Enguin Enguin Enguin Enguin Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34450841 Oh America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebuchet MS Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Will this please be the tipping point for tighter gun control? Probably not, actually. Those who want their guns would probably point to the boy's parents for not keeping their guns properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epicmemesbro Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 This is starting to get sensationalized beyond control..... Although I will give you kudos for using the BBC as a news source (some foolishly find CNN reliable). However i'm beginning to see a pattern.....a pattern of snide critique amongst the UK and its commonwealths' media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enguin Enguin Enguin Enguin Posted October 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 That story is in no way sensationalised and gun violence in America is not being blown out of proportion, it just happens all the time and nothing is done so it's inevitable that the attitude of outside observers is becoming more incredulous than anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epicmemesbro Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Indeed. But fear mongering won't get us anywhere. The media has done this before with HIV/AIDS, cocaine, and even shark attacks. Abrupt solutions will only result in short term success followed by a down spiral of going back to square one..... One must keep their calm and find gradual change based on facts not pathos.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Amazing Avian Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 This one in particular is on the parents for leaving it where the kid could get it. It should be common sense to keep that out of their reach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enguin Enguin Enguin Enguin Posted October 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Columbine was 16 years ago and nothing has changed. Incidents like that and like this are not infrequent. To say that this is media hype is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Indeed. But fear mongering won't get us anywhere. The media has done this before with HIV/AIDS, cocaine, and even shark attacks. Abrupt solutions will only result in short term success followed by a down spiral of going back to square one..... One must keep their calm and find gradual change based on facts not pathos.... Great Britain and Australia very rapidly responded to a singular large incident of gun crime by directly making fire arms harder to obtain. Whilst technically an abrupt solution, it has had extreme amounts of long term success. It is proven to be an effective method in this case. Like in what universe is it normal for an advanced country to see incidents like this, or the mass shootings so often? Either a) the guns themselves are the problem, or b) your society just sucks at using guns responsibly (Yes, there are responsible gun owners, but you seemingly have far to large a proportion of non-responsible ones) It just does not make sense. Neither do the rationalisations people try to make around these incidents, because there's always this big common factor involved. Hell, just read the damn article; There was another incident on Monday in Ohio where an 11 year old shot his 12 year old brother. Or the fact that on the same day as the Oregon shooting, 3 more people were killed in an incident in Florida according to this article. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34428946 And finally, and this one actually just takes the piss; The Washington Post (I have no idea how reliable it is, but it really does deserve a mention) http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/01/2015-274-days-294-mass-shootings-hundreds-dead/ There have been more mass shootings in the US than days in the year thus far in 2015. How the funk anyone can try to justify that your country does not have an issue that needs immediate fixing just baffles and disappoints me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makο Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Alright. Without so much of a doubt, something needs to be done about the gun situation in America. No, the solution isn't throw more guns into the mix. Yes, mental health improvements will help, but not only is it unlikely to actually go through (since it's only ever brought up to distract from gun control discussions), but it's also not a fast process. Things will keep happening for a while even after better mental health policies are innacted. Plus, it all becomes moot once you realize only a fraction of gun-related incidents happen because of the truly mentally impaired. So the answer is gun control. Yes. But what does this entail, really? That's what confused me. Does that just mean more control on who can buy guns? That sounds fine, I guess. Keep criminals and the mentally impaired from LEGALLY getting guns. That can help. But as far as I can tell, most, if not all of these incidents are not "crazy person buys gun and shoots." It's "crazy person gets gun from relative and shoots." So, then, do we take the guns out of peoples homes? We all know that ain't happening. Americans would rather shoot those sent to collect then just give them up. So... what do we do? Something needs to be done, but what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 There are a lot of options in and around gun control. The state can pay to take guns off of peoples hands; Essentially giving an incentive for people to give up there firearms. You can allow the people to maintain the actual guns, but make position of ammunition outside of designated areas (Like gun ranges) illegal. You can prevent all forms of carrying firearms in public, be it concealed or unconcealed. Or you can go the whole hog, and make the vast majority of firearms, allowing access to people who want it for say hunting by getting an approved hunting license. There a lot of options around, it's just choosing the correct one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epicmemesbro Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 I've noticed alot of public officials and some outspoken citizens talking using gun control as some magic word that takes care of problems all of a sudden. That term alone is much too vague...what specific regulations would one enact and in what areas??? With gun control one must use a correct combination of laws that guarantees success.... If one uses the wrong combination, ones community can end up like South central, Amsterdam or even Mexico. Also I'd like to add that the UK limits ones ability in terms of self defense. Now I'm not saying one should legalize guns there, but it would be a good idea to enact some amendments that allow citizens to defend themselves physicaly at least. I've noticed that some areas tend to have high levels of crime due this limit... I heard from a friend who lives there that if one tries any sort of act that causes harm to the perpetrator of a crime in progress, those that defended themselves will get in legal hot water.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Rai Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 I've noticed alot of public officials and some outspoken citizens talking using gun control as some magic word that takes care of problems all of a sudden. That term alone is much too vague...what specific regulations would one enact and in what areas??? With gun control one must use a correct combination of laws that guarantees success.... If one uses the wrong combination, ones community can end up like South central, Amsterdam or even Mexico.Also I'd like to add that the UK limits ones ability in terms of self defense. Now I'm not saying one should legalize guns there, but it would be a good idea to enact some amendments that allow citizens to defend themselves physicaly at least. I've noticed that some areas tend to have high levels of crime due this limit... I heard from a friend who lives there that if one tries any sort of act that causes harm to the perpetrator of a crime in progress, those that defended themselves will get in legal hot water....The statement about the UK is very murky. Self defence is legal everywhere. In the UK, you can't respond to a threat with excessive force. Someone tries to steal your purse, no, you can't stab them. So your friend seems to be saying sweet nothings there. High crime is certainly not because of that. It's simply just local culture and environment. Certainly the same in the US. To be honest, gun control did fairly quickly all of a sudden change things for the better in Australia ( and the UK, under similar circumstances). Not that it should be compared directly to the US, but there is strong strong precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 That's not true. Justified self defence is still a thing in the British legal system; It just has to be reasonable force, which generally doesn't include killing someone. If you are talking about defence of property the same idea applies - Reasonable force can be justified, which is all you really need. Whomever told you otherwise told you a flat-out lie. I for one would argue that a society where gun crime is running rampart is one far closer to say mexico than the alternative. Neither would the removal of guns say cause the State to collapse and regress; You have advanced infrastruture, a somewhat working goverment, legal and justice systems. Unless something else went horribly wrong at the same time, society would continue on. Sure, you probably need a complex system of laws in place, but on the other hand, just flat out restricting the sale and possession of fire arms has proven to work in other countries. As does reducing the number of guns available reduce the levels of gun crime. You are right of course, there is no magical solution to the entire problem.Nothing that will make all the crime stop. But it will still help, it will start to cut down on it, it will start to improve your society, to make your country a safer place to live in. Because all of these kinds of laws take time to work, and time to be accepted and time to be viewed as the objectively correct choice. And yet time and again, the evidence both in and out of the US shows that stricter gun laws and controlling legislation the lower the less gun violence actually happens. In essence; For now, stop worrying about the details. And just accept that something has to bloody well change, and then go out and try to make it happen. Start rally's, get support, make it a massive movement of the people trying to make life better for the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Amazing Avian Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 I stand by my idea of licensing and training how to handle them just like we do with cars. Additionally, whoever the gun is registered to should be held accountable for letting someone else get a hold of their gun. Maybe not charge them as an accomplice, but slap with a big ass fine and revoke their license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Will this please be the tipping point for tighter gun control? Probably not, actually. Those who want their guns would probably point to the boy's parents for not keeping their guns properly. It won't be. Columbine wasn't. Virgina Tech wasn't. Aurora wasn't. Sandy Hook wasn't. The gun lobby and gun nuts do not care about the lives of people. Heck, thanks to the NRA, the CDC can't even conduct a study on gun violence. As for the incident, under no circumstance should someone this young have access to a gun. However, this is more or less a case of a gun owner being negligent as the kid got his hands on it. Had the kid not had access to the gun, the girl would likely still be alive. Whoever owns the gun should be held accountable as well. I feel quite a few people are starting to wise up, but there remains a lot of people who either are crazy or just don't care. On a side note, I actually don't hate guns, but, hate the gun lobby and those pro-gun nutcases. America's gun culture is flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinny Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 I might see the point in it if there was alot of people benefitting from having them, but the problem is that because guns are also a weapon, they create a problem in itself to defend yourself from. It can add to a community if used properly but because no one is perfect there will always be these situations whilst people have guns. Anyway, just my opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flame Dragon Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Will this please be the tipping point for tighter gun control? Probably not, actually. Those who want their guns would probably point to the boy's parents for not keeping their guns properly. This is 100% what should happen. If you choose to own a gun you are choosing to own a weapon that can very easily kill. It should be locked. It should be hidden. It should be kept out of reach of minors. Irresponsible gun ownership and handling are much more likely to result in harm than anything else. Which is to be expected when the US has as many guns as people. Columbine was 16 years ago and nothing has changed. Incidents like that and like this are not infrequent. To say that this is media hype is ridiculous. This is the sad reality. The gun debate is over and the gun lobby won. As said earlier if something wasn't done early we have no reason to believe that it will happen now. I stand by my idea of licensing and training how to handle them just like we do with cars. Additionally, whoever the gun is registered to should be held accountable for letting someone else get a hold of their gun. Maybe not charge them as an accomplice, but slap with a big ass fine and revoke their license. This. I feel quite a few people are starting to wise up, but there remains a lot of people who either are crazy or just don't care. On a side note, I actually don't hate guns, but, hate the gun lobby and those pro-gun nutcases. America's gun culture is flawed. The funny thing is I'm pretty sure gun ownership is going down in the US over all. Its just those that do own guns are buying more so what you get is a minority with a VERY loud voice and a lot of money behind them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progenitor Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 It won't be. Columbine wasn't. Virgina Tech wasn't. Aurora wasn't. Sandy Hook wasn't. The gun lobby and gun nuts do not care about the lives of people. Heck, thanks to the NRA, the CDC can't even conduct a study on gun violence. As for the incident, under no circumstance should someone this young have access to a gun. However, this is more or less a case of a gun owner being negligent as the kid got his hands on it. Had the kid not had access to the gun, the girl would likely still be alive. Whoever owns the gun should be held accountable as well. I feel quite a few people are starting to wise up, but there remains a lot of people who either are crazy or just don't care. On a side note, I actually don't hate guns, but, hate the gun lobby and those pro-gun nutcases. America's gun culture is flawed. And now we hit the root of the problem. WSLF's ideas are simple, not very intrusive, and while they may be a bit tedious, it provides a means to judge gun holders by as well as educating them and essentially giving them a contract that they can break and thus lose their licences. Sounds simple right? It's literally the same exact system you have to go through to drive a car. But the Lobbyists aren't going to let anything happen, because they are completely isolated to one extreme of the spectrum. If anything is going to get done, 1 of 2 things has to happen.Politicians say enough is enough, grow some balls, and implement minor regulations just to set a baseline regardless of what the NRA, etc. says The staff of the NRA and other pro-gun left wing lobbyists change in a manner so as to not be quite so left-wing, and the heads actually endorse minor regulations.both are equally unlikely and probably not going to happen anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 And now we hit the root of the problem. WSLF's ideas are simple, not very intrusive, and while they may be a bit tedious, it provides a means to judge gun holders by as well as educating them and essentially giving them a contract that they can break and thus lose their licences. Sounds simple right? It's literally the same exact system you have to go through to drive a car. But the Lobbyists aren't going to let anything happen, because they are completely isolated to one extreme of the spectrum. If anything is going to get done, 1 of 2 things has to happen.Politicians say enough is enough, grow some balls, and implement minor regulations just to set a baseline regardless of what the NRA, etc. says The staff of the NRA and other pro-gun left wing lobbyists change in a manner so as to not be quite so left-wing, and the heads actually endorse minor regulations.both are equally unlikely and probably not going to happen anytime soon. Fun fact: I remember reading the NRA once actualy supported gun control. Of course, that would be before they became the gun extremists they are now. http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/ Another fun fact: At the NRA HQ, they leave out the first part of the 2nd Amendment. Or so I heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epicmemesbro Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Aren't there laws already in place that force owners to lock up their firearms? Or is this depending on the state? Because California has this law as well as having to take a test to show that you are responsible ad well as having knowledge on how to use a firearm properly... I don't mind these laws, in fact I find them quite reasonable. However there are some laws here that seemed too politically biased. For instance if one registers for a permit, a family member can object to it... There is plenty of wrong with this law in particular... Also for those who aren't very familiar with how things are run in the states. Owning a firearm is an amendment on the bill of rights. The reason Australia and the UK was so easily capable of heavily restricting firearms was due to a lack of laws that prevented any restriction. Australia also has a more centralized government with less state power I believe... That is why they are more easily capable of imposing restrictions such as banning media they find objectionable. The difference here lies in the law between the countries....If and when there are regulations imposed in other states I sure hope this doesn't lead to a larger racial divide. Because in areas with higher restrictions I've noticed more racial tension due to white folk being more likely to be able to obtain a license than those of color... One ethnic group being the larger owner of firearms is a rather unsettling thought. Actually in general tension due to this is regardless of state regulations I think...even in Texas I have a feeling that people of color are more likely to be denied ownership compared to Caucasians... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Aren't there laws already in place that force owners to lock up their firearms? Or is this depending on the state? Because California has this law as well as having to take a test to show that you are responsible ad well as having knowledge on how to use a firearm properly... I don't mind these laws, in fact I find them quite reasonable. However there are some laws here that seemed too politically biased. For instance if one registers for a permit, a family member can object to it... There is plenty of wrong with this law in particular... Also for those who aren't very familiar with how things are run in the states. Owning a firearm is an amendment on the bill of rights. The reason Australia and the UK was so easily capable of heavily restricting firearms was due to a lack of laws that prevented any restriction. Australia also has a more centralized government with less state power I believe... That is why they are more easily capable of imposing restrictions such as banning media they find objectionable. The difference here lies in the law between the countries....If and when there are regulations imposed in other states I sure hope this doesn't lead to a larger racial divide. Because in areas with higher restrictions I've noticed more racial tension due to white folk being more likely to be able to obtain a license than those of color... One ethnic group being the larger owner of firearms is a rather unsettling thought.Aren't there laws already in place that force owners to lock up their firearms? Or is this depending on the state? Because California has this law as well as having to take a test to show that you are responsible ad well as having knowledge on how to use a firearm properly... I don't mind these laws, in fact I find them quite reasonable. However there are some laws here that seemed too politically biased. For instance if one registers for a permit, a family member can object to it... There is plenty of wrong with this law in particular... Also for those who aren't very familiar with how things are run in the states. Owning a firearm is an amendment on the bill of rights. The reason Australia and the UK was so easily capable of heavily restricting firearms was due to a lack of laws that prevented any restriction. Australia also has a more centralized government with less state power I believe... That is why they are more easily capable of imposing restrictions such as banning media they find objectionable. The difference here lies in the law between the countries....If and when there are regulations imposed in other states I sure hope this doesn't lead to a larger racial divide. Because in areas with higher restrictions I've noticed more racial tension due to white folk being more likely to be able to obtain a license than those of color... One ethnic group being the larger owner of firearms is a rather unsettling thought. Most gun owners/gun enthusiast tend to be white, anyway. Maybe that's why, but idk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flame Dragon Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Aren't there laws already in place that force owners to lock up their firearms? Or is this depending on the state? Because California has this law as well as having to take a test to show that you are responsible ad well as having knowledge on how to use a firearm properly... I don't mind these laws, in fact I find them quite reasonable. However there are some laws here that seemed too politically biased. For instance if one registers for a permit, a family member can object to it... There is plenty of wrong with this law in particular... Restrictions on gun ownership range state to state and even by city. The south is known to have very lax gun control laws. On the city level NYC is known to have really strict gun laws but I'd imagine that isn't true for places in upstate New York which I know leans a fair bit more right. I know pro gun people point to Chicago are a place where tight gun laws have been ineffective, but those laws don't amount to much when neighboring place have much more lax gun control laws and those guns bleed into the city. Thats one of the things with gun control. Unless its implemented on a larger scale you can only get so much done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 I am well aware of the Amendment, but I disagree that it is an issue. Correct me if I'm wrong, since I'm not an Americain, thus I have only a passing knowledge of your Bill of Rights, but the specific wording on the Amendment is that 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' is it not? In which case, I think there's an argument to be made that the spirit of the amendment is not being followed. Because owning fire arms damn isn't be used to ensure a 'well regulated militia' nowadays. Likewise, I don't think the laws of the past, regardless of how fundamental they are to your history should impede the future of a nation. The world changes, and thus laws must change with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Amazing Avian Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 That's the wording. The first part is often disregarded though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Fascist Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 There's a difference between a citizen's right to bear a firearm, and a citizen's right to bear a firearm and ammunition to fire such firearm. While criminals will get weapons regardless of legality, more guns make it easier for the average Joe to commit a crime. Be more like Switzerland, America. In Switzerland, it is legal to own a gun. It is however, not legal to own a gun and ammunition for that gun outside of designated shooting ranges and with background checks. Part of America's problem is also a refusal to admit that some people are mentally insane and violent, and giving them access to a weapon does not conduce a good atmosphere in crime prevention and causation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.