Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Gun Violence and how to address it
Options
Comments
-
@Xertz
Rather than being a cultural thing I feel that the Americans are naturally more individualistic than we are. I'm talking here on a biological level. The Irish appear very collective and groupish in comparison. I would say we even epitomise Nietzsche's slave morality. I don't deny it is a complex issue though with many aspects. Anyhow, I shouldn't drive the thread on a massive tangent.0 -
Perhaps read my posts before just jumping on that line. I was talking about how the US has a serious cultural issue with guns and how it can only be addressed by actually appealing to gun owners and changing the cultural issues that lead to those shootings.
Thought this was a serious political discussion forum?!?
So if say gun owners restricted their guns or had some better licensing system.
How does this stop people intent on harm from committing such acts? Simply it doesnt as they will find other means to do the job.
Talk of guns and owners and all the other crap is just appeasing weak political arguments by people who just want to be seen to be doing something.
Suicides.............do people talk of banning ropes, or paracetamol and sleeping tablets?..........if they did the person intent on killing themselves would just jump of a high rise or other.0 -
@Lyan: Being more individualistic is absolutely cultural thing. That's fundamentally and absolutely part of the description of a culture.
I would also suggest that it's not universal across every topic in the US or across every area of the country. Larger cities, for example, have to be more collective and socially oriented in order to function at all. Otherwise, they would just be complete chaos and those are the areas of the US where you will tend to see more likelihood of gun control and so on.
In EU surveys Ireland and the UK tend to top the poll on individualism. Other surveys have put Ireland a bit lower but usually within the top 10 globally. The US tends to be extremely high on that spectrum.0 -
Thats a load of rubbish. All other items mention have a primary function which does not prescribe to killing/ maiming human beings. What are high calibre guns designed to do?
Straight away you show your ignorance of the subject.
Small calibre and large calibre guns are designed to shoot projectiles usually bullets.
There is no such thing as a high calibre gun.0 -
Even Trump attempted to bright it up in one of his campaign speeches. Got little reaction, so moved on to something else.0
-
Advertisement
-
@Lyan: Being more individualistic is absolutely cultural thing. That's fundamentally and absolutely part of the description of a culture.
I would also suggest that it's not universal across every topic in the US or across every area of the country. Larger cities, for example, have to be more collective and socially oriented in order to function at all. Otherwise, they would just be complete chaos and those are the areas of the US where you will tend to see more likelihood of gun control and so on.
Absolutely and cultural are two words you want to be careful with. No truth can be said to be absolute, and among certain societies cultural would refer to things socially ingrained rather than biological.
I will agree that the feeling towards liberty differs between areas of the USA though. Typically the Southern states have historically always been more libertarian minded than the populous Northern cities. But then you also have some ethnic differences between them to account for biological arguments.0 -
-
Quantum Erasure wrote: »a 'well regulated militia' versus the might of the US Army? hmmm...
If you were government how would you fancy your chances if you had your own army killing your own citizens? I dont mean the odd riot. I mean to take down an armed public.
You and you family would be just stains on the pavement within a week.0 -
Even Trump attempted to bright it up in one of his campaign speeches. Got little reaction, so moved on to something else.
That is probably because they were more excited about the 200Bn deal done with China taking jobs back to the USA. Strange because the Republican love their guns. He had 90% approval in the republican party of yesterday. Guess no room on the ballot paper for Jeb Bush?0 -
@Lyan : Your argument was that it's biological. It's obviously cultural and it's fairly clear where it came from i.e. both a real and mythological sense of history that the nation was founded by pioneers, the history of being quite rural and isolated and needing to provide their own protection and so on.
A very large % of the US is genuinely rural and has people living quite remote to support of towns/cities and law enforcement and that aspect of society is very deliberately over-represented in the federal systems both because of the Senate (2-senators per state) and the Electoral College. I'm not saying that's are something you can or should eliminate or avoid, I mean even the EU has more or less repeated versions of those systems, with things like fixed numbers of EU commissioners i.e. 1 per member state, regardless of population size and so on.
They are always the compromises that are needed to get a cohesive federal (or quasi-federal in the EU's sense) system to actually work, in such a way that it allows pooling without undermining a sense of individual state's feeling of independence, sovereignty/mutual respect.
There's a huge urban/rural and regional dichotomy in the US and also a division that tends to still reflect the old civil war divide and that's where you'll always get the divide between individualists on that issue and those who'd rather see much higher levels of control. Those differences are also reflected in the gun control laws that do exist in most bigger urban areas, particularly the older big urban states in the northeast.
Most gun ownership is also not in those urban-centric areas.
My point is that if you want to get the gun death rate down, you have to appeal to the sense of personal responsibility. That would be the main way of addressing accidental shootings and guns getting into circulation.
You also have to tackle the crazy (and it really is insane) and repeating metaphor mass shootings which seem to consist of some strange individual lashing out as society be it a city or his school or university or whatever. That's the element of culture that needs to be tackled very hard and that needs psychological help and also some degree of media buy in too.
One of the biggest issues I see in the US is that when a mass shooting happens the media immediately seems to want to know everything about 'the shooter' and they become a celebrity for all the wrong reasons but that is feeding into the glorification of these psychopaths and it really needs to stop. Media outlets need to focus on the victims and the horror of the whole thing and completely ignore the shooter or focus on the fact that he's simply a psychopath.
I think on a further issue you have to try and get people to calm down on being so paranoid about the risks around them. There's an amplification effect where you've people going around terrified of their own shadow and armed to the teeth as a result. The US seems to have had a lot of fear instilled in it in recent decades largely by people trying to sell that for financial or political gain. That has to be tackled. It's a much more pleasant and friendly country than it actually seems to imagine it is.0 -
Advertisement
-
Quantum Erasure wrote: »a 'well regulated militia' versus the might of the US Army? hmmm...
Very few things beat a motivated well armed militia with local knowledge ..... Afghanistan(x5), Vietnam(x4), Rhodesia (x1), Northern Ireland (x1) France (x1), Algeria (x1) the Sudan (x1) etc etc0 -
The US does have gun control at a state and local level and it's fairly strict in some states and localities, where it's supported.
However, there's no significant federal standard for it and there's a gun culture that's fairly unshakable in quite a lot of the US, so I really don't think you're going to ever see it change that dramatically.
The places that support gun control, tend to be quite urban and are probably representative of at least half of the population of the US and are amongst the places any of us are most likely to visit i.e. most of the big cities and economic hubs of the US tend to have quite strong gun control.
The other irony is that the urban places which support gun control also tend to be the places where most homicides are happening.
https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/
It is claimed by those in those urban areas that the problem lies with neighboring areas with looser laws, but According to a 2013 PEW Research Center survey, the household gun ownership rate in rural areas was 2.11 times greater than in urban areas (“Why Own a Gun? Protection is Now Top Reason,” PEW Research Center, March 12, 2013). Suburban households are 28.6% more likely to own guns than urban households. Despite lower gun ownership, urban areas experience much higher murder rates. One should not put much weight on this purely “cross-sectional” evidence over one point in time and many factors determine murder rates, but it is still interesting to note that so much of the country has both very high gun ownership rates and zero murders.
The urban areas are projecting their problem on a symptom, not their own underlying cause. It is easier for them to say “Chicago’s gun violence problem stems from people going and illegally getting guns in Indiana”, yet Indiana’s homicide rate where they can legally get guns in Indiana is less than than Illinois’. The figures are all over the map. If you look at the homicide rate (and sort by size for 2018), California and Texas are right in the middle, 25 and 26, despite their wildly different perceived gun control. On the “everyone gets a gun” scale, it’s extremes. “Live Free or Die” New Hampshire is beaten in safety only by South Dakota. Vermont was the first place to permit people to carry a gun without a license, also up there. On the other hand, the rednecks of Louisiana put their murder rate off the chart. Or it would be if the murders weren’t happening in Baton Rouge and New Orleans. Similarly, Missouri is second-most dangerous State, helped doubtless by St Louis being the most dangerous place in the US.
The notably anti-gun States are a little less extreme on either end. You have to go to tenth safest to get to one (Massachusetts), but you also are not going to be in one of the most dangerous ones either also until tenth (Illinois).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicide_rate
If simple availability of firearms were the problem, you would not have clusters or crime were the availability and reported ownership is lowest, yet we do. Ergo, the problem must be something else, and it is presumably something related to a combination of culture, opportunity, fostering and policing in those areas which are causing trouble.1 -
"It's obvious" was dropped as a scientific method a long time ago for obvious reasons. Anyway, I am gonna step out before I derail you gentlemen.1
-
Boredstiff666 wrote: »If you were government how would you fancy your chances if you had your own army killing your own citizens? I dont mean the odd riot. I mean to take down an armed public.
You and you family would be just stains on the pavement within a week.
I mean, maybe elect better politicians ... ?0 -
Well when you've completely porous state and city borders, and large urban areas with big populations, you'll always have higher crime and more complex crime - particularly around issues like drugs, as there's demand for product. Per capita they're actually pretty safe by and large with a couple of very notable exceptions.
Rural areas inevitably aren't going to have that level of crime, but it's almost entirely down to just low population density.
Per capita, the highest gun murder rate is the District of Columbia (By a huge margin) 18 per 100,000 (more than twice the next highest state). Seems to be uniquely Washington DC problems - but it has a very odd system of government and it has some rather serious social issues.
That's followed by Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Alaska, Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, Tennessee and Oklahoma.
The big city containing states like New York and Massachusetts rate fairly well. As do most of the smaller north eastern states and a lot of the very spread rural ones like West Virginia, North Dakota, Utah, Oregon etc.
California isn't great for gun deaths, slightly worse than Texas.0 -
skooterblue2 wrote: »That is probably because they were more excited about the 200Bn deal done with China taking jobs back to the USA. Strange because the Republican love their guns. He had 90% approval in the republican party of yesterday. Guess no room on the ballot paper for Jeb Bush?
That was 90% to not get impeached.0 -
As always Manic you are great are pointing at what cannot be done. You are one of those that simply accept the situation for what it is and seem to suggest that nothing can be done. But let us look at some of your 'rebuttals' (and I point out that my list was simply some ideas not meant as the only complete solution)
I am pointing out what can’t be done in response to your list of.. things that can’t be done. It’s politician’s syllogism.No, not a tax. But if you are out hunting and shoot someone by mistake then your insurance should pay out. If the firearm gets discharged by accident then insurance pays out. Kinda like motor insurance. You know, insurance against something out of the ordinary happens.
Ah.. general and personal liability insurance. Already have it, not related to owning a gun. Or a knife. Or kicking a brick. Comes as part of my homeowner’s policy. I think renter’s insurance does something similar. It’s a good idea to have whether you own a gun or not. I don’t need to shoot someone to hurt them.A tax on ownership? Do you consider the price of a gun to be a tax on ownership? Should every citizen be entitled to free guns. What a ridiculous notion. Gun lovers love bringing the word tax into the debate because it plays to peoples basest hatred of tax.
Well, the reason I use it is that it’s the position of the courts in the US. It doesn’t matter if it’s not a tax, the government cannot regulate by fee or penalty what it cannot regulate by tax, and Constitutional rights cannot be regulated by tax. It’s not that you can’t tax them, you can get sales tax on a gun, newspaper etc, but it cannot be done to a regulatory purpose. Additional expenses such as fees may be levied only to the extent that they are reasonable to the costs incurred in the processing.
The matter of minimum pricing for guns has been a bit controversial, given that laws to prevent “Saturday night specials” (I.e. cheap guns often used in criminal activity) also place firearms out of the reach of those often most in need of them, the poor who live in high crime areas. So, no, I don’t think I would advocate for a free gun to everyone, but neither would I support additional financial barriers to ownership.So, bring in another ban without the laws. Trump got knocked back a few times on his Muslim ban so he simply rewrote it a bit.
Whilst still remaining within the Constitutional limits and being enforceable.Cigarette advertising is limited, so under what logic would guns not be?
According to the judge in the linked case, the difference is that cigarette smoking is not a Constituionally protected activity.
OK. I’ll stipulate that that is likely feasible. Given, however, I don’t see gun advertising on TV anyway except on specialist channels, or by schools, it strikes me as a feel good law with little practical benefit.No advertising in places where kids are, before the watershed etc.
Such a limit is explicitly prohibited by the court. Tracy Rifle and Pistol was a gun shop which wanted to put signs out front saying they sold pistols. Court did not limit its ruling to the premises and similarly said billboard advertising elsewhere was also protected.Then over time increase it. Gun stores to only have a name sign at the front etc.What if there isn't a football stadium, or horseriding facilities or swimming pool or hospital? Seriously, either open up a gun club or move. Where in the constitution does it state that the person must live within a certain distance of anything?
The Seventh Circuit court of Appeals would have a word with you, see Ezell vs a City of Chicago where the matter of reasonable access to a firearms range was discussed. Membership of a club is not a pre-requisite to engage in target practice. (The N.Y. Rifle and Pistol Case which was argued in front of SCOTUS last month also touches upon the matter of proximity, though that is not the root matter). Neither, in the US, is it necessary to practice on a public range. You can shoot in your back yard if the local ordinances (and safety) permit it. You may also create a club without a range.Of course it will be questionable, unless a standard is agreed. Let's say 10 bullets. If you need more than 10 bullets to defend yourself you are either a terrible shot or the trouble is far more than a simple robbery. Firefights? This is supposed to be about defence. Scare off would be attackers until you can get away.
I would restate to the honorable gentleman my earlier comment about not having a clue about how firefights work, and the counter-examples mentioned by the court in its ruling. One round makes a firefight, and your object is not to scare off attackers, it is to ensure your safety.But it would limit the vast majority of "I just want something for defence of my home' types to buy standard and thus reduce the problem. Over time it becomes the norm.
An impractical norm. Yes, I own 5, 6, or 7 magazines. However, I don’t go around with them. I don’t sleep with a bandolier of magazines in the safe next to my bed. The one magazine which is in my pistol is all I get to last however long it takes.Of course, there is nothing to stop me from going in to multiple shops, or stockpiling. But most people simply don't bother. They buy when they need it, maybe a box just in case, but thats it.
I suspect one would find that a box of 50 paracetamol will last you a tad longer than a box of 50 rounds of 9mm. With one exception (Vegas), no mass shooter has expended more than 200 rounds, (OK, Cho fired 213 or so) and mass shootings are a pretty rare event in the US compared to all other homicides in any case. 200 rounds is barely a fun bit of plinking in the desert. No reasonable artificial limit is going to have an effect on any crimes, and as to said yourself, if someone wants to stockpile, be they of good intent or ill, it won’t stop them either. So why bother adding a law which wont’t do any good?If you really wanted to keep track, then every box should have a unique serial number, and to buy a box you need to produce your gun licence, with your membership number.
California is doing something like that now. 60,000 people have been denied ammunition due to government error, 100 people legitimately were denied. (And probably just went elsewhere). And then what would you do with a serial number? Solve crimes? History shows that such ideas don’t. Firstly, look at the ballistics database Maryland tried. And subsequently abandoned as a useless waste of money. Then consider the matter of reloading ammunition.You you rather that people own guns without any need to know how to use them or care for them? Don't you think driving licences are a good idea? You are testing to make sure that if the unfortunate times comes when the gun needs to be used, the owner knows how to do it safely. Not wild shots going everywhere. That they show an understanding of gun safety, gun maintenance etc. Of course it needs to be combined with education, and so we are back to gun clubs!
You seem to have a rather romantic view of either the difficulties on the range, or the applicability of range scores to actual use. Gun safety is basically four rules. To buy a gun in California, you have to demonstrate safe handling practices, basic mechanical knowledge and operation. If you have never handled a firearm before, I’ll give you a 50-50 chance of passing it. They are such simple devices. Then, when it comes to actually shooting at someone, range scores often go out the window where even trained personnel will miss more times than they hit, no matter how they score on paper. (Which goes back to magazine capacity)What is the purpose for in vehicles? It to create a disincentive. Are you really going to bother buying a mod, attaching and removing it? Of course certain people will, just as certain people derestrict their motorbikes and cars, but the vast majority won't bother. And then where are you going to buy it. Legit shops won't sell them as they are illegal. So now you are forced onto the black market. Are you really going to become a criminal just to get a modification? And you do you tell about your new mod?
Well, if you want the vehicle analogy, you have just changed the parameters from “no mods” to “not certain mods”. It is already illegal for me, for example, to modify one of my rifles to become a machine gun. The parts to do so are strictly regulated and sellers will not sell you one without appropriate paperwork. However, my changing the trigger pull is closer to my changing the handle on a manual transmission. I’m sure nobody minds if you stick a spoiler on your car, change your wheel rims, or upgrade our brakes? Most “mod” prohibitions tend to be related to horsepower and emissions.
So what is an ‘acceptable’ mod to a firearm? Can I repaint it? Convert to left-handed? Replace the muzzle brake with a flash suppressor? What if the gun is inherently modular and designed to be a “snap together to suit” design such as a SIG P320 or an AR-15?Well we tried your way of just letting whatever happens happen, and the carnage is the result. SO why not try something else? Of course it needs to be done within the confines of the constitution, but there are always ways.
I never said my way was doing nothing. I just pointed out flaws in your proposal.
You want hand-wave realistic options? Here are some simple ones to start with.
-All firearms sales to go through the NICS, just like dealer transactions do. Enforced by sting operations.
-Mandatory firearms safety training in schools. Just like sex ed or driver’s ed. My daughter may well encounter her first gun outside of my supervision before she is old enough to buy one, waiting for her to buy one before being taught is too late. This is easy, the NRA provides such safety courses free of charge to any schools which request it.
-Issuance of a free pistol safe to every household. My daily carry gun is stored in a lockbox I got for under $30 on Amazon, I’m sure the government could get a bulk discount. Compared to the amount of money we’re spending on other issues, that’s not too much. If you don’t have a pistol, keep your jewelry or passport in it. If you do have a pistol, you’re more likely to use a free safe you have than one you have to buy. It will both reduce accidental injury to children who find one, and also is likely to reduce theft from burglary, which is a not uncommon method for guns to end up in illegal hands.
And, most importantly, work to address the causes of most of the firearms violence in the first place. It’s not mental health, it’s not the ‘gun culture’. Look at who is doing the shooting of others and why. They are generally lower class, often urban poor, frequently members of gangs or other criminal fare, where a man’s worth is less than the snazzy shoes he is wearing or the color of the shirt on the block. Provide possibilities for these people, which is something the government should be doing anyway. And if they achieve that, the firearms violence problem reduces as well. Combine these programs with better policing, both in terms of presence and policies. These are issues which require intelligent and complex solutions, not a handy checklist of laws to pass, many of which will do little.
As an aide, I’m currently in Sweden. As I’m browsing around looking for links to post from American sites, I’m coming across a lot saying “can’t show it to anyone in Europe, we are not GDPR compliant”. Is that something you guys come across a lot, or is it just this topic?0 -
Local US stuff generally pops up quite a bit. Bigger US sites have more incentive to ensure compliance. However I tend not to be looking up small US sites that much so overall it is pretty rare (I suspect you know more of them which is why you get hit).
Always makes me wonder what they are doing that isn't gepr compliant but I suspect it is largely not worth their while checking.
Never understood why the right to bear arms was such a hinderence. You guys have enough common sense exceptions that a few more seems to make no difference. I.e. some background checks you mentioned or obvious stuff like in prisons. I mean, as far as I am concerned Ireland effectively has the right to bear arms. I just need to jump through a lot more hoops than in the US.
Honestly I think the only way Republicans will pass serious laws to help the poor or mental health issues would be to ban guns. Then they will try anything to get the guns back.
To curtail gun violence. There needs to be an outpouring of sadness. That an event can't happen again. This is more important than laws though would naturally lead to new laws. However the US just doesn't seem to have the same reaction to mass murder as the rest of the Western world.0 -
Quantum Erasure wrote: »I mean, maybe elect better politicians ... ?
Like who and is there such a thing?0 -
Local US stuff generally pops up quite a bit. Bigger US sites have more incentive to ensure compliance. However I tend not to be looking up small US sites that much so overall it is pretty rare (I suspect you know more of them which is why you get hit).
Always makes me wonder what they are doing that isn't gepr compliant but I suspect it is largely not worth their while checking.
Never understood why the right to bear arms was such a hinderence. You guys have enough common sense exceptions that a few more seems to make no difference. I.e. some background checks you mentioned or obvious stuff like in prisons. I mean, as far as I am concerned Ireland effectively has the right to bear arms. I just need to jump through a lot more hoops than in the US.
Honestly I think the only way Republicans will pass serious laws to help the poor or mental health issues would be to ban guns. Then they will try anything to get the guns back.
To curtail gun violence. There needs to be an outpouring of sadness. That an event can't happen again. This is more important than laws though would naturally lead to new laws. However the US just doesn't seem to have the same reaction to mass murder as the rest of the Western world.
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D 0 -
Advertisement
-
Boredstiff666 wrote: »Complete bollox.
There are many countries where its legal to have guns of all kinds and they do not have the same shooting probs America does. So restricting the 'tool' they use to kill people will not make any difference as they will find other ways.
Americans or some of them just like to kill others. Guns or whatever......they will just do it regardless.
There is no other country on earth that has as many guns in circulation as the USA. It's a huge problem with no solution.0 -
To curtail gun violence. There needs to be an outpouring of sadness. That an event can't happen again. This is more important than laws though would naturally lead to new laws. However the US just doesn't seem to have the same reaction to mass murder as the rest of the Western world.
Your mistake is to think say “The US” as a monolithic block. If you split the population into “gun owners and those who support them” and “non gun owners”, you will find that areas with low incidences of gun ownership are more likely to support gun control. After all, it doesn’t affect them. (An excellent example of this sort of effect is the San Francisco Bay Area: 9 counties must vote in order to have an increase in tolls to cross the bridges. Three counties have residents which routinely use the bridge. For some reason, every time a proposal is put forward to raise revenue for whatever by raising the toll, the voters split 6-3 and keep going up.) As is said, a successful democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting for what to eat for dinner.
Similar has happened elsewhere. In the EU, the one country which strenuously objected overall to new gun control laws after Bataclan was the one country which had a lot of gun owners and a very strong tradition of firearms ownership. In Australia or New Zealand, the gun owners were generally saying “hang on a second...” and got utterly railroaded by the rest of the country. See the Boards shooting forum for the Irish equivalent. And then look at the estimated compliance rates. Australia is estimated at about 30%. Depending on which figures you use, New Zealand is estimated at between half and 25%. Canada’s for merely registering rifles, let alone turning them in, was estimated at about 10% before the government gave up. The Greeks don’t even bother enforcing many of the laws on the island of Crete, where lots of folks openly own completely illegal machine guns. (Granted, they do have an eye on Turkey here). Similar for compliance within US states which have enacted dramatic legislation.
So I don’t think there is any particular difference between pro or anti gun people in most any country around the world in their reactions to mass murder. The difference is that in the US, we start with a lot more of the former. It’s not that the pro-gun side are pro mass murder, but they do believe that the laws won’t do much, especially when mass murder is such a small part of the problem to begin with, and the proposed laws affect a lot more of them than the other side, in proportion to the rest of the country. And they do tend to be the subject matter experts.1 -
How many guns there are is not a problem or 'the' problem.There is no other country on earth that has as many guns in circulation as the USA. It's a huge problem with no solution.
There are probably many times more knives in circulation in the US and other countries but nobody dances around that.
Your argument is self defeated before you start because someone somewhere could say that compared to how many guns there are the deaths from them are small.
People use this argument when saying flying is a safe way to travel.
Similar to you using another side of the argument.
The guns are not the problem..........for some reason Americans have a violent side to their character. The fact that they may use a gun over other means and make headline news is why you are confusing the facts.
Americans are more violent than other races for ????? so if they did not have a gun they would use other to carry out their violence.
Banning or restricting guns will not stop the killing. In fact if you did they could easily move to more catastrophic means of killing with an even bigger death toll.
Other countries even in Europe have lots of guns at home even military spec guns as well but they do not have same problems as America.
Maybe its that big melting pot which never really melted together and everybody is so wary of others regardless........who knows.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »Your mistake is to think say “The US” as a monolithic block. If you split the population into “gun owners and those who support them” and “non gun owners”, you will find that areas with low incidences of gun ownership are more likely to support gun control. After all, it doesn’t affect them. (An excellent example of this sort of effect is the San Francisco Bay Area: 9 counties must vote in order to have an increase in tolls to cross the bridges. Three counties have residents which routinely use the bridge. For some reason, every time a proposal is put forward to raise revenue for whatever by raising the toll, the voters split 6-3 and keep going up.) As is said, a successful democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting for what to eat for dinner.
Similar has happened elsewhere. In the EU, the one country which strenuously objected overall to new gun control laws after Bataclan was the one country which had a lot of gun owners and a very strong tradition of firearms ownership. In Australia or New Zealand, the gun owners were generally saying “hang on a second...” and got utterly railroaded by the rest of the country. See the Boards shooting forum for the Irish equivalent. And then look at the estimated compliance rates. Australia is estimated at about 30%. Depending on which figures you use, New Zealand is estimated at between half and 25%. Canada’s for merely registering rifles, let alone turning them in, was estimated at about 10% before the government gave up. The Greeks don’t even bother enforcing many of the laws on the island of Crete, where lots of folks openly own completely illegal machine guns. (Granted, they do have an eye on Turkey here). Similar for compliance within US states which have enacted dramatic legislation.
So I don’t think there is any particular difference between pro or anti gun people in most any country around the world in their reactions to mass murder. The difference is that in the US, we start with a lot more of the former. It’s not that the pro-gun side are pro mass murder, but they do believe that the laws won’t do much, especially when mass murder is such a small part of the problem to begin with, and the proposed laws affect a lot more of them than the other side, in proportion to the rest of the country. And they do tend to be the subject matter experts.
Sorry. I should have been more specific. The general theme of the reaction I get from most countries is one of not letting this happen again. Certainly you have many anti gun people in the states after various mass shootings as well and pro gun people elsewhere. However the dominant message I get from the US is fear for their guns after a big event.
I did not say that pro gun people were pro mass murder. However I don't get the impression that stopping it is as much of a priority. Certainly the vast majority of pro gun people would prefer less violence in the world. Honestly yes. I do believe there is a difference. Anti gun people in countries tried something. To be fair, you are not in power and have had multiple ideas which could work. However this is not about you specifically. If there was a serious effort to avoid gun violence they would have tried something more drastic (your list could be fine). However a lot of what I see is thoughts and prayers and let's do absolutely nothing until it has died down and we forget about it till the next time. Anyone in power who is pro gun needs to have serious proposals going forward. Let's see anti gun people fight against better mental healthcare. I can't imagine it happens much, I would put money on the bigger issues being the pro gun people (not because they are pro gun but cos Republican).
Thoughts and prayers became a meme for this and this is absolutely the message that gets shouted out from the US each and every time this happens. I am sure there are many pro gun people fighting hard for other solutions and there are many anti gun people also fighting for change but they get drowned out in the US. It isn't just that you (and you specifically seem to have ideas) have different ideas than the rest of the world. It is that the dominant solution we hear from the US is to do absolutely nothing.
Yes it would be nice for people to look at statistics and decide enough is enough looking at them but human psyche is such that a big event focuses the mind more on what is important than simple statistics.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 14681
Standards dropped sharply over night.
A few cards handed out and Skooterblue2 will be taking a break from the forum.
Cut out the silly posts and the personal attacks please.
0 -
Boredstiff666 wrote: »How many guns there are is not a problem or 'the' problem.
There are probably many times more knives in circulation in the US and other countries but nobody dances around that.
Your argument is self defeated before you start because someone somewhere could say that compared to how many guns there are the deaths from them are small.
People use this argument when saying flying is a safe way to travel.
Similar to you using another side of the argument.
The guns are not the problem..........for some reason Americans have a violent side to their character. The fact that they may use a gun over other means and make headline news is why you are confusing the facts.
Americans are more violent than other races for ????? so if they did not have a gun they would use other to carry out their violence.
Banning or restricting guns will not stop the killing. In fact if you did they could easily move to more catastrophic means of killing with an even bigger death toll.
Other countries even in Europe have lots of guns at home even military spec guns as well but they do not have same problems as America.
Maybe its that big melting pot which never really melted together and everybody is so wary of others regardless........who knows.
There's no logic in your post at all. The bolded bit isn't even true. There's no country in europe that has as many guns as the USA, not even close, or a similar gun culture. I don't believe that Americans are more violent than other nations. Americans aren't even a race ffs, American is a nationality made up of many different races.
Banning or restricting guns isn't really an option anyway.0 -
There's no logic in your post at all. The bolded bit isn't even true. There's no country in europe that has as many guns as the USA, not even close, or a similar gun culture. I don't believe that Americans are more violent than other nations. Americans aren't even a race ffs, American is a nationality made up of many different races.
Banning or restricting guns isn't really an option anyway.
In old eastern block nations it is common for people to own lots of guns even AK47's because they were even made in those countries.
In France gun ownership is huge from all sorts of guns including semi auto pistols etc.
You really have no idea of what you are talking about.
And I never said as many guns as the USA.0 -
-
Guns are the problem.
More guns = more gun deaths.
It's follows same rationale that the nuclear powers hold regarding proliferation.
More nukes = greater likelihood that they'll be used.1 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 34391
Bumping the thread, if only to relay the sad news most have probably seen coming out of Texas; nearly 10 years after Sandy Hook and 19 elementary school children have been shot dead.
In many respects I debated even mentioning it and bumping the thread: as if dead preschoolers couldn't shift the needle, this tragedy - in Texas no less - certainly won't. But better than reading the CA forum TBH.
Aside from "thoughts and prayers" I look forward to politicians talking about everything except gun control. The "mental health" talk points seem popular now (though mental health services in the US seem themselves a subject of criticism)
0
Advertisement