Forum menu
If a country that didn’t have cars looked at the UK and saw that 1700 people are killed a year their reaction would be why doesn’t the UK ban cars
Entry for the worst logical argument of the year award duly filed.
If the 1700 people killed each year were being murdered by people driving cars you would have a point. They however are not, and you don't.
In addition:
...have better car controls etc,
Erm, car controls?!
Controls such as having to have a (driving) license to operate one which consists of hazard awareness, medical suitability, practical and theory tests with a system where minor offences are totted up and the license can be revoked at any time? How about guns having to be registered with a central agency, pay duty each year, have to be insured, held on an easily accessed record with unique serial number, and have to be safety checked each year once they are 3 years old (MOT).
What more car controls would you like?
Terrible, terrible argument. Award winning terrible.
Also cars are useful for other things apart from killing... Guns that's kind of the point of them.
Controls such as having to have a (driving) license to operate one which consists of hazard awareness, medical suitability, practical and theory tests with a system where minor offences are totted up and the license can be revoked at any time?
Whilst I think that far more could and should be done, it's utterly ridiculous to compare road deaths with gun deaths. Firstly - as you say - the primary purpose of motorized transport is not to kill people, and secondly, there is a vast number of controls aimed at reducing the problem.
As for America, if the murder of schoolchildren won't make it change course, then nothing will.
I agree, please read what I was replying to and quoting.
Gave up caring a long time ago. These things don't even register with me. American's don't care enough so why should we. I'd say I feel sorry for the victims, survivors and relatives, but when the parents of a kid killed by a gun, defends guns in the aftermath, it's hard to muster sympathy at that level.
The point I was making is to an outsider from a country where cars don't exist then the obvious thing to stop car deaths would be to ban them.
You are the outsiders who don't understand how ingrained guns are in the US culture.
The response to the analogy shows how good the analogy is.
I agree, please read what I was replying to and quoting.
I know! That's why I said "as you say"...
The point I was making is to an outsider from a country where cars don’t exist then the obvious thing to stop car deaths would be to ban them.
A point so obvious it didn't need saying. Why do you think it's relevant to a discussion on gun controls?
You are the outsiders who don’t understand how ingrained guns are in the US culture.
We must be reading different threads. The one I'm reading features many posts saying that it won't change because guns are too ingrained.
Also cars are useful for other things apart from killing… Guns that’s kind of the point of them
From the American perspective though you are a good guy and your gun is there to protect your family against a bad guy so killing him is a good thing.
From the American perspective though you are a good guy and your gun is there to protect your family against a bad guy so killing him is a good thing.
So all the dead children were really just bad, then. So that's a relief.
Hey Ransos, I think things have been lost in the thread slightly. Let's just say I agree, guns are not cars, I was just going with the weird analogy to make a point.
Also, guns are bad!
I'm decreasingly sympathetic to all of these child/school shootings in the states; this morning my radio alarm went off with the sounds of the actual gunfire from the latest atrocity and I just turned it off.
We all know the story - the very next thing that the idiotically paranoid Yanks will do is rush out en masse and buy yet more guns.
Until The U.S. of A. starts to implement some effective laws that actually compromise their rights to kill each other I'm afraid I can't be arsed to even give these atrocities my attention, let alone emotionally engage with the tragedy and victims.
Good article in the Guardian.
In retrospect, Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”
This is true but even the US must have a tipping point, it is morbidly fascinating to consider what this might be:
Columbine, not enough
Sandy Hook, not enough
Las Vegas, not enough
Florida, not enough.
How many victims does it take from a single shooting. 100, 500, 1000? Perhaps some puppies as well? There must be a a turning point, even for America.
Worth also adding that, although this isn't a Trump problem of the making, immediately following the killings in New York Trump declared it to be a a terrorist attack, called for immigration restrictions, for the suspect to be sent to Guantanamo Bay and then called for the death sentence.
Killed by a white America in a school and what do you get? Thoughts and prayers.
Havnt read the whole thread so apologies if this has been mentioned before.
Why does this seem to be predominantly a US only problem. I'm pretty sure guns are readily available in other countries without the proliferation of school shootings. So is there more to it than just the fact that anyone can get there hands on a gun?
"How many victims does it take from a single shooting. 100, 500, 1000?"
Well, we already know it's not 100 or 500. Las Vegas showed us that.
The right wingers in the states have some seriously odd values.
An unborn child has a right to life that must be protected at all costs, but once outside the womb it appears that kids are fair game for any nut with a semi automatic rifle.
I've said it before on these threads but I also think that every gun or rifle sold should, by law, be painted barbie pink with glitter and be called something like Unicorn Cuddle Sparkle Stick.
This would align with their right to bear arms but would make them less attractive to your murdering type. Even if it didn't work, it would be amusing to see the NRA trying to argue otherwise.
I’m pretty sure guns are readily available in other countries without the proliferation of school shootings. So is there more to it than just the fact that anyone can get there hands on a gun?
US has by far the highest gun ownership per capita. Approaching double the next best, according to wiki.
It doesn't have the highest gun fatality rate per capita. More work is needed to get it up there with places like Honduras and El Salvador.
My pure guess for the number of mass shootings is simply the easy availability of military-style semi automatic weaponry, coupled with the relatively high disposable income needed to afford them.
I’m pretty sure guns are readily available in other countries without the proliferation of school shootings. So is there more to it than just the fact that anyone can get there hands on a gun?
Do you think there is something about infamy going on. This messed up kid manages to kill 17, does that lay down a target (excuse the pun) for the next messed up kid? In other places kids rebel by becoming goth, the more rebellious you are, the more goth you are. Is there now a thing in the states where they idolise the kids who shoot up a school then aspire to be like them or out do them?
I don't know if this is the case, just thinking out loud.
I don't think it's a numbers thing, simply that each event reinforces the idea for a tiny subset of Americans that rocking up somewhere and spraying bullets around indiscriminately is a valid way of settling grudges and scores.
Get sacked? Shoot your workplace up.
Get arrested? Shoot some cops
Lose loads of cash gambling? Just open your Vegas hotel window and start shooting.
Get expelled?
BoardinBob Subscriber
Gave up caring a long time ago. These things don’t even register with me. American’s don’t care enough so why should we.
I'm not convinced this is really the case. The statistics that wwaswas quoted suggests that the average American does care and does want something done, but vested ideological, commercial and political interests are preventing the democratic process from working in the average American's interests here.
It's a long time since I watched Bowling for Columbine,but (if I remember correctly )the final conclusion by Moore was that fear and paranoia (fueled by the US media) was the main reason behind gun sales and easy access to military spec weapons.
Liked this tweet -
One shoe bomber tried to blow up a plane and now we take off our shoes.
1520 mass shootings since Sandy Hook and Congress has done NOTHING.
Florida Governor Rick Scott said the shooting was "pure evil", but also refused to be drawn into a discussion about gun control.<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">"There's a time to continue to have these conversations about how through law enforcement... we make sure people are safe," he said</span>
Brilliant, there it is, the first this is not the time comment
FFS, if the Americans don't care enough to get it changed, they've got to live with the consequences. I could get angry, but really, what's the point?
I'd be interested to see how many politicians are funded or receive "donations" by the NRA in some way or another. It's the only thing that makes sense that they can sit back and see children murdered in the one place they should be safe and still do absolutely nothing about it.
oh wait:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/opinion/thoughts-prayers-nra-funding-senators.html
Looking a little deeper, it would appear the more money you get from the NRA, the more Thoughts and Prayers you're willing to part with
Boba, you beat me to the NY Times article; it doesn't make clear how much funding McCain received outside of his presidential run in 2008.
Just to add, Trump received $21million from the NRA during his campaign.
Money talks.
Donald Trump has been labelled a “f*****g piece of s**t” on Twitter by a user who is believed to be a student caught up in the Florida school shooting.
"wwaswas
Eight-in-10 Americans told the pollsters they favor bans on assault weapons, high-capacity ammunition magazines and “bump stocks,” an accessory used by the Las Vegas shooter that allows a semi-automatic rifle to fire like an automatic weapon.
Eight-in-10 likewise said they favor a federal database to track all gun sales. On each of these questions, majorities of Democrats, independents and Republicans all were in favor of the restrictions to some degree.
But the share who were in favor, as well as the intensity of their agreement, varied by party — sometimes widely. For example, 91 percent of Democrats, along with 76 percent of independents and 70 percent of Republicans, said they are for banning assault-style weapons."
What's really interesting is if you prefix this with "are you in favour of stricter gun controls", then ask a series of questions about specific measures. The majority of people who say they oppose gun control, are in favour of more than one additional type of gun control, you get a different answer from general questions than from specifics. NO TO ALL GUN CONTROL but yes to not allowing criminals or the mentally ill or terrorists to have them.
(this is pretty common in surveys and statistics; in the UK a pretty good proportion of people who when asked say they are christian, will then say that they don't believe in God or christ)
And this does inform the debate leaders a lot- recent successes in this area all focused on really narrow types of controls. I don't agree with the no-fly-list thing but it got a lot of sympathy. Controls for criminals, controls on really specific types of hardware like bump stocks. Whether this can be the thin end of a wedge isn't clear but it gets stuff done where otherwise nothing would happen.
But as soon as you say "gun control" everyone assumes that you're coming for their gun. And literally everyone with a gun thinks they're a responsible gun owner.
$21million dollars!!
****ing hell i had no idea the NRA had pockets that deep!
On a Facebook group with a lot of Americans
Apparently the blame lays with big pharma. All the meds these kids are on is the real problem
The solution apparently is arming the teachers
MEGALOLZER
Just listened to Trump's address to the nation.
Vacuous; hot air; platitudes; reference to mental illness (but not his).
Sympathy, love, support yadda yadda.
Nothing about reducing the probability of further mass shootings.
Not a single word about gun control.
@nickc - just another example of how trump is owned.
The NRA and Putin have him exactly where they want him - in the WH and subject to them.
A kid who was there says it better than anyone could:
So the shooter is '....sad and remorseful'. I call bollocks.
Looks like a pathetic kid without his guns and knives.
Member of 'white supremacist' group; he will get a few years while they are still out there spouting racist, xenophobic, isolationist poison into the ears of anyone dim enough to listen.
The NRA donated $21 million to the Trump election campaign. He is a member. His family are all members. He was the key speaker at their last conference. Do not expect Trump to do anything whatsoever.
<quote>
Enough is enough! Public massacres and school shootings must stop!
Stephen Willeford grabbed his AR-15-style rifle after hearing the gunfire and went over to investigate. Confronting the shooter, Devin Kelley, Willeford shot him in the leg and torso before Kelley dropped his weapon and fled the scene in his SUV.
At Moore, Oklahoma, a man went crazy at a food plant and attacked a female worker, literally chopping her head off. He then went after a second woman. Hearing the screams, C.O.O. Mark Vaughan pulled out his firearm, ran to the scene and shot down the killer.
The Clackamas Mall shooting in Oregon, a psycho with a semi-automatic rifle opened fire. Nick Melli, a young man carrying a .40 pistol on a permit, drew and aimed at the gunman. Melli didn’t fire, for fear of hitting innocents behind the perpetrator, but the gunman at that point fled through an employee’s-only doorway and down an inside hall, where he then committed suicide. What could have been a high-casualty mass murder was apparently aborted by the mere sight of an armed citizen.
Jeanne Assam, armed with the 9mm pistol she was licensed to carry as an armed citizen was at Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, in 2007 , she shot the killer on the run and dropped him, at which time he shot himself, concluding the matter. Assam was hailed for her courageous act, which indisputably saved many lives.
An enraged man entered a psychiatric clinic and shot a caseworker dead and wounded one of the doctors before the latter drew his pistol and shot the man down, limiting the death toll to one. The doctor recovered and, declared a hero by local police, suffered no consequences for being armed in a “gun-free” zone.
The lessons are clear. One fights fire with fire, and defeats force with force. Criminals make a point of striking in places where police are absent, and the police can’t repeal the laws of time and motion to get to the scene in time to stop the murders. If someone collapses with a heart attack, a citizen first responder with an AED is more likely to save him than waiting for a paramedic unit. The State of Maine and New Hampshire do NOT require a concealed weapon Permit. In these states, anyone can carry a pistol in their pocket, or in a holster, No License Needed!
Let’s save America, and abolish the draconian laws that restrict it’s citizens from protecting themselves.
</quote>
This was posted on the abovetopsecret forums. It's pretty standard response to these events. There is little point engaging in a gun-control debate online, even a suggestion that simple things like performing basic checks or enforce cooling off periods are a good idea get no where.
From a UK/European centric stand point it is very odd and somewhat tragic.
As I've said - The real issue is about whether American democracy works. People, children, are literally dying live on television, and they (the people) seem unable or unwilling to stop it. That's ****ed-up
The fact that the NRA are able to peruse their outrageous agenda by openly bribing elected officials is a) a demonstration of how dysfunctional american politics is, and b) a demonstration of how their agenda is contrary to the best interests of the people - otherwise they wouldn't need to bribe people, surely?
It seems like the anti-guns lobby (or "normal people") really need to organize themselves into something that can counter the NRAs deep pockets. Maybe they can offer counter-bribes to the politicians to encourage them into action? FFS
Also - am I the only person that breathes a sigh of relief when the gunman is white?
NRA finances and funding; 5 million members - are their membership dues tax deductible?
In 2010, the NRA reported revenue of $227.8 million and expenses of $243.5 million,<sup id="cite_ref-NRA990-2010_202-0" class="reference">[</sup>with revenue including roughly $115 million generated from fundraising, sales, advertising and royalties, and most of the rest from membership dues.<sup id="cite_ref-Robison-Crewdson2011_203-0" class="reference"></sup><sup id="cite_ref-204" class="reference"></sup> Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees; the majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising. <sup id="cite_ref-FactCheck130115_180-2" class="reference"></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Robison-Crewdson2011_203-1" class="reference"></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Hickey130116_205-0" class="reference"></sup>The NRA has said that less than 5% of its funding comes from the firearms industry, with the majority coming from small donors.<sup id="cite_ref-206" class="reference"></sup>
Corporate donors include a variety of companies such as outdoors supply, sporting goods companies, and firearm manufacturers.<sup id="cite_ref-FactCheck130115_180-3" class="reference"></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Robison-Crewdson2011_203-2" class="reference"></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Hickey130116_205-1" class="reference"></sup><sup id="cite_ref-VPC110413_207-0" class="reference"></sup> From 2005 through 2011, the NRA received at least $14.8 million from more than 50 firearms-related firms. <sup id="cite_ref-Robison-Crewdson2011_203-3" class="reference"></sup>An April 2011 Violence Policy Center presentation said that the NRA had received between $14.7 million and $38.9 million from the firearms industry since 2005.<sup id="cite_ref-VPC110413_207-1" class="reference">[</sup>In 2008, Beretta exceeded $2 million in donations to the NRA, and in 2012, Smith & Wesson gave more than $1 million. Sturm, Ruger & Company raised $1.25 million through a program in which it donated $1 to the NRA-ILA for each gun it sold from May 2011 to May 2012. In a similar program, gun buyers and participating stores are invited to "round up" the purchase price to the nearest dollar as a voluntary contribution. According to the NRA's 2010 tax forms, the "round-up" funds have been allocated to both public interest programs and lobbying.<sup id="cite_ref-FactCheck130115_180-4" class="reference"></sup>
In my opinion, it's going to take nothing less than a public movement to surpass the Civil Rights Movement, to get gun control implemented.
If those who don't own guns (as well as those who do, but aren't still brainwashed) have any social conscience,they should march on Washington, and the other major cities, in their millions. Show the NRA and their President puppet this can't go on and won't be tolerated any longer.
Why would Trump want to upset his base?
mikey74, I think you're right - a mass political movement is the only way to go. The second amendment should be reworded. There's no fundamental reason not to - the right to bear arms came to the USA from English law designed for the defence of Protestants against any future Catholic government. That anachronism has been addressed in English law, no reason for the same to happen in the USA.
Once it's clear what the rights should be, banning rapid fire weapons should be easy.
I suspect it won't happen in the next 10 years though.