PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it? (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/549775-usa-gun-thread-wont-controversial-will.html)

BOING 2nd Nov 2014 17:12

Mixture

More BS.

I am not interested in solutions that have worked in other countries that just happen to have a legal system that are different to the US. I need you to supply an idea that will work in the US with all of the complications involved. Don't you think people in the US have been searching for this solution? You talk as though the US is making no effort to solve this problem which shows how little you know.

Your vaunted suggestions are totally pointless and a waste of time unless they address the specific US conditions.

You have been told that 65% of the US population does not favor gun control.
You know about the 2nd Amendment.
You know the political reality.

Where are you going to act? What do you know that the US population does not? What miracle can you perform to save us?

.

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 17:18


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8724954)
I'll live with it Seldom. Give it your best shot, stay on the subject, tell me what you think, don't feel you have to hold back. The field is yours old horse. Come on I'm waiting.

Cut the BS and justify your comment even though it is one of your usual, by now conditioned, attempts at distracting from the true discussion.

You can't tell me how you would handle gun control in the US even if you had the chance.
The Mrs. Lanza distraction blew up in your face when you had to deal with facts.
Your side-track into broken (or whatever it was) legs did not last long.
The car diversion did not work.

Let's see what you can come up with this time.

.


.


First article Giggle threw up


UK Gun Ownership Up, Deaths Down Offering Stark Comparison with US Figures*|*Dan Ehrlich


Gun deaths last year in the UK at 51 were down by 18 percent , yet private gun ownership continues to grow with 1.8 million legally held. Obviously there's no way of telling how many illegal guns are in circulation. But, before you begin yelling for even tighter gun laws, compare this to the annual American bloodbath.Gun ownership in England and Wales: get the figures in your police force | News | The Guardian
In 2010 there were 12,996 murders in the US. Of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms. But, that figure is small compared to accidental shooting deaths which brings the annual total to more than 30,000.Gun crime statistics by US state: download the data. Visualised | World news | The Guardian


As I said going down the comparison route was never going to be a good outcome for you....................and its written by an American.

mixture 2nd Nov 2014 17:25


Is this your idea of reasonableness, mixture?
No.

The "pro-gun nuts" are those people who cannot see the wood for the trees and come up with the most ludicrously stupid attempts at comparisons or counter-arguments.

I'm perfectly willing to listen to the point of view those who wish to own guns as long as they put forward rational statements.

mixture 2nd Nov 2014 17:29

BOING,

Seriously ? :rolleyes: :ugh:

You say


One of you, any one of you, you bleating sheep, could suggest a practical legal way to control gun violence in the US.
A few suggestions are provided, and then you say.....


I am not interested in solutions that have worked in other countries
and

Your vaunted suggestions are totally pointless and a waste of time
If you're not willing to listen to reasonable suggestions, then why ask for them in the first place ?


What miracle can you perform to save us?
Quite frankly, it seems nobody can save the Americans from themselves. :rolleyes:

brickhistory 2nd Nov 2014 17:31


I'm perfectly willing to listen to the point of view those who wish to own
guns as long as they put forward rational statements.
However many pages here call you a liar.

I can posses firearms simply because I exist as an American citizen with no felony convictions.

The government cannot decide for me that I may not posses them without me taking some sort of illegal action to make me a felon.

There is no 'argument' to that statement of fact.

You may not like the fact, but it exists nonetheless.

mixture 2nd Nov 2014 17:35


The government cannot decide for me that I may not posses them without me taking some sort of illegal action to make me a felon.
And there we have the crux of the issue.

You're one of those people who considers the second amendment to be set in stone, never to be touched. A document written how many hundreds of years ago in a completely different socio-economic era and different political landscape.

The USA's refusal to even take de-minimis common-sense actions such as mandatory licensing and training is what shocks the rest of the world (well, that, and the fact you lot are prepared to sit back and accept all the slaughters that occur at your educational establishments as a price worth paying for leaving the second amendment untouched).

John Hill 2nd Nov 2014 17:38

It is a great tragedy that the American colonists choose to severe their relationship with the Crown of England by means of insurrection and violence instead of working through the process as done in Canada, Australia and NZ.

Furthermore, the descendants of those American colonists have been left with a legacy of such fear and insecurity that they feel they must be forever armed and ready to stand against their own chosen government regardless of the cost even the lives of children and others among the most vulnerable of their society..

Mr Chips 2nd Nov 2014 17:42


In 2010 there were 12,996 murders in the US. Of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms. But, that figure is small compared to accidental shooting deaths which brings the annual total to more than 30,000
wait a minute, where the f:mad:k did that number come from? 20,000 accidental shootings in one year?


Unintentional Deaths and Injuries
In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ? Gun Law Information Experts

Perhaps you are including suicide with accidental shooting?

Suicide
Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths

421dog 2nd Nov 2014 17:48

While we worry about the children, John, we worry a lot more about your ilk.

We're happy being nice to each other around here.

People with legally owned firearms tend to remarkably polite. Much more so than those who would still have them should they be outlawed.

I've also noticed that there isn't anyone around here who feels it necessary to eat grass, unlike in your preferred haunt north of the 38th parallel.

goudie 2nd Nov 2014 17:50

My American Son-in Law has guns. A 9mm pistol and a repeater shotgun. He's a former USMC officer. To him having a gun is no different to having a car, a house, a TV, food on the table etc.
It just goes with the territory.
That's the mind state that we Europeans can't and probably never will, understand.
By the way, although he's a former (never say ex) USM he's a perfect gentlemen.

brickhistory 2nd Nov 2014 17:54


You're one of those people who considers the second amendment to be set in stone, never to be touched. A document written how many hundreds of years ago in a completely different socio-economic era and different political landscape.
As has been explained patiently over and over and over, there is a perfectly functional method contained within our system of government for changing the Constitution.

As we started out with 10 Amendments and are up to 29(?) at present, we have demonstrated to ourselves that the process works.

Yet no serious challenge to the Second Amendment has ever been mounted.

Apparently, we don't want to change it. What you want is meaningless.


The USA's refusal to even take de-minimis common-sense actions such as mandatory licensing and training is what shocks the rest of the world (well, that, and the act you lot are prepared to sit back and accept all the slaughters that occur at your educational establishments as a price worth paying for leaving the second amendment untouched).
Yep. Savage and exceptional, that's us. What the world, who collectively have been able to accomplish...er...well, let's move on...

"Common-sense actions" to you might not be to me.

"Common sense" regarding other inconvenient protections contained within the U.S. Constitution means fighting to uphold its supremacy versus that of any political party or man.

If I agree to negotiate away a part that you don't like, what prevents someone else from negotiating away a part you do? "You" in this case means liberal Americans, not irrelevant foreigners.

Mr. Limosine Liberal doesn't want me to have a gun. I don't think he should have a right from illegal "search and seizure." (Note, for illustrating a point, not my personal belief)

Is he right and I'm wrong because he dislikes something I don't?

Bray all you want, but we're keeping our Constitution. We will change it, or not, as we deem necessary.

Not you. Never you. We just aren't that into you.

As the dearth of replies on the UK gun thread shows, no one really cares what you do.

BOING 2nd Nov 2014 17:58

Seldom

Mate, your Queens in play.


Publication Firearm Violence, 1993-2011

Michael Planty, Ph.D., Jennifer L. Truman, Ph.D.

May 7, 2013 NCJ 241730

Presents trends on the number and rate of fatal and nonfatal firearm violence from 1993 to 2011. The report examines incident and victim demographic characteristics of firearm violence, including the type of firearm used; victim's race, age, and sex; and incident location. The report also examines changes over time in the percentages of nonfatal firearm crimes by injury, reporting to the police, and the use of firearms in self-defense. Information on homicide was obtained primarily from the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) National Vital Statistics System. Nonfatal firearm violence data are from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which collects information on nonfatal crimes reported and not reported to the police against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households.

Highlights:

Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011.
Nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69%, from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 victimizations in 2011.
.

mixture 2nd Nov 2014 18:02


Yet no serious challenge to the Second Amendment has ever been mounted.
Perhaps that's because the pro-gun nut lobby lead by the NRA marches up Capitol Hill and twists the politicians arms any time it hears an inkling that someone might be contemplating doing something about guns.

Don't try to pretend it doesn't happen, we know US politics heavily influenced by lobbyists and their money (afterall, who gets the master bedroom at the Whitehouse is pretty much a factor of who has spent the most money on their election campaign).

US politicians need to grow some nuts, stick one finger up at the pro-gun lobbyists and do what they are supposed to as legislators !

BOING 2nd Nov 2014 18:02

Mixture.
Come on, you are smarter than that so you must be fighting a desperate retreat.
The reason I am not interested in solutions that worked in other countries is that their laws are different to US laws - I made that clear.


Your vaunted suggestions are totally pointless and a waste of time unless they address the specific US conditions.
Now, stop relying on pathetic smoke screens and answer the question.

Give us an answer that would work in the US not Middle-Plonkovania.


The USA's refusal to even take de-minimis common-sense actions such as mandatory licensing and training is what shocks the rest of the world (well, that, and the fact you lot are prepared to sit back and accept all the slaughters that occur at your educational establishments as a price worth paying for leaving the second amendment untouched).
Another pearl. This problem has been wrestled with in the US since the 1930s. The recent, very recent, change is that the problem of guns in crime has been overshadowed by guns in school and guns in criminal gangs. The fact that no magical solution to the reduction in gun violence is due to the size of the problem not lack of effort. Recently Bloomberg gave 3.4 million dollars to gun control efforts, an amount that would hurt some countries budget. Stop making stupid comments about the US not trying to solve the problem.


.

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 18:05


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8725090)
Seldom

Mate, your Queens in play.


You really want to do the stats thing?


Gun Crime


Wont make pleasant reading mate, trust me.

mixture 2nd Nov 2014 18:06


The reason I am not interested in solutions that worked in other countries is that their laws are different to US laws
Right .... so now you're saying your lawmakers are so dumb they are unable to draft new pieces of legislation from scratch ?

They seem to have managed to introduce all sorts of legislation post-911 without too much difficulty, so why have they suddenly lost their ability to draft legislation when it comes to guns ? :cool:

John Hill 2nd Nov 2014 18:08


Originally Posted by 421dog
While we worry about the children, John, we worry a lot more about your ilk.

Paranoia is a serious condition.

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 18:14


Originally Posted by brickhistory (Post 8725053)
However many pages here call you a liar.

I can posses firearms simply because I exist as an American citizen with no felony convictions.

The government cannot decide for me that I may not posses them without me taking some sort of illegal action to make me a felon.

There is no 'argument' to that statement of fact.

You may not like the fact, but it exists nonetheless.


That's not strictly true though is it.......


Who Cannot Have a Gun in America? - U.S. Government Info/Resources

Mr Chips 2nd Nov 2014 18:16

Seldom you checked those accidental shooting figures yet?

AnQrKa 2nd Nov 2014 18:17

There is a very obvious link between gun availability and gun homicide, particularly HAND guns.

These are some of the most widely recognized studies conducted. All concluded the same thing.

Harvard school of public health:

“Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.”

Boston University (most in depth study of gun homicide conducted)

Harvard Injury Control Research Center:

"The evidence is very compelling. There are more gun murder in areas with more guns, and more murder overall”

Journal of the American Medical Association:

“Conclusions and Relevance A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state.”

American Psychological Association

New England Journal of Medicine

“The study found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide.”

The saddest thing about the gun debate in America is that very few people are aware of the Dickey Amendment that prohibits federal funding of any study that concludes that gun control would be effective.

PTT 2nd Nov 2014 18:18

BOING

What a joke. Is that why the driver abandoned the car and made a run for it? Since this was LA it is probably an illegal alien with no drivers license.
Sigh. Yes, we know some people are criminals. We know this. But the fact that there are restrictions on who can and cannot legally have access to cars means that there is a hurdle in the way of the "mowing down innocents" scenario. The more hurdles the less chance of it happening, but there will always be incidents. That doesn't mean that the number of incidents has to stay the same.

OK PTT you are coopted. What action, specifically, would you take if you could impose legislation on the US? Let us have a practical solution that could actually be turned into law.
Several options spring to mind, including:
Making training mandatory at State level would appear to be palatable for some here. Make federal funding on certain items require a State-wide training system. No need to register the guns, just have state law mandate that ownership requires the training be passed.
Provision of state-run armouries in towns would help make it harder for people to get at weapons, as would a law requiring a minimum level of security for a firearm.
All of this could be paid for by placing large tax burdens on firearms or on ammunition. Sure, you can make your own of both, but it's another hurdle between the Lanzas of this world and another Sandy Hook.

No, it's not perfect. No system short of banning guns will be. But it will very likely be better in terms of preventing gun deaths.

After all I do understand by your use of "we" in the post you feel that you have the right to intervene in American society.
Don't be an arse, the comment was in the general context rather than specifically talking about the US. Read the comment again.

brickhistory

Interesting to note that not one of the Don Quixote High Horse Brigade (Light) directly answered by query regarding government-mandated CCTV in their personal homes to help combat child abuse.
I certainly did. The premise of your proposal is flawed: if the state authorities knew about the issue then what help will telling the state authorities be?

But no simple 'yes' or 'no' to the question of "would you give up more of your personal liberty if it saved one child from abuse?"
False dilemma. Try a yes or no answer to this one: have you stopped beating your wife yet?

brickhistory 2nd Nov 2014 18:25


That's not strictly true though is it.......
It is absolutely, unequivacably true.

I own multiple firearms.

I have asked no government agency's nor person's permission to do so.

I require no government agency's continued forbearance for me to continue possessing said firearms unless I take such actions that make me a convicted threat to society.


if the state authorities knew about the issue then what help will telling the state authorities be?
Ironic, innit?


goudie, please thank your SIL for his service and responsible (at his choice) gun ownership.

BOING 2nd Nov 2014 18:27

Seldom
I know this thread is growing rapidly but you must pay attention or you'll miss things old chap. Do try to keep up.


Quote:
I am pretty sure going down the comparison route is not in your best interest with regards to this subject.........
I'll live with it Seldom. Give it your best shot, stay on the subject, tell me what you think, don't feel you have to hold back. The field is yours old horse. Come on I'm waiting.

Cut the BS and justify your comment even though it is one of your usual, by now conditioned, attempts at distracting from the true discussion.

You can't tell me how you would handle gun control in the US even if you had the chance.
The Mrs. Lanza distraction blew up in your face when you had to deal with facts.
Your side-track into broken (or whatever it was) legs did not last long.
The car diversion did not work.

Let's see what you can come up with this time.

.

bcgallacher 2nd Nov 2014 18:28

Boing did you just delete one of your posts?
You asked the question of what could be done to reduce your gun crime. The answer to that is absolutely nothing.I do not believe that any legislation would make any significant difference. Hundreds of millions of guns are already in the hands of your citizens - the responsible,the irresponsible,the mad and the bad.The result of this is is that the usual gun killings will be supplemented on a monthly basis with mass killings in schools and workplaces by morons who have a grievance. The situation you have is not of your making but what happened in the past. You are suffering from the law of unintended consequences. Do you really think that those who wrote the second amendment ever envisaged that you would shoot yourselves and others at the rate of 30,000 a year? It would have taken a lot of imagination. I envy you not.

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 18:29

Lets try again



Originally Posted by brickhistory (Post 8725053)
However many pages here call you a liar.

I can posses firearms simply because I exist as an American citizen with no felony convictions.

The government cannot decide for me that I may not posses them without me taking some sort of illegal action to make me a felon.

There is no 'argument' to that statement of fact.

You may not like the fact, but it exists nonetheless.


That's not strictly true is it?


Who Cannot Have a Gun in America? - U.S. Government Info/Resources

BOING 2nd Nov 2014 18:43

bcg
I did not intentionally but I suppose I may have been "modded".:) I'll check, I may have edited and lost it, sorry if I did.

Now, where was I? Ah yes. Mixture again with the comprehension problems.


Quote:
The reason I am not interested in solutions that worked in other countries is that their laws are different to US laws
Right .... so now you're saying your lawmakers are so dumb they are unable to draft new pieces of legislation from scratch ?

They seem to have managed to introduce all sorts of legislation post-911 without too much difficulty, so why have they suddenly lost their ability to draft legislation when it comes to guns ?
2nd Nov 2014 19:05
Because, as has been said many times but which you refuse to understand is that this problem is more complex. You bring up 911, let's add terrorism in general. Ask people if they want to be saved from hijacked aircraft, 95% will say yes. Ask people if they want to be protected from terrorism and 95% will answer yes. Gun control is a different far more personal matter. Get this for the last time because you have been told this before and ignored it, put it on your notepad or something so that you will see it before you make another hasty post -

84% of Americans want something done about gun violence.
65% of Americans do not want possession of firearms banned.

OK, read that again just to make sure you understand it - the last time I checked 65% was a majority but the 84% response clearly shows Americans are concerned about gun violence. Now, be a good chap and consider this when you wonder why more is not done on the political front. American politicians are not the greatest but in this case their actions reflect the desires of the majority of the population which is their job. Now, your politicians and people like you may believe in steamrollering the majority but it probably wont happen here.


.

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 18:49


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8725143)
84% of Americans want something done about gun violence.
65% of Americans do not want possession of firearms banned.


An interesting question would be what % of US citizens think something could be done to combat gun violence without resorting to any bans?

John Hill 2nd Nov 2014 18:52

I see that posts are being 'disappeared' from this topic so please carry on without me.

mixture 2nd Nov 2014 18:59


Because, as has been said many times but which you refuse to understand is that this problem is more complex. You bring up 911, let's add terrorism in general. Ask people if they want to be saved from hijacked aircraft, 95% will say yes. Ask people if they want to be protected from terrorism and 95% will answer yes. Gun control is a different far more personal matter.

Right, so basically you're saying if an american-born muslim fundamentalist turned up at a school and blew himself up using explosives bought in the USA, and killed a couple of children, you would be more than happy for legislation to be introduced to combat home-born US citizen fundamentalists .....

And yet month after month, year after year.... Tom, Dick and Harry turn up at schools and slaughter kids.... and the politicians are not allowed to touch guns because you consider the second amendment to be sacrosanct.

It really is a bit of a joke that you run scared of some terrorists because they managed to attack you once on your home turf, and introduce all sorts of knee-jerk nonsense legislation as a result of ONE attack.... and yet there is absolutely no willingness whatsoever to do de-minimis common-sense when it comes to guns which are used in attacks month after month, year after year !

Mr Chips 2nd Nov 2014 19:06


and introduce all sorts of knee-jerk nonsense legislation as a result of ONE attack
err, yeah...slightly embarrassing....you just described UK gun law.....

mixture 2nd Nov 2014 19:17


err, yeah...slightly embarrassing....you just described UK gun law.....
Actually no, there have been gun laws in various forms in the UK since 1903.

Mr Chips 2nd Nov 2014 19:20

So there wasn't new legislation hastily enacted after every mass shooting? Legislation that could be described as "knee-jerk nonsense"?

(Hint, our Olympic shooters have to train overseas)

mixture 2nd Nov 2014 19:27


Hint, our Olympic shooters have to train overseas
Bolleux.... absolute Bolleux.

From "2012 BRIEFING NOTE FOR PROSPECTIVE SHOOTING ATHLETES"


You will probably be aware that the Home Secretary has agreed in principle to allow cartridge pistol training in England and Wales for those aspiring to compete at the Olympic Games in 2012. However, to ensure public safety, the Home Office will impose certain conditions on this activity. The first is that all cartridge pistol training will be administered by British Shooting, and access to cartridge pistols will be strictly limited to those genuinely attempting to achieve Olympic Games selection. The second is that all cartridge pistol shooting will take place on specifically approved Ministry of Defence ranges. There will be a number of regional Cartridge Pistol Training Centres (CPTCs) across the country, each located at a suitable Ministry of Defence range and based wherever possible on existing regional squad arrangements.

Lord Spandex Masher 2nd Nov 2014 19:34


Originally Posted by Mr Chips (Post 8725185)
So there wasn't new legislation hastily enacted after every mass shooting? Legislation that could be described as "knee-jerk nonsense"?

You mean all THREE mass shootings....ever?

Mr Chips 2nd Nov 2014 19:35

So rather than answer my question about legislation following mass shootings (correct answer - yes there was) you quote a special exemption for a one off event...so to have had an exemption one rather suspects that there must have been a law in the first place for the exemption to be necessary....

mixture 2nd Nov 2014 19:37


So rather than answer my question about legislation following mass shootings (correct answer - yes there was) you quote a special exemption for a one off event
How about you read the last few words at the end of that statement :

"based wherever possible on existing regional squad arrangements."


i.e. They were already doing shooting training in the UK before the run-up to 2012, and no doubt are still doing so now !

Mr Chips 2nd Nov 2014 19:45

Oh Mixture, how embarrassing for you, after you used big letters and everything.

Lets go back to a 2005 report on BBC news....


The government has been urged to relax gun laws which make it illegal for Britain's top pistol shooters to train in England, Scotland and Wales.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke has given special permission for pistol events to be staged at the London 2012 Olympics.

But British team members face having to do all their 2012 preparations abroad.
You can read the whole report here... BBC SPORT | Other Sport... | Olympics 2012 | Shooters seek handgun law change but you won't like it because it says things like

Team members currently spend about 20 to 30 days a year training in Switzerland, and receive no funding because their events are illegal in the UK.
So, errr...I was right then.....

421dog 2nd Nov 2014 19:52

John, it's not even close.

You support a hideously homicidal regime that is arguably the worst case of abuse that has ever existed in the history of humanity.

I support freedom.

Interestingly, people are breaking down our doors to get in.

Whereas your actual country relies chiefly on the British having been, (once upon a time), impressed with the native's warlike nature which resulted in provision of citizenship (for first-world credibility and resultant ongoing immigrant pressure).

As for your adopted country, it is unequivocally the worst Sh1thole in the world, wherein people sell out their entire extended families to rape, torture and murder for generations in an effort to leave.

I have no time for you.

You are a plague on legitimate humanity as the result of your support of that which is indisputably evil.

Your opinions are of no relevance, and you have the distinction of becoming the first person I have ever, in the history of my internet experience, placed on an ignore list.

Dushan 2nd Nov 2014 21:10


Originally Posted by mixture (Post 8724977)
The "bleating sheep" have suggested many practical ways.
You may also look around the world for many practical ways it has been successfully implemented.

All you are suggesting are the end measures. Fine, I may even agree with some of them. But, and it is a big "but", you have to enact these measure through laws and those laws have to be constitutional.

Now, as BOEING suggested, assume the position of one of the lawmakers. What specific steps would you take in order to arrive to the desired goal/activity? Remember you are only one of 539. Each one of you has 100s of thousands constituents behind you. You need to act in their best interest, and if they don't see it as such you are out, in two or 6 years.

So where do you start?

galaxy flyer 2nd Nov 2014 21:16

There's a huge, make that HUGE, difference in the cultures. In Europe, centuries of ruling royalty kept weapons and wild game pretty much for themselves. For reasons that are mostly the reasons we wrote in the Second Amendment--the possibility of revolt! Which is also why slaves and emancipated slaves were the targets of gun control measures under slavery and later under Jim Crow. Europeans/Brits never had a civil culture of gun ownership, so they are shocked at our civil tradition. When the king said "no guns for you"; it was accepted and that was it. Pat the same time in the US, owning a gun was a requirement for defense against Indians and for food. Not owning a gun wasn't an option in colonial America. Aussies, well we know why you don't have guns--you were already convicts and we don't allow convicts to have guns in the US.

The postings go on about school shootings, but never about other well-published events in the US. When I was young, the story of In Cold Blood was real. The Clutter family were murdered out in rural Kansas. It was the equal of the Cheshire, Ct murders. This are as searing to many as the school shootings are to you. Wide swaths of rural America have scarcely changed since Capote's book. Recently, a retired game warden shot a large bear in his kitchen, in Florida. A state where just this Holloween, kids treat or treating was cancelled due to the large, aggressive wild hog population. Melbourne, Florida--near suburbia. It is these things that encourage and justify guns in the house.

In Indiana, a cop pulled over a speeder recently. He was surprised at the registration check showed the owner had a carry license. More surprised still, when the driver was an 80+ year old woman who politely admitted she was speeding. He then asked about the carry license. She nicely said the .45 was in the glove compartment. He asked to see, she handed it over with, "careful, it's loaded". Cop then asked if she had any other guns. "Why yes, officer, a snub nosed .38 S&W. She showed to him. He finally asked what she was afraid of. "Nothing". This is America, not anywhere else.

Malcolm X and many civil rights leaders were adamant about their gun rights and openly carried guns like many people have been doing the last 6 years. The South was settled by Scots-Irish who lived in fear of slave revolts; not surprisingly, the South is still the most violent region outside the inner cities.

We have a hugely misguided drug war which is largely the cause of the huge black murder rates, 2/3rds of American murders, in fact. Another artifact of a regrettable racial history.

I'm not posting over at the UK handgun thread because I don't care what you lot do. I do think it was overkill. It was also possible because guns were much more controlled in the UK than ever was here. With 280 million guns, a similar effort is simply NOT possible here.

You Brits want the UK rates of homicide rates to be a goal for the US. That ain't happening.

When a problem defies solution, it's not a problem, it's a fact. Get over it.

GF


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:59.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.