I'd rather have an increase in GBH, assualt etc.. and decrease in murders - though you might well be right regarding them having more 'nutjobs' - rich/poor divide is much bigger over there and the social safety net is much more basic.... the people in power don't have much incentive to change things too much - if you live in a decent area you can be quite sheltered from most of it
Another american shooting..
- Thread starter Unicorn
- Start date
I'd rather have an increase in GBH, assualt etc.. and decrease in murders - though you might well be right regarding them having more 'nutjobs' - rich/poor divide is much bigger over there and the social safety net is much more basic.... the people in power don't have much incentive to change things too much - if you live in a decent area you can be quite sheltered from most of it
That wouldn't surprise me, I think we'd agree that there is a very strong anti-gun bias (at least on this side of the pond) because we outlawed gun ownership - what was it, like 20-odd years ago now? - and maybe it's just my own inability to properly get over my deeply-held views, but I can't help but feel that guns for self-defence are a bit overkill.
I won't pretend it's some new and revolutionary argument that having a gun for self-defence merely escalates the tools used by aggressors (heck, I own a 9mm, so a bit of hypocrite really), but I struggle to get past that stumbling block in the pro-gun ownership debate.
There isn't really a way forward or a way back for America,
if you banned shotguns in the UK then after a few years nobody could easily obtain one illegally,
if you banned shotguns in the USA, then you could still obtain an illegal bootload of them in 50 years time. The tipping point has long since passed for them.
Whether civilians have guns or not is irrelevant in one sense, criminals will have guns because the police have guns and the police are not going to stop using them ever.
if you banned shotguns in the UK then after a few years nobody could easily obtain one illegally,
if you banned shotguns in the USA, then you could still obtain an illegal bootload of them in 50 years time. The tipping point has long since passed for them.
Whether civilians have guns or not is irrelevant in one sense, criminals will have guns because the police have guns and the police are not going to stop using them ever.
Absolutely, but respecting another culture does not preclude being able to form an opinion, even if it is critical, does it? As long as we acknowledge why our opinions may be critical and they can be communicated, I'm not sure what the problem is.
No thanks, some people's cultures are retarded, stone age or just bat poo mental, they are in no way equal to British culture.
Respect as fellow human beings perhaps.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 1,632
- Location
- Worthing, West Sussex
Awful. Happening far too frequently 
Odd that the OP picked that story when another random story is perhaps more horrific?
http://news.sky.com/story/1160824/mechanics-find-baby-girl-living-in-car-boot
what makes one story more thread worthy than another, guns?
http://news.sky.com/story/1160824/mechanics-find-baby-girl-living-in-car-boot
what makes one story more thread worthy than another, guns?
Every country has its share of nutjobs, the US is in no way exclusive in this but they exacerbate the problem by giving the nutjob a gun and a right to carry it.
Giving then knives can still be problematic (as evidenced in the UK) but the potential harm a nutjob can do is limited.
So I would say guns are the problem.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 10,263
- Location
- UK
0 ****s were given that day
Why?.
All behavior should be judged on its merits & flaws, culture gets no free passes.
As previously stated, in isolated guns are not that bad, if you have a equalitarian utopia they are fine - but in a highly unequal society with extremely poor mental health provision they are disasterous.
The self defence argument is idiotic - as it simply increases the chance of needing to defend yourself from somebody with a gun.
Besides, the disgruntled father who breaks & puts a bullet in the head of his wife & children would be the one with the gun for 'protection' not to mention the fact that kids in general wouldn't be armed but the insane people on a rampage will be (as in the recent school shooting).
Finally a bunch of rednecks with automatic weapons will never be able to overthrow the US government in the event of a needed rebellion (which they seem to think is a justification).
No, I don't respect other people's cultures if their barbaric and backwards, why should we put up with something like that?
But you are already in a situation where there is massive illegal gun ownership amongst criminals. Banning legal gun ownership in the US probably wouldn't even make a dent on that. Considering that fact then the self defence argument isn't idiotic because you are not going to be able to easily reduce the illegal gun ownership.
Considering the success of armed insurgencies around the world (including against the US military) I don't think this is as black and white as you seem to be painting it.
You are not going to like this but....!
There is a far better correlation between US Murder RATES (Per 100,000) and the Black population percentage than there is to gun ownership rates
Down at the least Murderous end of the spectrum we have Murder rates that are lower than the UK's coupled with (frequently) very high gun ownership rates (The Black populations in these states is lower than in the UK too!)
Ho Humm!
There is a far better correlation between US Murder RATES (Per 100,000) and the Black population percentage than there is to gun ownership rates
Down at the least Murderous end of the spectrum we have Murder rates that are lower than the UK's coupled with (frequently) very high gun ownership rates (The Black populations in these states is lower than in the UK too!)
Ho Humm!
It's the awful truth about crime in general that no one wants to talk about either here in the UK or in the US.
Ban guns! It worked wonders in Mexico! Oh... Wait...
Not to mention that the safest towns and cities in America are the one's with the most guns. And the ones with the highest murder rates are the one's where guns are banned.
I guess there are arguments for either side though
Not to mention that the safest towns and cities in America are the one's with the most guns. And the ones with the highest murder rates are the one's where guns are banned.
I guess there are arguments for either side though
I never said it could be done overnight, it requires a culture change.
Besides, many (or most if I recall correctly) of the mass US killings are done with legally owned weapons, to obtain a gun illegally firstly rules out prior ownership (that negates much of the 'crimes of passion', it also doesn't make obtaining weapons easy for people with severe mental problems (not likely to have criminal connections, people willing to provide them arms over-night).
Many crimes will continue of course, much of the gang related crime & crimes related to criminal behaviour (theft/robbery) - but you will see a significant reduction in accidental gun deaths, crimes of passion, high school shootouts or mentally ill people going postal.
By forcing a person to break another law to obtain a weapon you also increase the chances of that person getting caught.
You must have an interesting & unique definition of success.
You seem to be ignoring the size/power of the US military compared to that of other nations with insurgence (who are usually aided by external parties anyway) - which in the case of a domestic US civil war would not be probable (due to the nuclear deterrent).
That along with the fact that historically a police force didn't exist across much of the US is the reason for the constitutional right to bear arms.
Last edited: