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)

rgbrock1 17th Dec 2014 13:50

Not trying to speak for Bob, Hempy, but I don't think that's what he's trying to do. What he is trying to point out is, that regardless of whether or not Pakistan is a 3rd world shit hole or not, is it okay for hundreds of kids to be gunned down regardless? and if it is not then why no faux outrage being expressed by the usual suspects?

FakePilot 17th Dec 2014 13:52


Bob wrote:

Quote:
How do you explain the difference in reaction to the Sandy Hook and Pakistan School events?
The silence is deafening Bob. It really is.
The difference is lone nutter versus an organized effort of many. Once you have a group of people attack at once in the US then you can compare.
Because at that point, societal issues instead of mental issues are the driving force.

Hempy 17th Dec 2014 14:03

rgbrock1, it's a fair point. I would suggest that while the events in Pakistan are in fact an absolute outrage, sadly no one is surprised. It's a bad place and bad things happen, perpetrated by bad people.

I guess the difference is that maybe the rest of the world expects better from the country that freely portrays itself as 'USA - World's Best Practice'. Perhaps we just believe the propaganda.

Boudreaux Bob 17th Dec 2014 14:17

Fake,

I disagree.

The Oz guy was a Nutcase as was Lanza in Sandy Hook and the Taliban in Pakistan are just as Nuts in their obscene beliefs.

Sandy Hook was not Islamic Radicalism on display but both Oz and Pakistan were.

Oz and Pakistan were not coordinated in all liklihood.

In Pakistan and Sandy Hook the target was a School and in each both Students and Teachers were killed.

In Pakistan, a far greater number of Children were killed and a Female Teacher was burned to Death in front of her Students.

The level of violence in the Pakistan attack was far greater, involved multiple gunmen, and caused far more dead and wounded than Sandy Hook.

In the Western media and here at this forum there was very little said about the Pakistan attack as compared to Sandy Hook.

Are Pakistani Children less important than American Children?

I suggest decent people all over the World should be just as angry over the Pakistani Kids as they were over the American Kids and if you are not then I have to wonder about the moral values that allow for that to be.

To discount the attack as being just another Terrorist attack and somehow mitigate the evil of it by saying that is abhorrent to me. In my view that makes it far worse than it being the result of a Clinically Insane Person who illegally gets hold of a firearm and slaughters innocent people due to a mental problem. Both are evil and tragic and warrant condemnation.

Lonewolf_50 17th Dec 2014 14:25


Originally Posted by Hempy (Post 8786813)
Perhaps we just believe the propaganda.

Perhaps.
Here's a thought for you: maybe the Pakistan case isn't getting the crowd here up in arms due to the inherent bias against brown people imbedded in the upper middle class in the British Isles. The typical PPRuNe user from the UK seems to fit that profile.
And maybe not. It's tough to make such a general estimate and catch the nail on the head.

I admit to having very low expectations for Pakistan in general, even though it is a very populous country with distinct regional and cultural sub groups and not just some blob of foreigners "over there." My bias comes from recent experience in dealing with their officialdom as Operation Enduring Freedom progressed. My previous attitude was more or less neutral.

It may take a while for my negative feeling for that nation to recede.

I think that this is a matter of chickens coming home to roost, this recent edition of the Taliban laying waste to schoolchildren. The ISI and various other parts of Pakistani officialdom aided and abetted the Taliban in their seeking refuge and succor after the US and its numerous allies (NATO and non NATO) laid the lumber on them early in OEF. Their reasons are and were their own, and may have made some sense among policy makers at the time.
The price being paid should come as no surprise.

bcgallacher 17th Dec 2014 17:01

For an American to talk about racial bias in the UK is amusing to say the least. As far as the Pakistani school massacre is concerned be aware that the Pakistani Taliban over the last few years have been bombing and shooting up Mosques of Shia and other minority Islamic groups also doing the same thing to Christian churches. This has all been done with the silent aquiescence of the majority Sunni who really were not unhappy about that - the government took little action to prevent these kind of events. It appears that the Taliban have torn up the rule book and it will be interesting to see if any real action is taken as opposed to a lot of bombastic statements.

421dog 17th Dec 2014 20:59


For an American to talk about racial bias in the UK is amusing to say the least
Whatever.

I have been utterly appalled at the stead in which you all publicly and unapologetically hold the Roma, despite their many transgressions.

I can guarantee you that there are a half-dozen more troublesome minorities in this country, up with whom we patiently put.

You are markedly more racist than are we.

Lonewolf_50 17th Dec 2014 21:40

bcg:
The casual use of racial epithets by my colleagues who were from the various British Isles addresses, when I worked on an international staff, were very un PC and often took me by surprise.

You all are very comfortable in your racism, to the point that I don't think you notice it. You are on the inside. I was an outsider, looking in, and was quite surprised.

To reply to your opening sentence: any of you lot having a go at a Yank about racism and racist attitudes has a lot of damned gall, not to mention lacking a thing called "self awareness."

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

EDIT: Apologies to you all for the potential thread drift away from the main topic, which is whinging about guns in the US by foreigners. I'll not contribute to this diversion any further, mea cupla.

Seldomfitforpurpose 17th Dec 2014 21:55


Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 (Post 8787488)
There are none so blind as those who will not see.


Meanwhile today in the US Capitol


BBC News - Washington march: Civil rights protest over US police killings :=

Lord Spandex Masher 17th Dec 2014 22:04


Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 (Post 8787488)
bcg:
The casual use of racial epithets by my colleagues who were from the various British Isles addresses, when I worked on an international staff, were very un PC and often took me by surprise.

Is different to


the inherent bias against brown people imbedded in the upper middle class in the British Isles
@

Seldomfitforpurpose 17th Dec 2014 22:04

Meanwhile in Montana

Montana man convicted in German exchange student's death

421dog 17th Dec 2014 23:49

And, it's still ok, you guys will continue to pillory the gypsies, the wogs and the kaffirs as is your wont.

I have challenged denizens of the empire on this blog (please search before you ban me) about your use of each of these epithets specifically, and have been specifically upbraided.

You are a bunch of hypocrites...

Hempy 18th Dec 2014 07:21

John Howard, conservative 4 term Prime Minister of Australia. About us 'un huggy fluffy Leftie' as you can get...

John Howard: Gun laws make Australia safer

porch monkey 18th Dec 2014 07:35

Yep, it's safer because he said so. Show us some numbers, then we might believe it.

Seldomfitforpurpose 18th Dec 2014 08:37

He did mention a couple of facts in that interview with regards to gun deaths which sound quite accurate.

porch monkey 18th Dec 2014 08:46

Sure he did. Facts according to his beliefs. But no numbers, no references. Just his beliefs. Sorry, not good enough. The pro and antis love to make figures say what they need them to. Show me. Demonstrate your superior position. Then you might convince me.

Seldomfitforpurpose 18th Dec 2014 09:05

From the interview

ALEXANDRA KIRK: If you apply Senator Leyonhjelm's argument to this week's siege in Martin Place, which is presumably what's prompted him to say this, the suggestion is that if one of the hostages had been armed, in other words, had a concealed gun, they could have protected themselves against the gunman.

JOHN HOWARD: That's an example - with the deepest of respect of generalising from a particular set of circumstances - the truth is that in countries that have laxer gun laws, the likelihood of people who obtain a gun legally then using it for murderous, even terrorist purposes is much greater.

There's no country in the world that can have a system of gun licensing and registration which can guarantee that somebody who gets a licence and buys a gun in accordance with the law won't later on use that for a purpose perhaps he or she never had in mind when the gun was purchased.

It's just an exercise in logic to understand that the more guns there are in the community, the greater the likelihood of mass murder.

If you want a clear example of what he says then look no further than this

BBC News - Pennsylvania shootings: Six dead, gunman on the run

Lonewolf_50 18th Dec 2014 13:19

I guess you don't understand what a representative sample is, LSM.

Also, different from.

Boudreaux Bob 18th Dec 2014 13:39

SFFP,

You may want to check the articles that report the finding of his body in the woods where he committed suicide which also reports other details on how the murders were perpetrated. After that, you may want to amend your comments.

The Gunman committed Suicide but did not use a gun to do it. He used a knife.

Some of the Victims had both Knife and gunshot wounds....it will take an autopsy to determine the actual cause of death.

I am not trying to remove the Gun from the tragedy but rather to add to the discussion there are more facts surrounding the event than are necessarily being reported by the Media.

As usual the Media fails to report the story accurately and push their Anti-Gun Agenda.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/us...ley-stone.html

Multiple Research Studies have proven that Legally carried Concealed Weapons reduce Crime Rates due to Criminals being reluctant to confront armed victims.

Other Studies also confirm that Legal Gun Owners rarely ever commit gun crimes.

What is not reported is ILLEGAL GUN OWNERS always commit gun crimes even if it is only the Illegal Possession of the Firearm.

Reading what you posted as being John Howard's statement.....I would be very concerned if anyone gave that particular statement any credence whatsoever.

If we used that kind of thinking in real life then we would have to do away with Cars out of a fear someone would drive drunk and kill a bunch of pedestrians, or deny private pilots the ability to fly airplanes for fear they would grow suicidal and crash an airplane into a School Building or Sports Stadium.

The Killer you mention was having Psychological problems and had a history of drug use issues (probably due to the Veterans Administration way of addressing PTSD).

At some point perhaps he should have not had access to Firearms and this is yet another example of the "System" failing, beginning with the Family not raising concerns about him with the Authorities.

Using a single News report, especially just one from the BBC, is something that needs to be done carefully.

Seldomfitforpurpose 18th Dec 2014 23:18


Originally Posted by Boudreaux Bob (Post 8788323)
Some of the Victims had both Knife and gunshot wounds....it will take an autopsy to determine the actual cause of death.


Yeah, my bad, perhaps I should of just stuck with Sandy Hook etc to make my point :rolleyes:

galaxy flyer 18th Dec 2014 23:28


There's no country in the world that can have a system of gun licensing and registration which can guarantee that somebody who gets a licence and buys a gun in accordance with the law won't later on use that for a purpose perhaps he or she never had in mind when the gun was purchased.
SFFP,

That could be said about my car or a bottle of Scotch. What's that prove. I have a dozen or so guns, what happens 20 years on isn't predictable, should I be deprived now for what I or someone else, known or unknown, might do in the future? That's preventative law. Censorship.

GF

Seldomfitforpurpose 18th Dec 2014 23:29


Originally Posted by Boudreaux Bob (Post 8789122)
That is a good example of the system failing and family not reporting Mental Problems to the Authorities.


What system failing?


Is there a system whereby Mrs Lanza with a mentally disturbed child is banned from buying and owning her weapons?

Seldomfitforpurpose 18th Dec 2014 23:37


Originally Posted by galaxy flyer (Post 8789129)
SFFP,

That could be said about my car or a bottle of Scotch. What's that prove. I have a dozen or so guns, what happens 20 years on isn't predictable, should I be deprived now for what I or someone else, known or unknown, might do in the future? That's preventative law. Censorship.

GF


If someone drives their car too fast or DIU etc your laws deprive them of the right to continue to do that. That's no guarantee that ban will work but in a normal Law centric society that's how things pan out. Is stopping drunk drivers and speeders preventative Law and censorship?

galaxy flyer 18th Dec 2014 23:48

But, we don't stop them from drinking BEFORE they have an accident. DUI rarely eliminates them from driving in the future except in very extreme cases (US)

The system didn't fail, Mrs. Lanza failed the system aka society.
GF

rh200 18th Dec 2014 23:51

The argument about guns and whether you have more gun deaths is irrelevant, of course you do, instead of using a knife you might use another tool. By basic common sense you can assume more gun crime and death with more guns.

The real question is, do you get more crime and death overall with more guns, that is a lot harder to understand and state unequivocally due to all the social factors involved in each society.

My gut feeling is yes, but to what level?

Which brings in the senators argument, yes he is possible correct, if someone was carrying, then maybe things would have been different, maybe they would have turned out worse. Its a simpletons argument.

This morning, another polly (or same one, I didn't take any notice), came out and said we could have more guns because our society is different to the yanks and it would equate to more gun crime.

Like all things, partially correct, it is different, but not that much underneath. The question is what is the feedback mechanism for the supposed problems the yanks have? Again I suspect if you introduced guns in mass here, there will be a large spike in deaths.

Why, because a lot of the social issues the yanks have, we have, we just fight it out with fists, knives, bottles, cars etc.

So it really comes done to, do they have more crime? maybe they don't when you take into account all the piss ant crime, its just the consequences that change?

Seldomfitforpurpose 18th Dec 2014 23:54

So who screwed up here then......


Pheasant hunter shot, killed by companion who slipped in mud in rural area in northern Utah | Fox News

Boudreaux Bob 18th Dec 2014 23:58

I would suggest you study up on US Law....for all 50 States before you make a blanket statement about how Drunk Driving Offenses are handled by each jurisdiction.

Just how does our Laws "deprive" them of their "Right" drive Drunk or Speed?

I will assume what you meant is our Law deprives them of their driving privileges.

The question remains....do our Laws actually deprive everyone from driving drunk or speeding in a dangerous manner after being arrested or charged for that?

Do you actually have to have a Drivers License to Drive a motor vehicle if you choose to do so?

We are not as strict as some Countries and the Judicial system sure has multiple avenues to elude losing one's driving privileges over a DUI/DWI Arrest. Not that many DUI arrests wind up in Convictions in Court for that particular charge. Otherwise the Country Clubs would see far more Chauffeur driven Limousines than they do.



As to the Hunting accident article....


At least the guy did not have far to go to get to Paradise.

Seldomfitforpurpose 19th Dec 2014 00:07

In Europe generally if you are drunk and driving and get caught you are getting fined and banned.

If you guys don't work that way then ..............

galaxy flyer 19th Dec 2014 00:26

Are you saying, it's one drinks driving conviction and lifetime ban?

GF

Boudreaux Bob 19th Dec 2014 00:31

So no one ever gets Banned and gets back into a Car and drives then....right?

Mr Chips 19th Dec 2014 00:38


Is there a system whereby Mrs Lanza with a mentally disturbed child is banned from buying and owning her weapons?
Why does there need to be a law? Why the obsession with laws? It would also need to be an incredibly specific law....

Pheasant hunter shot, killed by companion who slipped in mud in rural area in northern Utah | Fox News
Oh come on, gun accidents can happen in any country that allows shotguns...like the UK for example.

con-pilot 19th Dec 2014 00:47

This thing just keeps going around in a circle.

Driving a motor vehicle is not a "Right" as set forth in Bill of Rights, it is a privilege granted by each of the 50 states.

Thus the United States Supreme Court ruled in a Florida case where a women, who had converted to the Muslim faith, refused to have her picture taken with her face uncovered. Florida said ‘No full face photo, no driver’s license’. She sued on grounds of Religious Discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled that driving is a privilege granted by the state government.

She lost, just as you have. Which we have covered endlessly on these never ending ‘gun’ threads.

rh200 19th Dec 2014 01:32


Why does there need to be a law? Why the obsession with laws?
Well thats a good question! It could be said that it is wise that you base things on common sense or morals. The trouble of which is your frame of reference is different to each person.


It would also need to be an incredibly specific law...
Yep, never under estimate the power of a lawyer to get to the nitty gritty of things and find a loop hole.

Case in point, A couple of hunters got caught giving some DOE or what ever it was, some loving after just shooting it. They where apparently charged with the obvious offense. The lawyer argued that since it was dead, can it still be regraded as an animal, if so when does it cease being one, think subparts and apple pie (What was that movie again).

Laws and drafting them are painful, what was once common sense and straight forward can come back and bite you in the @rse.

John Hill 19th Dec 2014 03:03


Driving a motor vehicle is not a "Right" as set forth in Bill of Rights, it is a privilege granted by each of the 50 states.
It must be such an oppressive existence to live in a country where one is prevented from doing anything except where permission is granted by the state (except for owning a gun of course).

BTW, I can buy and drive a motor vehicle without the permission of anyone.

Boudreaux Bob 19th Dec 2014 03:08

No control of who takes charge of a Deadly Weapon in New Zealand is there?

John Hill 19th Dec 2014 03:17

A motor vehicle is not a deadly weapon when I am driving.

rh200 19th Dec 2014 03:37


BTW, I can buy and drive a motor vehicle without the permission of anyone.
I'm gathering you don't drive on public roads then John. Unless I'm mistaken you need a license for them. Also called driving privileges given to us by the "State"

You could argue, that the state gives us permission to do everything, they just put laws in place to control what they need to.

In fact you could argue that you have the right to, kill, rape, refuse to move on when asked to by a police officer. But the state and society frowns on each of them to enough of a degree to put in place laws to help curb such behavior.

Basically we can all do what we want, its just some things have consequences. Hence the saying, "Imagine what you would do if you knew you would never be caught"

con-pilot 19th Dec 2014 04:02


BTW, I can buy and drive a motor vehicle without the permission of anyone.

Wow Hill, I had no idea that in New Zealand you don't have to have a driver's license, don't have have to insurance to drive a vehicle on public roadways and no license tag!

Quite impressive.

John Hill 19th Dec 2014 04:39


You could argue, that the state gives us permission to do everything, they just put laws in place to control what they need to.
I would rather believe that everything is permitted that is not forbidden and that laws, rules and regulations, are made for the protection of the rights of others.

galaxy flyer 19th Dec 2014 04:57

Then, John, why are you so willing to restrict people who are not harming others?

GF


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:07.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.