US Gun Violence

[David Hankey]

54 minutes ago, marbles said:

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. 
 

 

 

You can't seem to accept that by de-weaponizing folk the States would be a far safer place.

 

There is absolutely no need in this modern age for all to be issued with a weapon, we are well passed the age of the 'Right to bear arms' as many ordinary people in the US want.

 

It's not a question of "let children die" but more a question of education in living without them!!

 

So, no, you haven't got it!!

Edited 4 June 2022 by David Hankey

[BKLFox]

I’ll go back to 1 of my previous posts and ask the question again of What is it a US civilian is defending against.

I know this picture did the rounds over Xmas but really what is it the The Terminator, his wife bugsy malone and the ant hill mob actually think they are going to have to defend against?

 

Edited 4 June 2022 by BKLFox

[Bellend Sebastian]

14 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

I’ll go back to 1 of my previous posts and ask the question again of What is it a US civilian is defending against.

I know this picture did the rounds over Xmas but really what is it the The Terminator, his wife bugsy malone and the ant hill mob actually think they are going to have to defend against?

 

Nothing cements family ties more than the knowledge that if any of you have a bad day you can slaughter every one of your relatives in seconds

[yorkie1999]

12 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

I’ll go back to 1 of my previous posts and ask the question again of What is it a US civilian is defending against.

I know this picture did the rounds over Xmas but really what is it the The Terminator, his wife bugsy malone and the ant hill mob actually think they are going to have to defend against?

 

They’re not defending against anything, that’s just the excuse to own one, guns make  people feel powerful, it’s the reason they all drive round in massive 4x4s , I mean , given the choice I’d have thought a handgun would be better for self defense and if you really want to go hunting I’d have thought half the enjoyment is actually eating what you’ve hunted which you ain’t going to do when youve attacked it with an assault rifle.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

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.

That's true.

 

That being said, actually having a proper healthcare system in place for this reason and others, as well as working on phased gun control, would be helpful in many ways imo.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, yorkie1999 said:

They’re not defending against anything, that’s just the excuse to own one, guns make  people feel powerful, it’s the reason they all drive round in massive 4x4s , I mean , given the choice I’d have thought a handgun would be better for self defense and if you really want to go hunting I’d have thought half the enjoyment is actually eating what you’ve hunted which you ain’t going to do when youve attacked it with an assault rifle.

I think for the "proper" hunters, it is.

 

But then you have the nutters who simply want the head on their wall and to say "look, I took a life today!"

[yorkie1999]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

That's true.

 

That being said, actually having a proper healthcare system in place for this reason and others, as well as working on phased gun control, would be helpful in many ways imo.

As that previous picture demonstrates, they love their guns, the only way to sort it out, properly, is to have a national vote on it, they either vote to get rid of guns or they don’t, it’s up to them. No one can argue then, after all it’s the greatest democracy in the world!!!

[BKLFox]

4 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.

 

 

5 hours 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. 
 

 

Whilst the lack of mental healthcare is part of the conversation it shouldn’t be used as the 1st solution ie we’ve put these measures in place now let’s see how we get on as the (& I want to say Only) solution is a full withdrawal of gun access.

 

Everyone 1 of us is only a day away of snapping even without prior history of mental illness ala Micheal Douglas in Falling Down

 

Now if someone was to snap here they have access to a limited number of deadly weapons 2 obvious 1s are knives and their car both would limit their potential number of fatal casualties and both would also require them to get up close and personal to their victims, this would potential lead to being challenged, disarmed or hopefully bring that person round to what they are doing.

v”s

in the states where someone can pick up an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine very easily, then with a faceless squeeze of a trigger kill multiple people in under 30 seconds reload, do it again and move on.

30 seconds isn’t long enough for that individual to compute what they are doing it could take several magazines before the brain has time to kick in and maybe stop or for a challenge to take place meeting fire with fire.

That last part of meeting fire with fire is what the NRA use for it’s defence but don’t seem to realise if you can take the ease of the 1st part away you won’t need to use the 2nd part

[st albans fox]

The USA is a lost cause in this respect 

 

just be thankful that this element of US society is not one which leaks out around the rest of the world …..

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

 

 

 

Whilst the lack of mental healthcare is part of the conversation it shouldn’t be used as the 1st solution ie we’ve put these measures in place now let’s see how we get on as the (& I want to say Only) solution is a full withdrawal of gun access.

 

Everyone 1 of us is only a day away of snapping even without prior history of mental illness ala Micheal Douglas in Falling Down

 

Now if someone was to snap here they have access to a limited number of deadly weapons 2 obvious 1s are knives and their car both would limit their potential number of fatal casualties and both would also require them to get up close and personal to their victims, this would potential lead to being challenged, disarmed or hopefully bring that person round to what they are doing.

v”s

in the states where someone can pick up an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine very easily, then with a faceless squeeze of a trigger kill multiple people in under 30 seconds reload, do it again and move on.

30 seconds isn’t long enough for that individual to compute what they are doing it could take several magazines before the brain has time to kick in and maybe stop or for a challenge to take place meeting fire with fire.

That last part of meeting fire with fire is what the NRA use for it’s defence but don’t seem to realise if you can take the ease of the 1st part away you won’t need to use the 2nd part

I don't disagree.

 

However I think that addressing both healthcare and gun control at the same time is more effective than gun control alone and much more effective than healthcare reform alone on this one, purely because of the amount of guns in circulation.

[BKLFox]

Just now, leicsmac said:

I don't disagree.

 

However I think that addressing both healthcare and gun control at the same time is more effective than gun control alone and much more effective than healthcare reform alone on this one, purely because of the amount of guns in circulation.

For sure 

[BKLFox]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I don't disagree.

 

However I think that addressing both healthcare and gun control at the same time is more effective than gun control alone and much more effective than healthcare reform alone on this one, purely because of the amount of guns in circulation.

To add to my For Sure and my “only” comment

 

In the world of H&S the aim is to remove risk completely then if that can’t be done it’s to reduce risk 

[leicsmac]

Just now, BKLFox said:

To add to my For Sure and my “only” comment

 

In the world of H&S the aim is to remove risk completely then if that can’t be done it’s to reduce risk 

That's eminently logical.

 

My personal standpoint is that doing both concurrently is possible and should be attempted for maximum risk reduction.

[marbles]

8 hours ago, David Hankey said:

You can't seem to accept that by de-weaponizing folk the States would be a far safer place.

 

There is absolutely no need in this modern age for all to be issued with a weapon, we are well passed the age of the 'Right to bear arms' as many ordinary people in the US want.

 

It's not a question of "let children die" but more a question of education in living without them!!

 

So, no, you haven't got it!!

You’ve obviously read nothing I’ve written about guns over the past, I don’t know….,year.  Including this very thread where you decided to participate.  Especially the parts where Ive continually written that I WANT TO SEE GUNS BANNED!

 

To recap.  You’ve read nothing I’ve posted, and come to uneducated opinions about what I want.

You have also made no attempt at answering the simple question I’ve asked.     

You have an opinion.  One that was most likely given to you - that you read somewhere, hence why you explain, defend or answer questions. 

It’s very obvious you have no desire to have an actual conversation, so I am done with you.

 

Edited 4 June 2022 by marbles

[Captain...]

1 minute ago, marbles said:

You’ve obviously read nothing I’ve written about guns over the past, I don’t know….,year.

 

Plus, you still haven’t answered my question.

Youd make a great politician.
 

I've read a lot of what you've written and I think we will never have the same view point because we live in different worlds. To most of us living in the UK guns are just so far removed from our lives we can't imagine ever seeing one held by a civilian, let alone holding one ourselves or even firing one. Even the odd occasions I've seen armed police are jarring and unnerving. To me the idea of putting a gun anywhere near a school is just madness.

 

However you live in the US it's a different world, guns are common as are shootings. As part of gun reforms maybe putting armed protection officers outside schools does make sense. Hopefully as part of wide ranging reforms, or even to help bring them in. Use the protect the children angle.

 

However I think the logistics of doing it safely would be impractical. I hate think how many schools there are in the US, so the cost of funding and recruiting and training armed school protection officers would be astronomical. The practical option would be volunteers, ideally retired police officers or servicemen, but the reality could be hot headed gun nuts. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

Americans seem to forget that they used to have a constitutional right to have slaves, but guess what, they amended that.

 

Just because something always has been, doesn't mean it always should be.

[marbles]

7 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I've read a lot of what you've written and I think we will never have the same view point because we live in different worlds. To most of us living in the UK guns are just so far removed from our lives we can't imagine ever seeing one held by a civilian, let alone holding one ourselves or even firing one. Even the odd occasions I've seen armed police are jarring and unnerving. To me the idea of putting a gun anywhere near a school is just madness.

 

However you live in the US it's a different world, guns are common as are shootings. As part of gun reforms maybe putting armed protection officers outside schools does make sense. Hopefully as part of wide ranging reforms, or even to help bring them in. Use the protect the children angle.

 

However I think the logistics of doing it safely would be impractical. I hate think how many schools there are in the US, so the cost of funding and recruiting and training armed school protection officers would be astronomical. The practical option would be volunteers, ideally retired police officers or servicemen, but the reality could be hot headed gun nuts. 

Dont get me wrong.

The idea is to protect the schools now.  Abolish guns.  Then remove armed protection from the schools.

 

My thinking is, if a gun ban is on the horizon - any nut job with an inkling of shooting a school, will decide its now or never

Edited 4 June 2022 by marbles

[marbles]

5 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Americans seem to forget that they used to have a constitutional right to have slaves, but guess what, they amended that.

 

Just because something always has been, doesn't mean it always should be.

Absolutely.

We have clearly proven, as Americans, that we cant handle the responsibility of owning firearms.

 

[Foxdiamond]

8 hours ago, BKLFox said:

I’ll go back to 1 of my previous posts and ask the question again of What is it a US civilian is defending against.

I know this picture did the rounds over Xmas but really what is it the The Terminator, his wife bugsy malone and the ant hill mob actually think they are going to have to defend against?

 

Probably shocking pic for most of us in UK. How popular is gun culture in US. This one family could probably take on a whole company of soldiers. Imagine how many weapons in their neighbourhood 

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, marbles said:

Dont get me wrong.

The idea is to protect the schools now.  Abolish guns.  Then remove armed protection from the schools.

 

My thinking is, if a gun ban is on the horizon - any nut job with an inkling of shooting a school, will decide its now or never

Statistically though, how many kids die in school shootings compared to shootings in other settings? As a proportion of mass shooting events in the US this year school shootings are less than 1% ( 2 out of 233). They are obviously really high profile, but realistically you are talking putting a huge amount of resources to protect a "statistically insignificant" amount of children. At the same time increasing the number of guns and armed personnel near schools, which has potentially disastrous consequences. That might be a cultural difference, but I can only foresee negative consequences of putting armed men and women around kids.

[FoxesDeb]

2 hours ago, marbles said:

You’ve obviously read nothing I’ve written about guns over the past, I don’t know….,year.  Including this very thread where you decided to participate.  Especially the parts where Ive continually written that I WANT TO SEE GUNS BANNED!

 

To recap.  You’ve read nothing I’ve posted, and come to uneducated opinions about what I want.

You have also made no attempt at answering the simple question I’ve asked.     

You have an opinion.  One that was most likely given to you - that you read somewhere, hence why you explain, defend or answer questions. 

It’s very obvious you have no desire to have an actual conversation, so I am done with you.

 

Don't you own one? 

[BKLFox]

1 hour ago, Foxdiamond said:

Probably shocking pic for most of us in UK. How popular is gun culture in US. This one family could probably take on a whole company of soldiers. Imagine how many weapons in their neighbourhood 

This is a pic from within the same tweet thread as the previous pic I think they know each other and given the individuals holding the weapons yep very shocking for us in the UK to get our heads around

 

[marbles]

5 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Statistically though, how many kids die in school shootings compared to shootings in other settings? As a proportion of mass shooting events in the US this year school shootings are less than 1% ( 2 out of 233). They are obviously really high profile, but realistically you are talking putting a huge amount of resources to protect a "statistically insignificant" amount of children. At the same time increasing the number of guns and armed personnel near schools, which has potentially disastrous consequences. That might be a cultural difference, but I can only foresee negative consequences of putting armed men and women around kids.

As of June 1st, there have been a total of 27 school shootings in 2022.  Not all mass shootings of course.

I understand what you’re saying.  
But, I would rather kids be safe, than sorry.

Remember, I propose this as a temporary solution.   Not a solution to school shootings.  Just one that I believe will need to happen as guns are banned and removed from the streets
 

[marbles]

5 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Don't you own one? 

I do, and I would gladly give it up.

As would a lot of Americans. 

[FoxesDeb]

1 minute ago, marbles said:

I do, and I would gladly give it up.

As would a lot of Americans. 

Why don't you then?