Yet another US shooting

[Fotbawmad]

So because you can kill someone with a car you should also be allowed to kill someone with a gun. Right you are.

I have to laugh at the logic those rabid anti-gunners use.

Someone uses their car to kill someone >>> Blame the driver

Someone blows up a building >>> Blame the bomber

Someone goes on a shooting spree >>> Blame the gun

[pandarilla]

I have to laugh at the logic those rabid anti-gunners use.

Someone uses their car to kill someone >>> Blame the driver

Someone blows up a building >>> Blame the bomber

Someone goes on a shooting spree >>> Blame the gun

(holds head in hands).

I'd love to engage fully but your either trolling or too stupid to get it. Trolling I reckon.

[The_Kincardine]

(holds head in hands).

I'd love to engage fully but you're either trolling or too stupid to get it. Trolling I reckon.

FTFY

His view, though, is not out of kilter with a lot of Americans that I know. Mind you, most Americans also don't have any appreciation of how low their crime stats are. Some American cities are like war zones. If you remove them from the stats then The USA is as violent as Gothenburg.

Too many American idiots, though, still feel exposed if they're not tooled up when going to buy a pound of carrots.

[ICTChris]

I posted this on gun control two and a half years ago

There's an interesting article in the Sunday Times on this by David Frum.

It's paywalled and I'm not typing it out but essentially he says that there are three paradoxes when discussing this story

- Random outbursts of stranger violence happen everywhere in the world (there have been twelve attacks in Chinese schools this year) but only in the USA do they regularly leave dozens dead.
- Since 1990 crime rates in the US have declined steeply (a rough figure would be a third) but gun massacres have increased in frequency. There have been 62 mass casualty shootings in the last 30 years and 25 for those have occured since 2006.
- During the 1990s the proportion of US citizens who had a gun in their home (legally) fell from 50% to 33% yet opposition to gun control rose during this period.

He also talks about the change in what gun ownership actually means - years ago it generally meant owning hunting rifles for hunting or six shot revolvers for personal protection. Now the majority of guns owned are semi-automatic weapons that can fire up to 100 rounds in one magazine and far fewer people hunt, gun owners are more likely to be suburbanites motiviated by fear of crime. That despite crime, including violent crime, rape, murder etc, falling hugely since the highs of the early 1990s. Currently American citizens are less likely to be victims of crime than at any time since crime started being recorded, yet self defense against unseen, lurking criminals is cited as a reason for opposing gun control.

Frum also points out that gun control isn't anathema in the US. During the 1930s legislation was passed against ownership of heavy weapons that the likes of the Capone gang used during Prohibition and in the 1960s action was taken against handguns after the rise in crime during this period.

I think we often fail to understand US politics and culture in the UK, often willfully do so. The US constitution is the basis of the entire country and it isn't something that can be ripped up and changed easily. The foundation of the US, the whole culture of the politics of the country, is based on freedom from state interfernce. That's why the country exists and it's a powerful motivation among a lot of people in the US, not just stereotypical red state gun owners. I remember listening to an old Bill Hicks tape where he exoriated the government for the Waco Siege, for causing the deaths of the people in the compound (I think he actually went there to view the siege). It's hard to picture a left/liberal comedian in the UK making a similar joke/statement.

Saying that the idea that US citizens are going to be able to resist the US government, even with automatic weapons as part of a militia. As Frum said in his article, gun control isn't alien in US politics, I think the reaction of a minority to the Obama administration, the howls from conservative media outlets and polticians make it a toxic issue. I don't think you need to have enough firepower to take out a platoon of the national guard to protect your home or hunt deer and I don't think implementing laws to stop more massacres means the end of US citizens freedom.

Regarding the Confederate flag, you could almost (almost) understand it being on state flags, flown from state buildings if it was actually part of history but it isn't. It was resurrected in the 1960s as a reaction to the Civil rights movement.

If any former Confederates want a throwback, they could move to Brazil - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33245800 Looks like a fun town.

[Ya Bezzer!]

I have to laugh at the logic those rabid anti-gunners use.

Someone uses their car to kill someone >>> Blame the driver

Someone blows up a building >>> Blame the bomber

Someone goes on a shooting spree >>> Blame the gun

Pretty easy to argue against on a utilitarian basis.

All those things kill people - a negative. What positive do they provide? I think the positives of say the car, to society are plain to see. What positives do guns provide when they aren't producing negatives? When I think of something I'll get back to you. At any rate clearly cars are positive and guns (and bombers) are negative.

Also you have to distinguish between accidental death and intent to kill. I'd suggest the vast majority of car related deaths are accidental and it is very rare for someone to us a car as a weapon, whereas a gun is a weapon.

[Mr. Brightside]

I have to laugh at the logic those rabid anti-gunners use.

Someone uses their car to kill someone >>> Blame the driver

Someone blows up a building >>> Blame the bomber

Someone goes on a shooting spree >>> Blame the gun

Aye cause it's easy to go to a bank or a Wal-mart and pick up a bomb, you fucking cretin.

[Honest_Man#1]

I have to laugh at the logic those rabid anti-gunners use.

Someone uses their car to kill someone >>> Blame the driver

Someone blows up a building >>> Blame the bomber

Someone goes on a shooting spree >>> Blame the gun

I'm absolutely shocked that the biggest member of the tin foil hat brigade on here is a supporter of guns.

[Airdrie Onions]

Pretty easy to argue against on a utilitarian basis.

All those things kill people - a negative. What positive do they provide? I think the positives of say the car, to society are plain to see. What positives do guns provide when they aren't producing negatives? When I think of something I'll get back to you. At any rate clearly cars are positive and guns (and bombers) are negative.

Also you have to distinguish between accidental death and intent to kill. I'd suggest the vast majority of car related deaths are accidental and it is very rare for someone to us a car as a weapon, whereas a gun is a weapon.

Must be why they call it a bill of rights, rather than a "bill of needs".

[Miguel Sanchez]

Donny is exactly the type of person who would carry out a mass shooting, but then bottle out of topping himself at the end, and it'd all be over some bird he was stalking because he couldn't get his hole.

That's apparently the case with this one. A black guy stole his burd.

Must be why they call it a bill of rights, rather than a "bill of needs".

It's a good thing the countries of the world base their laws on documents drawn up several centuries ago. Keeps that uppity King of England from cutting about trying to invade all of them.

[Sweet Pete]

The idea of safety via mutual assured destruction is so stupid as to require no explanation. Hence, people who harp on about US gun politics and wish for a similar system to be implemented on these shores should not be humoured by way of response.

[Fotbawmad]

Pretty easy to argue against on a utilitarian basis.

All those things kill people - a negative. What positive do they provide? I think the positives of say the car, to society are plain to see. What positives do guns provide when they aren't producing negatives? When I think of something I'll get back to you. At any rate clearly cars are positive and guns (and bombers) are negative.

Also you have to distinguish between accidental death and intent to kill. I'd suggest the vast majority of car related deaths are accidental and it is very rare for someone to us a car as a weapon, whereas a gun is a weapon.

I get that I'm largely dealing with liberally minded people who have no experience with guns and have all kinds of pre-conceived notions of them. If the first thing that comes to your mind when you think about guns is some kind of mass shooting. Then all of your arguments against them are going to be emotionally driven. Just to make it clear, while I have experience with guns. I have never owned or intend to own one. While it's easy to see someone dying as a result of getting shot for whatever reason. It's harder to see how many crimes have been prevented out of fear someone is or might be armed. How often has a crime been diffused merely because someone introduced a gun into the situation?

[Sweet Pete]

I get that I'm largely dealing with liberally minded people who have no experience with guns and have all kinds of pre-conceived notions of them. If the first thing that comes to your mind when you think about guns is some kind of mass shooting. Then all of your arguments against them are going to be emotionally driven. Just to make it clear, while I have experience with guns. I have never owned or intend to own one. While it's easy to see someone dying as a result of getting shot for whatever reason. It's harder to see how many crimes have been prevented out of fear someone is or might be armed. How often has a crime been diffused merely because someone introduced a gun into the situation?

Yeah, those people are just the worst.

[AsimButtHitsASix]

How often has a crime been diffused merely because someone introduced a gun into the situation?

Not many

[Hillonearth]

Regarding the Confederate flag, you could almost (almost) understand it being on state flags, flown from state buildings if it was actually part of history but it isn't. It was resurrected in the 1960s as a reaction to the Civil rights movement.

If any former Confederates want a throwback, they could move to Brazil - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33245800 Looks like a fun town.

What we know as the "Confederate flag" isn't even the flag of the CSA - it's the battle flag of one of the seceded states (Georgia or Tennessee IIRC). The real flag was this:

[Airdrie Onions]

Not many

^^^

Doesn't actually know how many.

[welshbairn]

^^^

Doesn't actually know how many.

^^^

Doesn't actually know how many.

[AsimButtHitsASix]

^^^

Doesn't actually know how many.

For every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 32 criminal homicides

sauce

Doesn't say how many incidents or crimes were repelled due to the sudden appearance of a gun but why would people count hypotheticals? How can you prove it was someone being armed that calmed a situation? I could argue "how many times has the appearance of a citizen with mangos helped prevent crime?" it's impossible to prove or disprove. However there was a situation, recently, where someone pulled a gun out on someone else in an area where other men were armed. What happened there?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/18/waco-biker-gang-shootout-what-we-know

[williemillersmoustache]

I get that I'm largely dealing with liberally minded people who have no experience with guns and have all kinds of pre-conceived notions of them. If the first thing that comes to your mind when you think about guns is some kind of mass shooting. Then all of your arguments against them are going to be emotionally driven. Just to make it clear, while I have experience with guns. I have never owned or intend to own one. While it's easy to see someone dying as a result of getting shot for whatever reason. It's harder to see how many crimes have been prevented out of fear someone is or might be armed. How often has a crime been diffused merely because someone introduced a gun into the situation?

My limited experience with firearms makes me think about folk blowing their own face off by accident or more worryingly their kids or the old lady next door. The primary purpose of a firearm is to cause harm. Not a huge mental leap to suggest that it causing unintended harm to you or someone you know/like/love/share a postcode with is more likely if you have a long-ranged harming device.

I stapled myself this morning, by accident I should say. Achieved both it's primary purpose and a secondary/tertiary one. I was stapled, it caused me harm. Think banning staplers would be harsh though.

[~~~]

I disagree, a firearm primary purpose isn't to cause harm.

It's designed to kill

[williemillersmoustache]

I disagree, a firearm primary purpose isn't to cause harm.

It's designed to kill

Some calibre weapons are specifically designed to create 'casualties' not to kill out-right like the NATO 5,56mm for example. But yeah I take your point.