US Gun Violence

[BKLFox]

1 hour ago, surrifox said:

 

The (2nd) amendment as I understand it talks about a citizens right to bear arms but goes on to refer to “ within a well regulated militia” 

this was written at a time when there was no standing army and citizens were required to take responsibility for defending their fledgling republic . 

 

 

Yep & I imagine something similar has been said to the Ukrainian civilian population and it just seems crazy now to think they could use what they are going through & what was said today to warrant carrying a gun in 230yrs time.

Yes I know we don’t need it but President Zelenskky said in 2022 we could carry a gun and protect ourselves and our country so I carry 1.

 

1 hour ago, marbles said:

The Constitution is the most important document we have.

The problem is not the fact that it’s the foundation of our country - it’s that certain people/groups interpret it in a way that only benefits them.

 

That is a huge problem agreed and probably falls back to the root of all evil $

 

Would it be a start to keep the everyone has a right to bare arms to protect themselves but bring it into the modern era, and ask what are you protecting yourself against?
 

In the main it will be from a home intruder I guess, now I know US homes are much larger then a standard UK home but for close quarter engagement such as this, a hand gun would be a better weapon to use over a long(er) barrelled rifle type weapon such as an AR15 as you might need to manoeuvre around household objects, corners etc and it would also reduce the risk of being disarmed being closer to your body.

Another advantage would be the lower velocity round, imagine letting off a few rounds of an AR15 only to find that a couple have pierced the walls and you’ve inadvertently hit another member of your own family, not saying a round from a hand gun wouldn’t puncture a thin stud wall but it would certainly slow it.

 

Now if this thinking was applied, what are we protecting ourselves from, I can’t think of 1 modern every day scenario where an assault rifle would be needed by a civilian, Then the route to at least getting rid of those is starting to open.

I know somewhere like Montana might need to protect themselves from bears so need something bigger but again do you open up on a bear with a semi-automatic weapon?

 

We have the right to protect ourselves over here also and most would use a sporting bat or household object but would also need to prove that it wasn’t there for that intention, ie having a baseball bat by the bed then walking downstairs with it and perhaps killing an intruder with it then saying it was just there because that’s where I store it as it wouldn’t rub because generally it would be in a shed, garage storage area so I would leave the ball next to it also, it just gives a hole in the loop for a lawyer to use.

So out of interest what’s the rules of engagement for facing a burglar, if they on your property they are fair game and ripe to be shot or do they have to shoot 1st or come at you even if they don’t have a weapon themselves and what’s the repercussions of shooting someone dead in your home? 
 

It’s going to be a long drawn out affair to rid the civilian population of guns but if a section type were withdrawn because the ‘protection’ was deemed to big for the ‘threat’ at least it’s a start, which takes us back to What are they protecting themselves against?

 

 

 

[KFS]

I have an American one year old and live 10 mins away from Sandy Hook, and possibly some of the most infuriating comments in here are from ‘holier than thou’ people who’ve lazily attributed this to ‘America being weird’, as if my native England isn’t highly ****ing questionable on many things itself. So if we can get over the crass country one-upmanship in the wake of child death, I’d much appreciate it. 
 

As for the culture here, I’ve seen on a trip to the South today possibly the most visible signs of support of guns I’ve ever seen. The brainwashed nonsense that gets thrown around baffles me no end. So called ‘rights’ to a gun because of the ‘threat of government tyranny’ are way off base in 2022 and just give the tin hatters brevity to lazily say why they need one. Get rid of the ****ing things long term and in the short term start planning with actions like @Jon the Hat has mentioned.

 

I am seeing people defend their position by saying the teacher should have locked the door. What ****ing sick world is this? Enough is enough. 

Edited 27 May 2022 by KFS

[Jon the Hat]

3 hours ago, KFS said:

I have an American one year old and live 10 mins away from Sandy Hook, and possibly some of the most infuriating comments in here are from ‘holier than thou’ people who’ve lazily attributed this to ‘America being weird’, as if my native England isn’t highly ****ing questionable on many things itself. So if we can get over the crass country one-upmanship in the wake of child death, I’d much appreciate it. 
 

As for the culture here, I’ve seen on a trip to the South today possibly the most visible signs of support of guns I’ve ever seen. The brainwashed nonsense that gets thrown around baffles me no end. So called ‘rights’ to a gun because of the ‘threat of government tyranny’ are way off base in 2022 and just give the tin hatters brevity to lazily say why they need one. Get rid of the ****ing things long term and in the short term start planning with actions like @Jon the Hat has mentioned.

 

I am seeing people defend their position by saying the teacher should have locked the door. What ****ing sick world is this? Enough is enough. 

I think it stems from disbelief rather than one-upmanship.  The USA is an unbelievably amazing and diverse country which seems unable to even start to resolve this obviously serious problem.  It is a puzzle which draws interest and comment when these horrors repeat again and again.

[marbles]

6 hours ago, BKLFox said:

Yep & I imagine something similar has been said to the Ukrainian civilian population and it just seems crazy now to think they could use what they are going through & what was said today to warrant carrying a gun in 230yrs time.

Yes I know we don’t need it but President Zelenskky said in 2022 we could carry a gun and protect ourselves and our country so I carry 1.

 

That is a huge problem agreed and probably falls back to the root of all evil $

 

Would it be a start to keep the everyone has a right to bare arms to protect themselves but bring it into the modern era, and ask what are you protecting yourself against?
 

In the main it will be from a home intruder I guess, now I know US homes are much larger then a standard UK home but for close quarter engagement such as this, a hand gun would be a better weapon to use over a long(er) barrelled rifle type weapon such as an AR15 as you might need to manoeuvre around household objects, corners etc and it would also reduce the risk of being disarmed being closer to your body.

Another advantage would be the lower velocity round, imagine letting off a few rounds of an AR15 only to find that a couple have pierced the walls and you’ve inadvertently hit another member of your own family, not saying a round from a hand gun wouldn’t puncture a thin stud wall but it would certainly slow it.

 

Now if this thinking was applied, what are we protecting ourselves from, I can’t think of 1 modern every day scenario where an assault rifle would be needed by a civilian, Then the route to at least getting rid of those is starting to open.

I know somewhere like Montana might need to protect themselves from bears so need something bigger but again do you open up on a bear with a semi-automatic weapon?

 

We have the right to protect ourselves over here also and most would use a sporting bat or household object but would also need to prove that it wasn’t there for that intention, ie having a baseball bat by the bed then walking downstairs with it and perhaps killing an intruder with it then saying it was just there because that’s where I store it as it wouldn’t rub because generally it would be in a shed, garage storage area so I would leave the ball next to it also, it just gives a hole in the loop for a lawyer to use.

So out of interest what’s the rules of engagement for facing a burglar, if they on your property they are fair game and ripe to be shot or do they have to shoot 1st or come at you even if they don’t have a weapon themselves and what’s the repercussions of shooting someone dead in your home? 
 

It’s going to be a long drawn out affair to rid the civilian population of guns but if a section type were withdrawn because the ‘protection’ was deemed to big for the ‘threat’ at least it’s a start, which takes us back to What are they protecting themselves against?

 

 

 

I’m certain states (Texas being one) you have the right to defend your property with deadly force.  Criminals don’t have to enter your home.  They just need to be on your property.  

This is due to ranchers owning 1000s of heads of cattle.  The rule has always been - if you’re on their ranch, you’re their to steal cattle.  No questions asked.

 

If you hunt, I understand owning a 6 shot rifle or shotgun.

If you want home protection, I understand a handgun.

Nothing else should be sold to the general public, under any circumstance.

Once that’s done, then we can work on the handguns.

 

 

Edited 27 May 2022 by marbles

[marbles]

This kid needs to spend some time in Juvenile Detention, and his parents charged.

If a cop had seen him walking with it, he would have been shot immediately.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/richardson-high-school-student-arrested-after-citizen-reports-seeing-gun/ar-AAXJkyy?ocid=uxbndlbing

[brucey]

 

[FoxesDeb]

The US: We don't believe in abortion which we view as the 'slaughter of children', but the ones who are of school age are fair game, as it means we can carry our guns in the name of 'freedom'. Obviously that's our freedom, not the kids.

 

Absolutely blows my mind how a country which wants to be viewed as some kind of Western super power can be so utterly regressive in it's way of thinking. 

 

 

[marbles]

https://www.cracked.com/image-pictofact-8721-by-the-numbers-11-facts-about-the-nra

 

 

[brucey]

 

 

 

what a mess of a country

 

Edited 2 June 2022 by brucey

[Thefox81]

11 minutes ago, brucey said:

what a mess of a country

 

Ffs 

[Captain...]

The insane thing is this is the 20th mass shooting* recorded in the US since the Texas school incident. They are averaging more than 1 a day.

 

*Mass shootings require 4+ victims, although not all resulted in fatalities. 

[David Hankey]

Nothing positive will happen in the US until the Second Amendment has been repealed. The 'Right to Bear Arms' was drawn up in the days when the West was Wild. The world has moved on and reform is long overdue.

 

Suggesting schoolteachers, priests and others to have guns is just plain crazy!!

 

The NRA cannot guarantee guns being sold to the mental unstable, they have no control over who has what weapons.

[HighPeakFox]

If there's one country with a bigger fetish for war than us, it's the USA. 

[yorkie1999]

On 02/06/2022 at 11:33, HighPeakFox said:

If there's one country with a bigger fetish for war than us, it's the USA. 

And Russia

[marbles]

On 02/06/2022 at 02:35, David Hankey said:

Nothing positive will happen in the US until the Second Amendment has been repealed. The 'Right to Bear Arms' was drawn up in the days when the West was Wild. The world has moved on and reform is long overdue.

 

Suggesting schoolteachers, priests and others to have guns is just plain crazy!!

 

The NRA cannot guarantee guns being sold to the mental unstable, they have no control over who has what weapons.

I do think someone in schools needs to be carrying a gun.  Off duty police, a trained admin.  A trained teacher. Someone.  

Now hear me out….

 

If the Dems and Repubs decided tomorrow on a plan to eliminate all guns in the US.  It would still take a long time to round them all up.  In the meantime, school shootings would continue.  

If you really are concerned about the safety of school children, you would realize that banning all guns tomorrow, will not stop school shootings tomorrow.

 

If it’s actually only about banning the guns….

 

 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, marbles said:

I do think someone in schools needs to be carrying a gun.  Off duty police, a trained admin.  A trained teacher. Someone.  

Now hear me out….

 

If the Dems and Repubs decided tomorrow on a plan to eliminate all guns in the US.  It would still take a long time to round them all up.  In the meantime, school shootings would continue.  

If you really are concerned about the safety of school children, you would realize that banning all guns tomorrow, will not stop school shootings tomorrow.

 

If it’s actually only about banning the guns….

 

 

Personally, I don't think it's just about that.

 

It's about quality mental healthcare and access to it, and as long as such access is predicated upon your ability to pay (unlike practically everywhere else in the OECD) then as long as there is guns as well then things like this will keep happening.

 

Healthcare needs massive reform in the US.

Edited 4 June 2022 by leicsmac

[marbles]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Personally, I don't think it's just about that.

 

It's about quality mental healthcare and access to it, and as long as such access is predicated upon your ability to pay (unlike practically everywhere else in the OECD) then as long as there is guns as well then things like this will keep happening.

 

Healthcare needs massive reform in the US.

Oh, I agree about Healthcare.

Problem is, the government can’t afford to take over Healthcare because we spend so much on the military.  So we are left with privatized healthcare. 
 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, marbles said:

Oh, I agree about Healthcare.

Problem is, the government can’t afford to take over Healthcare because we spend so much on the military.  So we are left with privatized healthcare. 
 

Right. Couple that with vested interests happy with how things are and you get the status quo over and over and over again.

[David Hankey]

1 hour ago, marbles said:

I do think someone in schools needs to be carrying a gun.  Off duty police, a trained admin.  A trained teacher. Someone.  

Now hear me out….

 

If the Dems and Repubs decided tomorrow on a plan to eliminate all guns in the US.  It would still take a long time to round them all up.  In the meantime, school shootings would continue.  

If you really are concerned about the safety of school children, you would realize that banning all guns tomorrow, will not stop school shootings tomorrow.

 

If it’s actually only about banning the guns….

 

 

And by the same token increasing the number of guns will never stop these mindless killings.

 

It is pure folly to think increasing the number of people carrying guns will help. It will not!!

[HighPeakFox]

6 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

And Russia

Interesting point. I think the fetish there is more within the politicians than its people, but then again I will happily admit to that being the opinion of someone guessing rather than true knowledge of Russia. I think though we all have in common that we're all propagandised about who we are and where we came from.

[yorkie1999]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Personally, I don't think it's just about that.

 

It's about quality mental healthcare and access to it, and as long as such access is predicated upon your ability to pay (unlike practically everywhere else in the OECD) then as long as there is guns as well then things like this will keep happening.

 

Healthcare needs massive reform in the US.

How many mentally unstable psycho’s are going to even recognise they have a problem? There’s only one answer, ban guns, and stick a couple of armed troops at every school gate until every weapon has been handed in.

[marbles]

1 hour ago, David Hankey said:

And by the same token increasing the number of guns will never stop these mindless killings.

 

It is pure folly to think increasing the number of people carrying guns will help. It will not!!

Sounds like a plan.  Ban the guns, and leave the children unprotected until they are all collected.  Surely once they are banned, nut jobs will stop shooting up schools.  Makes perfect sense, to no one.

 

Seriously.  Why would you leave children vulnerable?  Please explain.  I am curious.

Edited 4 June 2022 by marbles

[yorkie1999]

40 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Interesting point. I think the fetish there is more within the politicians than its people, but then again I will happily admit to that being the opinion of someone guessing rather than true knowledge of Russia. I think though we all have in common that we're all propagandised about who we are and where we came from.

War has always been about the rich and powerful, they’re the ones that get richer and more powerful, at least in democratic countries there is some sort of agreement of who to wage war against and you can disagree with it if you want and no one’s going to spirit you away in the middle of the night. We don’t have stuff like the Russians do where their state media is calling for the destruction of Berlin, London and Washington whilst they’re in the mood for a fight, imagine if the bbc was trying to push for us to launch a few nuclear bombs on Argentina whilst we were on manoeuvres in the Falklands.

[David Hankey]

23 minutes ago, marbles said:

Sounds like a plan.  Ban the guns, and leave the children unprotected until they are all collected.  Surely once they are banned, nut jobs will stop shooting up schools.  Makes perfect sense, to no one.

 

Seriously.  Why would you leave children vulnerable?  Please explain.  I am curious.

You will, of course, be aware although I'm not sure given your previous comments that the Second Amendment was drawn up in the days when the West was wild. The world has moved on since those dark days and supposedly we're told that we now live in a "civilized" society. That being the case there is simply no need to supply firearms to everyone as though they are a fashion accessory. More guns will only create for killings and if you can't see that well that is not my problem. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[marbles]

8 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

You will, of course, be aware although I'm not sure given your previous comments that the Second Amendment was drawn up in the days when the West was wild. The world has moved on since those dark days and supposedly we're told that we now live in a "civilized" society. That being the case there is simply no need to supply firearms to everyone as though they are a fashion accessory. More guns will only create for killings and if you can't see that well that is not my problem. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

With all due, you didn’t answer what I asked.

You didn’t even try to answer it.

“Not my problem.  Let children die, just long as guns are gone”

Ok.  Got it. 
 

 

 

Edited 4 June 2022 by marbles