it wasn't when they went hardcore on gun ownership. it rose and more shooting than ever. its dropped now though.
10 dead in a US college shooting
- Thread starter Felon
- Start date
it wasn't when they went hardcore on gun ownership. it rose and more shooting than ever. its dropped now though.
Gun crime in the UK is very limited because we take it very seriously and they are hard to get hold of. There have been numerous mentions about guns in the UK that have been involved in a number of shootings because they are so rare that they are passed around due to the scarcity of them.
Guns to americans are more of an idealogical thing than a practical tool for the most part. Its really sad when you see any show that focusses on americans that are super serious about their guns because they are usually super average, overweight, sad excuses for men that use guns as a way to feel powerful and as if they can take on the world.
When the average american is faced with the reality of guns first hand they are not quite so blase and bullish about it. There was a little film where a gun shop sold weapons that had histories of killings attached to them and when people saw the gun and heard what had been done with it they suddenly were not so interested in buying one.
I have no idea how you disarm a country but America really needs to do it.
Guns to americans are more of an idealogical thing than a practical tool for the most part. Its really sad when you see any show that focusses on americans that are super serious about their guns because they are usually super average, overweight, sad excuses for men that use guns as a way to feel powerful and as if they can take on the world.
When the average american is faced with the reality of guns first hand they are not quite so blase and bullish about it. There was a little film where a gun shop sold weapons that had histories of killings attached to them and when people saw the gun and heard what had been done with it they suddenly were not so interested in buying one.
I have no idea how you disarm a country but America really needs to do it.
In simple terms yes, but extrapolated it means the victim of gun crime has ceased to be one and the aggressor has become a victim or darwinism/karma. Which would be fine by me, but sadly it doesn't always end that way.
Guns don't kill people - people do. Well gun models exist to injure/kill their target.
If people kill people - surely removing the guns from the population will therefore (logically) solve the problem by denying their use. Same for swords. The problem is you cannot guarantee nobody has weapons other than make it clear that lethal force can be used against those carrying firearms. Which then leads to a nothing to loose scenario where those with guns then go nuts when challenged by police.
Perhaps making gun manufacturers liable for the deaths caused by firearms would make them more keen to be careful who they sold their guns too. However that means illegal imports go up..
So the only thing you can do is give each civilian military training and ensure all carry. That way it will be a very swift response to any situation but will not stop it.
Obama's statement is clear - if no change occurs things will continue, there's nothing that can be done. He's basically (through the gaps in the speech) saying to the gun associations and gun supporters - it's your call.
If people kill people - surely removing the guns from the population will therefore (logically) solve the problem by denying their use. Same for swords. The problem is you cannot guarantee nobody has weapons other than make it clear that lethal force can be used against those carrying firearms. Which then leads to a nothing to loose scenario where those with guns then go nuts when challenged by police.
Perhaps making gun manufacturers liable for the deaths caused by firearms would make them more keen to be careful who they sold their guns too. However that means illegal imports go up..
So the only thing you can do is give each civilian military training and ensure all carry. That way it will be a very swift response to any situation but will not stop it.
Obama's statement is clear - if no change occurs things will continue, there's nothing that can be done. He's basically (through the gaps in the speech) saying to the gun associations and gun supporters - it's your call.
So you believe you know how long policy takes to have effect, especially on something which is about culture?
It's all fun and games on that site, trolling people and dicking around and being anonymous, but **** like this is the reason I stopped using it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2011
- Posts
- 4,418
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
Neither. It will be used as a political crowbar, most emotive issues are, the Republicans have already started to use it as an excuse to bash Obama's stance on immigration etc. I also, (given the sheer number of these tragedies that have already occurred, and the relative lack of movement on the gun control issue), believe that the pro-gun crowd, specifically politicians and lobbyists, are unlikely to change their stance for anything less than a similar tragedy which directly impacts on them or their families.
The 51% example was probably heavy handed but I stand by the general ideas.
Its not an overnight fix but it would eventually solve most of the problem and it is a huge problem in the US. 99% of people would not keep an illegal firearm if the penalties were severe. You would always have a small number who would but over time as guns were phased out of their culture that number would drop further.
We have guns in the UK but gun crime is absolutely tiny over here compared to the US. Guns are used in so many killings in the US and those are killings that wouldn't happen in the UK.
You rob a store, you take a gun, you rob someone on the street, you threaten them with a gun. You have a flash of rage and threaten your partner or neighbour with one. A knife is much more visceral and personal when you use it compared to a gun. A knife doesn't go off if you panic. A knife doesn't kill indiscriminately.
There is no argument that you cannot ban guns in the US.
To be honest, I was simply having a dig at the apparent dissonance between your two paragraphs.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 May 2012
- Posts
- 2,191
I was reading earlier about how /r9k/ robots tried to blame a prominent tripcode poster who goes by the name of "eggman". Obviously 4chan being 4chan, they didn't like this "tripfag" for not embracing the anonymity of the site and have doxxed him before in the past. He has since quit the site, but now they've reported him to various news outlets, etc. saying he was the killer. He's has since come forward and confirmed it was not him. Must really suck for him (these news outlets did do reports on him, his life/past, etc.) Wonder where he stands.
Israel is quite a different situation. I very much doubt the way to lower gun deaths is giving everyone a weapon?!
Or I suppose you could do it that way. Give em to everyone. People that don't want them can give them back. For those that do you'd quickly realise that the mentally ill, alcoholics, criminals etc probably aren't the best folk to have walking around with lethal weapons and put some stronger, what are they called again? Oh yeah, controls in!
I agree, but those deaths, tragic though they are fail to even make a slight elevation on the graph, such is the sheer difference in ratios between the two
Just mind boggling there is still continued 'acceptance & support' from the NRA and alike
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2011
- Posts
- 4,418
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
Reading it back that's a fair point.
I was going to post something similar.
The Israeli situation is far closer to what the Second Amendment states than what the U.S. situation is (given that the Israeli's are all well trained having been part of the armed forces and are part of "a well regulated militia" by means of being part of the reserves).
At the moment the chances are if more people were armed around the schools/colleges most of them would probably not be that well trained in the use of their guns, and you could easily end up with a situation where you get more deaths/injuries from the people reacting to the shooting than the original shooter (you'd also have a lot more confusion as people wouldn't know who the original shooter was as they arrived on scene, and instead have several people with guns out).
The whole thing is tragic, and unfortunately there is no easy/fast way out of it, guns are simply too much a part of the culture and there are so many of them.
To my mind a good start, and a relatively simple one would be to require all guns to be registered, and whenever you buy a gun you had to either take a mandatory class in it's use and safety*, or show you had a current/recent certificate for having taken one. It wouldn't stop the deliberate shootings but would likely cut down a lot on the accidental ones which would be a start.
*Which would be fully in line with what would be expected of a "well regulated militia" - back in the day guns were not easy to use, so training and practice would have been expected.
I agree, but those deaths, tragic though they are fail to even make a slight elevation on the graph, such is the sheer difference in ratios between the two
Just mind boggling there is still continued 'acceptance & support' from the NRA and alike
Well that chart can't be used for that argument. How many terroristsvsimply never bothered due to fear of being caught and how many have been stopped in the act. By said funding. And NRA and other such groups don't use logic. They use addmendment and fear. Don't you know there a mass killer rapist on every corner waiting to rape your wife then kill you.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
The idea that line refers to the general public owning guns is highly debatable anyway. The US Army constitutes a "well-armed-militia" does it not?
No. A militia is not a professional fighting force. The Ulster Volunteers and the Irish Volunteers were both militias. Until they were absorbed into the British army and became the 16th and 36th.
I don't post but I do find it amusing to read the comments posted
It isn't the first time 4chan members have had an affect on the outcome out it's members. Some of them either don't think before they post, or literally just don't care.