Another mass shooting in the US

[Wilson's Toffee]

Stop focusing on one sympton of a broken civilisation. Focus on the causes for such abberrant behaviour and go to some trouble to fix that.

That goes for ALL sick civilisations.....

[Hugo]

Well yeah, but the only realistic chance of any positive change is enacting stricter gun control legislation, and the gun lobby will do whatever it takes to ensure that doesn't happen (bang bang ka-ching!), hence all those GOP politicians stymying any attempt at real change. From the outside looking in, it seems to me that America's obscene gun fetish and reverence for the anachronistic 2nd amendment has led to an almost resigned acceptance that these sorts of mass shootings are now 'inevitable'. Because the "right" to bear weapons of war in a peaceful society trumps the right of that society's children to live without fear of imminent death... at school of all places. Talk about fubar...

I tend to agree with Fonz. South Africa has much more stringent firearm control legislation than the USA, yet we are far more prone to experience "gun violence". Illegal firearms are here, in prolific numbers, and no amount of legislation will inhibit their number or use . Plus, our police and Defense Force (the biggest contributors to illegal firearms) are in no way willing, politically, to let legal firearms be and focus on illegal arms.

Seems to be a culture thing, where "might makes right", regardless of common sense . Violent societies ..

So we should give up as no amount if legislation and law will inhibit their use?
So what else do we say that about?

Do we say that about drugs,
Robbery?
Speeding?
Murder*
We can't do anything, as there will always be illegal firearms..

Lets give up on the lawbook, as there are and will always be law breakers?

F'king bizarre reasoning.

Giving up, even before we contracted the policing of it out to the private sector, for them to make a packet.
What's becoming of this planet.

Yeah, its a stupid mindset - unless we can solve a problem entirely we won't even try to make inroads. Even in this instance where the shooter acquired his weapons legally you still have Republican senators who trot out the "nothing can be done, he would have done this no matter what" arguments.

It is incredibly difficult to make any dent on this problem when people with legislative power are so fundamentally dishonest

[Kawazaki]

The first step for them needs to be nationwide standardisation of law. I mentioned elsewhere that Chicago, despite being in a state with fairly tight laws, has massive issues with gun violence due to the ease with which they're acquired from neighbouring states.

Then maybe they can move onto something like magazine capacity reduction, cost of ammo and amount of ammo any one person can have in their possession at any time. Ammo is probably the easier target than guns for the moment.

Chicago has a crime problem, it's easy for the pro-gun lobby to point at it and say there's your proof that gun control doesn't work but they're morons with all kinds of cognitive biases kicking off.

I actually think the only way they will stand any chance of getting control of guns is to do it in small chunks incrementally. Then those states with strict gun control must use all incentives to get people to hand in their guns, they just have to take them out of circulation and denormalise them. One state at a time. It won't be easy of course but eventually those states with less guns will have less gun crime, less gun suicides and less gun homicides. That will start to happen.

[sockwithaticket]

The first step for them needs to be nationwide standardisation of law. I mentioned elsewhere that Chicago, despite being in a state with fairly tight laws, has massive issues with gun violence due to the ease with which they're acquired from neighbouring states.

Then maybe they can move onto something like magazine capacity reduction, cost of ammo and amount of ammo any one person can have in their possession at any time. Ammo is probably the easier target than guns for the moment.

Chicago has a crime problem, it's easy for the pro-gun lobby to point at it and say there's your proof that gun control doesn't work but they're morons with all kinds of cognitive biases kicking off.

I actually think the only way they will stand any chance of getting control of guns is to do it in small chunks incrementally. Then those states with strict gun control must use all incentives to get people to hand in their guns, they just have to take them out of circulation and denormalise them. One state at a time. It won't be easy of course but eventually those states with less guns will have less gun crime, less gun suicides and less gun homicides. That will start to happen.

There's already a pronounced difference between somewhere like California and Texas on all sorts of crime metrics and that's even with the former having a solid chunk of rural conservative types outside of the likes of Los Angeles and San Francisco.

I would wonder how much further the already (relatively) tightly legislated states are willing to go without the more problematic ones at least somewhat following suit. Apparently liberal/lefty gun ownership has gone up quite a lot in recent years because they're becoming more scared of the other side. With that as a motivator, can they be persuaded to part with their weapons without evidence of reciprocity elsewhere? A pure hypothetical of course.

[Hugo]

The first step for them needs to be nationwide standardisation of law. I mentioned elsewhere that Chicago, despite being in a state with fairly tight laws, has massive issues with gun violence due to the ease with which they're acquired from neighbouring states.

Then maybe they can move onto something like magazine capacity reduction, cost of ammo and amount of ammo any one person can have in their possession at any time. Ammo is probably the easier target than guns for the moment.

Chicago has a crime problem, it's easy for the pro-gun lobby to point at it and say there's your proof that gun control doesn't work but they're morons with all kinds of cognitive biases kicking off.

Yeah, I saw the Governor was in quick with the "Whatabout Chicago" defence.

Its just another element of the fundamental dishonesty you are dealing with. They know that no matter how restrictive the laws are in any region guns can quite easily be obtained elsewhere and brought in.

[inactionman]

They should release the crime scene photos. Those poor kids can't be identified by sight because of what an AR15 does to someone. Release the pictures, even the nutjobs can't see something like that and stay the course of the guns aren't the problem.

A leading trauma surgeon in Philadelphia - sadly no strangers to gun violence - agrees with you:

https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/art ... cf48d52cd9

[Biffer]

Meanwhile, in a normal country

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... SApp_Other

[notfatcat]

Meanwhile, in a normal country

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... SApp_Other

I notice the race of the victim wasn't mentioned in the headline so I guess it was probably a white, Asian or Hispanic guy. Phew. Good police work.

[Enzedder]

I think we're wrong in blaming the politicians. How many of those do you know take the "unpopular" road and stay in power?

The laws reflect what the people want or they wouldn't stay in place.

[fishfoodie]

I think we're wrong in blaming the politicians. How many of those do you know take the "unpopular" road and stay in power?

The laws reflect what the people want or they wouldn't stay in place.

The Problem is that poll, after poll, has shown that the majority are in favor of stricter legislation, but Politicians prefer to take the money form the NRA & the Gun manufacturers, & pretend that this isn't the case.

The Laws reflect what Politicians can get away with & still get elected, in the rigged game that is American Politics.

[Rinkals]

The context is that when he was running for president he stated hell yeah we're gonna take (some of) your weapons, and when he was running for office in a pro-gun state he said nah we don't want to take anything. What's changed his mind do you think? My belief, and the obvious one I think, is that he knows he can't takje the same message to people in Texas who he wants to vote him into office. Typical politician - full of shit.

O'Rouke's position on guns is well known, and he probably won't win the race to become Governor because of it.

What you are saying makes absolutely no sense.

O'Rourke is probably one of the few politicians trying to do the right thing, but because he's not a Republican, he's a "piece of shit"?

Please stop misquoting me.

Alright, "full of shit", then.

Minor semantics, which don't actually alter the point.

What is so important about the race of the shooter (or the victims, for that matter)?

[Hugo]

I think we're wrong in blaming the politicians. How many of those do you know take the "unpopular" road and stay in power?

The laws reflect what the people want or they wouldn't stay in place.

Thats the thing though the way the Senate is configured - to give small states equal representation to heavily populated states - means that the democratic will of the people is not done. The argument that the senators are only representing their constituents is a solid one but the problem is their views are over represented in the Senate. Essentially, senators from Wyoming and Montana have far too much influence in the system given how sparsely populated their states are.

[fishfoodie]

I think we're wrong in blaming the politicians. How many of those do you know take the "unpopular" road and stay in power?

The laws reflect what the people want or they wouldn't stay in place.

Thats the thing though the way the Senate is configured - to give small states equal representation to heavily populated states - means that the democratic will of the people is not done. The argument that the senators are only representing their constituents is a solid one but the problem is their views are over represented in the Senate. Essentially, senators from Wyoming and Montana have far too much influence in the system given how sparsely populated their states are.

Not just States, but within States to give rural Conservative voters an influence higher than liberal urban voters; Colorado, & Georgia being examples.

[Fonz]

I think we're wrong in blaming the politicians. How many of those do you know take the "unpopular" road and stay in power?

The laws reflect what the people want or they wouldn't stay in place.

The Problem is that poll, after poll, has shown that the majority are in favor of stricter legislation, but Politicians prefer to take the money form the NRA & the Gun manufacturers, & pretend that this isn't the case.

The Laws reflect what Politicians can get away with & still get elected, in the rigged game that is American Politics.

This is a good example of why polls don't mean shit. You can't pass a bill that says "we're going to be stricter on guns" -- it has to be one thing or another, a specific measure. And specificity makes things considerably more difficult than just some vague policy preference...what is even meant exactly by "stricter"? Hell, what does "tougher background checks mean"? It can mean 10 things to 10 different people who might all have answered in the affirmative. By being specific, invariably you're no longer going to please all 10 of those people.

Money and lobbying has its place in the discussion of what's wrong with the country, but not with regard to a highly visible issue like guns -- more for things that are more complex, nuanced, and subject to bureaucratic oversight, like the dark crannies of finance and medicine and so on.

[notfatcat]

O'Rouke's position on guns is well known, and he probably won't win the race to become Governor because of it.

What you are saying makes absolutely no sense.

O'Rourke is probably one of the few politicians trying to do the right thing, but because he's not a Republican, he's a "piece of shit"?

Please stop misquoting me.

Alright, "full of shit", then.

Minor semantics, which don't actually alter the point.

What is so important about the race of the shooter (or the victims, for that matter)?

Rinkals, there's not much point. You either don't read what I write or you just make stuff up.

[Gumboot]

[Tilly Orifice]

Meanwhile, in a normal country

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... SApp_Other

I notice the race of the victim wasn't mentioned in the headline so I guess it was probably a white, Asian or Hispanic guy. Phew. Good police work.

You're saying that if the guy found walking near a school with a gun had been black, the press would have been sure to mention it? Hmm, could be right.

[Enzedder]

I have a solution - but it's gender based.

[Rinkals]

Please stop misquoting me.

Alright, "full of shit", then.

Minor semantics, which don't actually alter the point.

What is so important about the race of the shooter (or the victims, for that matter)?

Rinkals, there's not much point. You either don't read what I write or you just make stuff up.

Try reading Beto's wiki page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beto_O%27Rourke

See if you still think he's "full of shit" and whether Abbott is a better choice.

We, neither of us, have any influence in who Texans vote in as Governor (and, I concede it probably won't be O'Rourke), but writing O'Rouke off as "full of shit", gives a very clear indication of where your political affiliations lie.

[Insane_Homer]

[notfatcat]

Maybe they don't do that because the proportion of young men who buy guns who go on to kill someone is extremely small, whereas the proportion of women who want an abortion who go on to kill their unborn baby is very high. Chalk and cheese.

[dpedin]

I turned on the radio and heard some republican US politician talking about the need for controlled entry/exit points, armed guards, lockable doors on every room, armed staff, fencing around the whole building, regular drills in case of violence outbreaks, x-rays at entrances, etc - I thought fair enough if they want to make jails more secure then that's their prerogative ..... it was only at the end of his interview I realised he was talking about primary schools. America is really fucked when schools for young kids resemble jails, truly and utterly fucked. All they are doing is breeding more killers who will still have access to military grade killing weapons.

[Kiwias]

Maybe they don't do that because the proportion of young men who buy guns who go on to kill someone is extremely small, whereas the proportion of women who want an abortion who go on to kill their unborn baby is very high. Chalk and cheese.

You could get a job as PR spokesman for a loony right-wing fundamental religious group.

[notfatcat]

Maybe they don't do that because the proportion of young men who buy guns who go on to kill someone is extremely small, whereas the proportion of women who want an abortion who go on to kill their unborn baby is very high. Chalk and cheese.

You could get a job as PR spokesman for a loony right-wing fundamental religious group.

Do you disagree with anything I said, if so - what?

[TB63]

FTz0_EOVUAE3Cjv.jpeg (27.87 KiB) Viewed 1926 times

How comfortable would you feel walking into a shop and seeing this?..

[Gumboot]

FTz0_EOVUAE3Cjv.jpeg

How comfortable would you feel walking into a shop and seeing this?..

Self defence, innit. There could be a posse of heavily armed bad girls waiting in ambush just around the next corner.

[notfatcat]

FTz0_EOVUAE3Cjv.jpeg

How comfortable would you feel walking into a shop and seeing this?..

I'd be very wary of travelling to Israel.

[Raggs]

FTz0_EOVUAE3Cjv.jpeg

How comfortable would you feel walking into a shop and seeing this?..

I'd be very wary of travelling to Israel.

At least in Israel 99% of those carrying rifles are in uniform. Sidearms 90% are in some sort of uniform too. Gun licenses are pretty tough to get unless you have a very valid reason to have one. Amusingly though, now a 15 year old story, so maybe things have changed, someone I knew who had rifle, sidearm, and even explosives licenses (game keeper in a large nature reserve), had the most trouble trying to get an air pistol/rifle license. Just wanted it to deal with rats, since it was easier than using a catapault.

[Kiwias]

Maybe they don't do that because the proportion of young men who buy guns who go on to kill someone is extremely small, whereas the proportion of women who want an abortion who go on to kill their unborn baby is very high. Chalk and cheese.

You could get a job as PR spokesman for a loony right-wing fundamental religious group.

Do you disagree with anything I said, if so - what?

More the deliberately emotive way you phrased it.

[notfatcat]

You could get a job as PR spokesman for a loony right-wing fundamental religious group.

Do you disagree with anything I said, if so - what?

More the deliberately emotive way you phrased it.

Well to be fair the pic of the social media post is deliberately emotive, not to mention very stupid.

[Kiwias]

Do you disagree with anything I said, if so - what?

More the deliberately emotive way you phrased it.

Well to be fair the pic of the social media post is deliberately emotive, not to mention very stupid.

Pointing out that there are far greater restrictions on getting an abortion than on purchasing a military-style assault rifle is neither emotive nor stupid. But I sense that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

[petej]

FTz0_EOVUAE3Cjv.jpeg

How comfortable would you feel walking into a shop and seeing this?..

I suspect it will deter some unwanted attention. How much gun crime is committed by women? Perhaps just ban men from owning guns.

[TB63]

Would you like a spare clip with your fries?..

FTz0_ELVEAA5FJ2.jpeg (34.55 KiB) Viewed 2359 times

[notfatcat]

More the deliberately emotive way you phrased it.

Well to be fair the pic of the social media post is deliberately emotive, not to mention very stupid.

Pointing out that there are far greater restrictions on getting an abortion than on purchasing a military-style assault rifle is neither emotive nor stupid. But I sense that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

It's both emotive and stupid. Purchasing an assault rifle doesn't necessarily end in a death. In fact it rarely ends in a death. Having an abortion always results in a death. 60 million of them since it was legalised. It's a dumb comparison regardless of how one feels about abortion, unless I suppose one views abortion in the same way one views elective surgery.

[TB63]

FT0XBAlVUAAeQqt.jpeg (46.73 KiB) Viewed 2341 times

Uvalde: AR-15
Buffalo: AR-15
Boulder: AR-15
Orlando: AR-15
Parkland: AR-15
Las Vegas: AR-15
Aurora, CO: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
Waffle House: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Midland/Odessa: AR-15
Poway synagogue: AR-15
Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Tree of Life Synagogue: AR-15

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Well to be fair the pic of the social media post is deliberately emotive, not to mention very stupid.

Pointing out that there are far greater restrictions on getting an abortion than on purchasing a military-style assault rifle is neither emotive nor stupid. But I sense that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

It's both emotive and stupid. Purchasing an assault rifle doesn't necessarily end in a death. In fact it rarely ends in a death. Having an abortion always results in a death. 60 million of them since it was legalised. It's a dumb comparison regardless of how one feels about abortion, unless I suppose one views abortion in the same way one views elective surgery.

I don't know for a fact but I presume most abortions would be more elective procedure than elective surgery. Either way the more critical distinction is the women having abortions are indeed electing to have them, whereas the people being shot dead are not electing to be shot dead.

[Tichtheid]

Pointing out that there are far greater restrictions on getting an abortion than on purchasing a military-style assault rifle is neither emotive nor stupid. But I sense that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

It's both emotive and stupid. Purchasing an assault rifle doesn't necessarily end in a death. In fact it rarely ends in a death. Having an abortion always results in a death. 60 million of them since it was legalised. It's a dumb comparison regardless of how one feels about abortion, unless I suppose one views abortion in the same way one views elective surgery.

I don't know for a fact but I presume most abortions would be more elective procedure than elective surgery. Either way the more critical distinction is the women having abortions are indeed electing to have them, whereas the people being shot dead are not electing to be shot dead.

Every ten year old boy in the US should have a reversible vasectomy. When they are old enough and in a financial position to support a child they can then elect to have the procedure reversed, after interviews, counselling and internal examinations of course.

This would have a huge impact on the number of abortions needed, in all probability it would reduce them to almost zero.


As for assault rifles and semi-automatic hand guns, the desire to have one should disqualify the person from having one, no sane person outside of the military needs these.

Anyone who starts spouting about the 2nd amendment is a useful idiot to the near-30 billion dollar gun industry in the US.

[notfatcat]

Pointing out that there are far greater restrictions on getting an abortion than on purchasing a military-style assault rifle is neither emotive nor stupid. But I sense that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

It's both emotive and stupid. Purchasing an assault rifle doesn't necessarily end in a death. In fact it rarely ends in a death. Having an abortion always results in a death. 60 million of them since it was legalised. It's a dumb comparison regardless of how one feels about abortion, unless I suppose one views abortion in the same way one views elective surgery.

I don't know for a fact but I presume most abortions would be more elective procedure than elective surgery. Either way the more critical distinction is the women having abortions are indeed electing to have them, whereas the people being shot dead are not electing to be shot dead.

No, the critical distinction is that every abortion results in a death whereas every gun purchase does not. Or alternatively, the people being shot dead are not electing to be shot dead and the unborn babies are not electing to be aborted.

[Raggs]

Death yes, death of a human being? Not in my mind.

[Tichtheid]

You can freeze an embryo but you can’t freeze a baby. That’s because an embryo isn’t an unborn child.

The earliest a pregnancy is viable is around 22 weeks or five months