys an AR15 the day after a school shooting is the type of person who shouldn't be allowed within a country mile of a firearm? What evidence are you basing that on?

I've 7 firearms, all licenced, all used for totally legal purposes (target shooting), and if I thought a certain type of gun I was thinking of getting was going to be banned, then I'd go out and get one before the ban. That doesn't make me a school shooter or a nut job or someone who shouldn't be allowed near firearms.

Americans should have a right to healthcare but that's absolutely nothing to do with the right to own a gun.

YFlyer

Billy86 wrote: »

Complete guess since it's hard to tell, but I'd reckon he may be partly Hispanic - I think someone mentioned the boxer Canelo Alvarez earlier who is Mexican:

That was me. He learnt alot from Mayweather fight. If that is relevant?

Akrasia

BattleCorp wrote: »

How do you know that someone who buys an AR15 the day after a school shooting is the type of person who shouldn't be allowed within a country mile of a firearm? What evidence are you basing that on?

I've 7 firearms, all licenced, all used for totally legal purposes (target shooting), and if I thought a certain type of gun I was thinking of getting was going to be banned, then I'd go out and get one before the ban. That doesn't make me a school shooter or a nut job or someone who shouldn't be allowed near firearms.

Americans should have a right to healthcare but that's absolutely nothing to do with the right to own a gun.

Would you hand back those guns after they are no longer legal?

BattleCorp

Akrasia wrote: »

Would you hand back those guns after they are no longer legal?

They don't make them illegal. They stop issuing new licences. It's called grandfathering. They did it here in Ireland with centrefire pistols in 2009. If you already had one, you could keep it but no new licences were given out.

Here in Ireland, yes I would give them back if they were made illegal. I would also expect compensation from the Government for the loss of my sporting equipment.

But we aren't talking about Ireland. There is no right to any kind of firearm here. If I was in America I probably wouldn't give up my firearms because I'd be giving up my right to have them.

suicide_circus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiK-D9beD8Q

Akrasia

BattleCorp wrote: »

They don't make them illegal. They stop issuing new licences. It's called grandfathering. They did it here in Ireland with centrefire pistols in 2009. If you already had one, you could keep it but no new licences were given out.

Here in Ireland, yes I would give them back if they were made illegal. I would also expect compensation from the Government for the loss of my sporting equipment.

But we aren't talking about Ireland. There is no right to any kind of firearm here. If I was in America I probably wouldn't give up my firearms because I'd be giving up my right to have them.

That's one way of doing it, another way is a ban and compulsory buyback. Grandfathering wont work when there ate already massive stockpiles of these weapons floating around

If you would refuse to give up illegal firearms you can hardly call yourself law abiding then

BattleCorp

Akrasia wrote: »

That's one way of doing it, another way is a ban and compulsory buyback. Grandfathering wont work when there ate already massive stockpiles of these weapons floating around

If you would refuse to give up illegal firearms you can hardly call yourself law abiding then

A buyback wouldn't work for the same reason that grandfathering won't work. + 300,000,000 firearms already in circulation and the Government haven't a clue who has most of them.

We have rights here in Ireland. I'd say most Irish people would be up in arms (no pun intended) if any of them were taken away. I know I don't want any of my Constitutional rights taken away. Most Americans wouldn't be in favour of giving up any of their rights either. The right to own a gun is one of those rights that they don't want to give up.

And as the law stands, that's their right.

degsie

Funny to think that irish people are critical of american gun use when this very state was born out of violence.

pitifulgod

degsie wrote: »

Funny to think that irish people are critical of american gun use when this very state was born out of violence.

It wasn't born out of teenagers going on spree killings... So it's a pretty poor contrast.

wakka12

degsie wrote: »

Funny to think that irish people are critical of american gun use when this very state was born out of violence.

and this is relevant how
Most of us on here didn't take part in the rebellion I don't think

Christy42

BattleCorp wrote: »

A buyback wouldn't work for the same reason that grandfathering won't work. + 300,000,000 firearms already in circulation and the Government haven't a clue who has most of them.

We have rights here in Ireland. I'd say most Irish people would be up in arms (no pun intended) if any of them were taken away. I know I don't want any of my Constitutional rights taken away. Most Americans wouldn't be in favour of giving up any of their rights either. The right to own a gun is one of those rights that they don't want to give up.

And as the law stands, that's their right.

Even if tightening restrictions on guns would lead to less kids getting shot? Rights are added and removed, it happens. The important thing is to remember why people have those rights and if they are important or harmful to society.

The right to bear arms is a bit of an odd one that no longer makes sense as written. I hear plenty about the people needing to protect themselves from a tyrannical government but an ar15 is insufficient. The military have the CIA, they have far superior training, they have big items like tanks/apache helicopters which are out of reach of a common militia (ridiculous to think they exist in a first world country but anyway).

namloc1980

degsie wrote: »

Funny to think that irish people are critical of american gun use when this very state was born out of violence.

What a bizarre attempt at an analogy.

Akrasia

BattleCorp wrote: »

A buyback wouldn't work for the same reason that grandfathering won't work. + 300,000,000 firearms already in circulation and the Government haven't a clue who has most of them.

We have rights here in Ireland. I'd say most Irish people would be up in arms (no pun intended) if any of them were taken away. I know I don't want any of my Constitutional rights taken away. Most Americans wouldn't be in favour of giving up any of their rights either. The right to own a gun is one of those rights that they don't want to give up.

And as the law stands, that's their right.

Dozens of innocent children slaughtered every year. A ban on military grade weapons and a register of all firearms would be a very reasonable facilitation to allow sports shooting and personal protection while reducing the risk of lone nutters with high capacity weapons of war

BattleCorp

Akrasia wrote: »

Dozens of innocent children slaughtered every year. A ban on military grade weapons and a register of all firearms would be a very reasonable facilitation to allow sports shooting and personal protection while reducing the risk of lone nutters with high capacity weapons of war

An AR15 isn't a military grade firearm. It really isn't.

I've no problem with guns being registered and I've no problems with background checks either. But I'm not in America nor am I an American.

If Americans are allowed guns to protect themselves against a tyrannical government, then it makes sense that the government shouldn't know where the guns are. I don't agree with that but some people do.

Richard Hillman

BattleCorp wrote: »

A buyback wouldn't work for the same reason that grandfathering won't work. + 300,000,000 firearms already in circulation and the Government haven't a clue who has most of them.

We have rights here in Ireland. I'd say most Irish people would be up in arms (no pun intended) if any of them were taken away. I know I don't want any of my Constitutional rights taken away. Most Americans wouldn't be in favour of giving up any of their rights either. The right to own a gun is one of those rights that they don't want to give up.

And as the law stands, that's their right.

The Mexican cartels would be very very happy pandas if they stopped issuing licenses. All that wonga slipping over the border for something the sniffer dogs can't get a whift of.

Akrasia

BattleCorp wrote: »

An AR15 isn't a military grade firearm. It really isn't.

I've no problem with guns being registered and I've no problems with background checks either. But I'm not in America nor am I an American.

If Americans are allowed guns to protect themselves against a tyrannical government, then it makes sense that the government shouldn't know where the guns are. I don't agree with that but some people do.

But you are prepared to pander to a small number of extremists half of whom think the Holocaust never happened or that it did happen but was a good idea

Chrongen

3 mass shootings in the US since Wednesday.

One on Oklahoma, one in Kansas and one in Tennesee.

Let's see what tomorrow brings.

Manic Moran

Chrongen wrote: »

3 mass shootings in the US since Wednesday.

One on Oklahoma, one in Kansas and one in Tennesee.

Let's see what tomorrow brings.

According to the mass shooting tracker. (Unsurprisingly, there is one)

Oklahoma, 1 Killed, three injured. Known gang member conducted a home invasion, shot four in the house. Killed the 66-year old.

Tennessee . Five injured. Incident outside of nightclub, no further info.

Kansas. One dead, seven injured. Two gangs had a disagreement.

Can’t argue the nightclub thing, but the other two were very blatantly criminal actions, not spree shootings.

BattleCorp

Akrasia wrote: »

But you are prepared to pander to a small number of extremists half of whom think the Holocaust never happened or that it did happen but was a good idea

Where are you getting that idea from? I'm not pandering to anyone, much less a bunch of loons. I certainly didn't say that in my post as I said I am in favour of background checks etc.

By the way, background checks don't always work as many shooters acquire their firearms illegally. Adam Lanza stole his mother's gun I believe.

smurgen

Manic Moran wrote: »

Chrongen wrote: »

3 mass shootings in the US since Wednesday.

One on Oklahoma, one in Kansas and one in Tennesee.

Let's see what tomorrow brings.

According to the mass shooting tracker. (Unsurprisingly, there is one)

Oklahoma, 1 Killed, three injured. Known gang member conducted a home invasion, shot four in the house. Killed the 66-year old.

Tennessee . Five injured. Incident outside of nightclub, no further info.

Kansas. One dead, seven injured. Two gangs had a disagreement.

Can’t argue the nightclub thing, but the other two were very blatantly criminal actions, not spree shootings.

That's grand.sure gangs are known for using softer,non life threatening bullets and only shooting other gang members.no threat to normal citizens.

BattleCorp

smurgen wrote: »

That's grand.sure gangs are known for using softer,non life threatening bullets and only shooting other gang members.no threat to normal citizens.

I think the point Manic is making there is that gangs/criminals don't give a rats ass about laws or to be specific, gun control laws.

I'm pretty certain that the Hutches and Kinihans don't have licences for any of their guns.

BattleCorp

BattleCorp wrote: »

Where are you getting that idea from? I'm not pandering to anyone, much less a bunch of loons. I certainly didn't say that in my post as I said I am in favour of background checks etc.

By the way, background checks don't always work as many shooters acquire their firearms illegally. Adam Lanza stole his mother's gun I believe.

And if Adam Lanza hadn’t had access to guns stored in his family home, would he have stolen the same arsenal from elsewhere? If it was illegal to store guns, would Adam Lanza’s window of opportunity been taken from him and would all those lives been spared?

If he still had a killing spree in mind, would restrictions on the guns he used prevented him from stock piling them over a period of time?

Akrasia

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

And if Adam Lanza hadn’t had access to guns stored in his family home, would he have stolen the same arsenal from elsewhere? If it was illegal to store guns, would Adam Lanza’s window of opportunity been taken from him and would all those lives been spared?

If he still had a killing spree in mind, would restrictions on the guns he used prevented him from stock piling them over a period of time?

Restrictions would have made it more difficult for him and more easy for the intelligence agencies to flag his criminal intent.

If the FBI had investigated him and found a cache of illegal weapons he would immediately be seen as a threat, but if they searched his house and found a legally owned AR15, they can't use that as probable cause that he had criminal intent.

BattleCorp

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

And if Adam Lanza hadn’t had access to guns stored in his family home, would he have stolen the same arsenal from elsewhere? If it was illegal to store guns, would Adam Lanza’s window of opportunity been taken from him and would all those lives been spared?

If he still had a killing spree in mind, would restrictions on the guns he used prevented him from stock piling them over a period of time?

I don't understand your point about it being illegal to store guns. If you own guns, then you have to store them somewhere.

Adam Lanza's mother stored her guns in a gunsafe. She was responsible that way. Adam Lanza discovered where she kept the keys and stole some of the guns.

Would Lanza have acquired guns somewhere else if there were no guns in his house, I've no idea. I'll guess probably because people who are hell-bent on causing death and destruction seem to find a way. Look at the terrorist in Nice, France in 2016. He didn't use a gun and he killed 86 people and injured 458 people. He used a truck.

I will say this. If there were no guns in America, this attack wouldn't have happened. There, I said it.

But there are guns in America and there always will be guns in America. Even if they change the Constitution to ban guns (which won't happen in my lifetime anyway), lots of States have their own Constitution and these would all have to be changed too (again unlikely). And that does nothing for the 3,000,000,000 guns already out there and the criminals who won't give a sh1te about laws banning guns will still be able to get them.

SharpshooterTom

Christy42 wrote: »

Obamacare will be his legacy. It is a pretty great one too given its most die hard retractors refused to get rid of it when they had the power to do so (see healthcare vote).

There's plenty of time still for the GOP to damage Obamacare and I'm sure they'll be at war with it in one way or another over the next 20-30 years, neutering it at least, they've already repealed the individual mandate, and their next goal might be the employer mandate amongst others. They'll likely never repeal Obamacare entirely, but they'll do a lot of damage to the law and ensure that the law may likely never ever reach its full potential.

Uninsured rated now according to gallup is currently now 12.2%, historically the uninsured rate is 14-15%, 3 million people have already lost their health insurance allegedly under Trump and that may likely rise further. 45 million had no health insurance before the ACA and I suspect by 2020 we will be back into the mid 30s. The US healthcare system baring some tweaks is basically still the same system as it was before Obamacare.

Obamacare's legacy was only ever going to act as an interim for what was the long term goal, single payer. And if that ever passes (and likely would be permanent) Obamacare will be forgotten about.

SharpshooterTom

FatherTed wrote: »

That's your opinion. Mine is different. I think he was a great president and accomplished a lot considering what he had to put up with the Republicans in congress.

Historians don't even rank Obama in the top 10 at the moment, he's had 3 presidential rankings scoring between 12th-18th, which I think is about right.

He was a good, above average president. But a great president implies someone like FDR, Lincoln, JFK/LBJ (Civil rights, Voting rights act, Medicare/Medicaid, Apollo missions to the moon).

Compare Obama's 8 years to the 8 years of JFK/LBJ, he's nowhere near in that league.

He was a great statesman, iconic, inspiring, super charismatic, but legislatively he was no near being a presidential great.

His most notable foreign policy success was the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump might destroy in may, if that goes, what would be his foreign policy legacy? It starts to become very very thin after that.

Hande hoche!

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Historians don't even rank Obama in the top 10 at the moment, he's had 3 presidential rankings scoring between 12th-18th, which I think is about right.

He was a good, above average president. But a great president implies someone like FDR, Lincoln, JFK/LBJ (Civil rights, Voting rights act, Medicare/Medicaid, Apollo missions to the moon).

Compare Obama's 8 years to the 8 years of JFK/LBJ, he's nowhere near in that league.

He was a great statesman, iconic, inspiring, super charismatic, but legislatively he was no near being a presidential great.

His most notable foreign policy success was the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump might destroy in may, if that goes, what would be his foreign policy legacy? It starts to become very very thin after that.

There was a warming of ties with Cuba. Which admittedly seemed a bit rushed.

Skylinehead

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Historians don't even rank Obama in the top 10 at the moment, he's had 3 presidential rankings scoring between 12th-18th, which I think is about right.

He was a good, above average president. But a great president implies someone like FDR, Lincoln, JFK/LBJ (Civil rights, Voting rights act, Medicare/Medicaid, Apollo missions to the moon).

Compare Obama's 8 years to the 8 years of JFK/LBJ, he's nowhere near in that league.

He was a great statesman, iconic, inspiring, super charismatic, but legislatively he was no near being a presidential great.

His most notable foreign policy success was the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump might destroy in may, if that goes, what would be his foreign policy legacy? It starts to become very very thin after that.

JFK was a hothead populist that nearly started a nuclear war, and LBJ, although his Great Society brought a lot through, I don't think he can be considered great either considering Vietnam. Obama too, he didn't really de-escalate enough.

Snickers Man

Manic Moran wrote: »

I would argue that neither has the opposition then, [suggested anything remotely effective or indeed reasonable] if your definition of reasonable is 'something I agree with'.

What is unreasonable about "a simple process to ensure all firearms are sold with a background check (And correct input of the NICS data)"?

In itself: nothing. Except that I believe the minutiae of such a regulation is hotly debated by many leading gun-rights associations.

But leaving that aside and assuming that the consensus among "gun-rights defenders" is that such checks should be mandatory. What use would they be if the information gathered by such checks was perfunctory?

What sort of questions could reasonably be asked during a "background check"?

Have you a criminal record?
Have you ever been diagnosed with a) schizophrenia b) paranoia c)post traumatic stress disorder
Have you ever consulted a psychiatrist/psychologist because of behavioural issues?
Have you ever been investigated for crimes conducted during the Nazi era in Germany?

(If you think the last one is facetious, it was a question that anyone entering the US on a visa waiver had to answer until very recently --and for all I know may still be the case--despite the fact that if you were born the day after Adolf Hitler died, you would be 72 years old at the time of writing)

I reckon that many "mass shooting" perpetrators could answer no, and truthfully, to most of those questions. But so saying they weren't truthful? What powers of verification do authorities have, and what resources would have to be put in place to ensure verification?

The more perfunctory the questions; the more ineffective the measure. On the other hand, the more intrusive the questions, and the more latitude is given to authorities to obtain information from third parties about one's conduct and demeanour, the more you infringe the individual's other "inalienable rights". For instance, those guaranteed by the following statement:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

You might recognise that as the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, one that is generally taken to ensure a "right to privacy" of its citizens.

Which of the two Amendments, Second or Fourth, are you more in favour of amending and weakening to strengthen the other? I guess that is the choice of those advocating more "background checks" and more "detection of mental illnesses".

Manic Moran wrote: »

What is unreasonable about a program of instruction aimed at reducing negligent or accidental firearms death or injury?

Nothing. The scandal would be that there isn't something mandatory along these lines in place already. Are you telling me that anybody in the US, after a suitable perfunctory background check, can walk out of a gun store with an AK or an Armalite and a box of ammo and take it home on the back seat of their car without being subject to a minimum of training and testing?

"Hey, come on man. I've done my driving test. That's one complex potentially lethal piece of equipment whose operation and condition are subject to regulatory inspection and control. What more do you want?" :eek::eek:

Manic Moran wrote: »

I am no sociologist. I am, however, reasonably well versed in firearms legislation and "We must reduce the amount of firearms" and "We must reduce the lethality of firearms" are equally large rubs.

So how do other normal healthy functioning democracies all manage it then? Are Americans just more stupid than anybody else? Or are they so hung up on their "exceptionalism" that they feel it beneath them to look around the world and ask honest questions about how other countries manage to tolerate gun ownership without having the same devastating consequences?

The difference between America and the rest of the democratic, capitalist, call it "free" if you want, world is that in most other countries (including Ireland and Britain) you are allowed to own a gun; you're just not allowed shoot anyone with it. At least, not legally--in almost all circumstances. Whereas in America, one has a constitutional right, in effect, to defend oneself with lethal force even if one has not been subjected to lethal attack.

If you are looking for what makes America "exceptional" on this issue, there it is.

Now having isolated the key difference, what do you suggest you do about it? I am not providing glib answers. I have no say in America's gun policy, not being American.

As the strong silent hero says in many a classic Western: "I'd like it to be my idea". It's got to be America's idea. And maybe America's idea is "Screw it. We're fine!"

What is your American idea?

SharpshooterTom

Hande hoche! wrote: »

There was a warming of ties with Cuba. Which admittedly seemed a bit rushed.

Which has been partially reversed now as Trump has now reimposed some travel restrictions. The embassy's opened, that's about it, the Cuban embargo (which was the biggie) still remains in place.

SharpshooterTom

Skylinehead wrote: »

JFK was a hothead populist that nearly started a nuclear war, and LBJ, although his Great Society brought a lot through, I don't think he can be considered great either considering Vietnam. Obama too, he didn't really de-escalate enough.

LBJ deserves criticism for Vietnam, The deaths of 58,000 US troops (39,000 under his administration), plus the 3-4 million civilians killed.

But his domestic policies were outstanding and transformed US society like no other administration has in the past 70 years.

Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969):
- Medicare (in affect single payer healthcare for 65+ year olds, payed through a lifetime on the payroll tax), previously the uninsured rate for this age group before Medicare was 40% (which was a disgrace, the most sickest and vulnerable age group), now today its nearly 0%.
- Medicaid (avenue for the poorest Americans to be able to pay/get access to healthcare)
- Civil Rights act
- Voting Rights act
- Apollo missions to the moon (ok this was joint with JFK)
- Highest GDP by any postwar president
- Immigration act 1965

And just to point out how incredibly powerful the Immigration act of 1965 was, compare these two elections and the white vote in each with the electoral college score:

1988: Bush (60% of white vote) vs Dukakis (40% of white vote)
Bush 426
Dukakis 111

2012: Romney (59% of white vote) vs Obama (37% of white vote)
Obama 332
Romney 205

That's the legacy of LBJ's immigration act right there, Obama wouldn't have ever been president without it.

LBJ was ranked the 10th best president in the most recent C-Span survey, higher than both Obama and Clinton.

So yes the Vietnam war was a tragedy and should never be forgotten, (not to mention the 3-4 million civilians killed), but his domestic policies, including the 40 million African Americans who now have equal rights in all 50 states, 70 million people who have access to healthcare and other sweeping anti poverty programmes, overall you can see why he was a net positive.

Skylinehead

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

LBJ deserves criticism for Vietnam, The deaths of 58,000 US troops (39,000 under his administration), plus the 3-4 million civilians killed.

But his domestic policies were outstanding and transformed US society like no other administration has in the past 70 years.

Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969):
- Medicare (in affect single payer healthcare for 65+ year olds, payed through a lifetime on the payroll tax), previously the uninsured rate for this age group before Medicare was 40% (which was a disgrace, the most sickest and vulnerable age group), now today its nearly 0%.
- Medicaid (avenue for the poorest Americans to be able to pay/get access to healthcare)
- Civil Rights act
- Voting Rights act
- Apollo missions to the moon (ok this was joint with JFK)
- Highest GDP by any postwar president
- Immigration act 1965

And just to point out how incredibly powerful the Immigration act of 1965 was, compare these two elections and the white vote in each with the electoral college score:

1988: Bush (60% of white vote) vs Dukakis (40% of white vote)
Bush 426
Dukakis 111

2012: Romney (59% of white vote) vs Obama (37% of white vote)
Obama 332
Romney 205

That's the legacy of LBJ's immigration act right there, Obama wouldn't have ever been president without it.

LBJ was ranked the 10th best president in the most recent C-Span survey, higher than both Obama and Clinton.

So yes the Vietnam war was a tragedy and should never be forgotten, (not to mention the 3-4 million civilians killed), but his domestic policies, including the 40 million African Americans who now have equal rights in all 50 states, 70 million people who have access to healthcare and other sweeping anti poverty programmes, overall you can see why he was a net positive.

Arguably the biggest number of changes since FDR and the New Deal, and nothing better since then either. Fantastic social policies.

Vietnam really does stink the whole thing up though, it was the first modern "dirty" war without real justification that the US got involved in, and their foreign policy has been no good for anyone since then.

El_Duderino 09

Snickers Man wrote:

Have you a criminal record? Have you ever been diagnosed with a) schizophrenia b) paranoia c)post traumatic stress disorder Have you ever consulted a psychiatrist/psychologist because of behavioural issues? Have you ever been investigated for crimes conducted during the Nazi era in Germany?

Those questions might be a good start.

The mind is complicated. It's not like you can dip a strip of cobalt paper into the brain and it comes out blue if the person is mental.

A perfectly normal person can have a psychotic break, or can become dangerous over a long period of time.

The fact is that America has a problem that doesn't exist in any other developed country - see the countries with similar or higher gun death rates Trump would call them sh1thole countries. If they want to deal with the problem it would take radical thinking and dealing with the problems at multiple points. Just restricting access to guns wont solve the problems.

I think Americans are happy to put up with gun violence in exchange for the freedom to have guns.

Hitman3000

Just looking at Sky news. A principal of a school in Missouri apologised for a raffle his school held several hours after the Parkland massacre, the prize an AR 15 rifle.....

Billy86

Those are pretty regular in some parts of the US, usually sponsored by the NRA if I am correct.

BattleCorp

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Just looking at Sky news. A principal of a school in Missouri apologised for a raffle his school held several hours after the Parkland massacre, the prize an AR 15 rifle.....

That's not unusual. Some banks gave out AR15 rifles if someone opened up a certain type of account with them.

Hitman3000

BattleCorp wrote:

That's not unusual. Some banks gave out AR15 rifles if someone opened up a certain type of account with them.

No wonder there is such a fcuked up relationship with guns in America.....

BattleCorp

Hitman3000 wrote: »

No wonder there is such a fcuked up relationship with guns in America.....

There are raffles held here in Ireland where firearms are given out as prizes. Winners would need a licence though before they could take possession of them.

Hitman3000

BattleCorp wrote:

There are raffles held here in Ireland where firearms are given out as prizes. Winners would need a licence though before they could take possession of them.

Are there? Care to provide evidence if your claim.

BattleCorp

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Are there? Care to provide evidence if your claim.

Our club held a raffle as a fundraiser for a sick member of our club.