Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Yet another US college gun slaughter - "at least 10" killed in Oregan shooting

was a bit pants in 1776 running away when faced with the redcoats utterly failed in 1812 resulting in the whitehouse ending up flamabed and pretty useless in the american spanish war.
So the whole idea was obselte by the end of the 19th centuary.
If obama went crazy the US military would follow him rather than assorted "oath bearers" so your collection of army surplus tat and a rifle against a tank the tank wins.
If one side has an army and the other doesnt the side with the military wins so the red dawn fantasys are just that but the yanks end up with the mad shooting up schools. The paranoid shooting at strangers because they are scared.:(

We see the word "militia" and immediately think of legally-constituted paramilitary units. At the time the US constitution was written, it meant that, but also meant "local self-constituted defence bodies with no official sanction", simply because in some areas "the law" in terms of government sanction was neither present enough or powerful enough to say differently.
 
The forced buybacks in the UK weren't really massive - not in comparison to the size that any US buyback would be. The UK one encompassed about 1 point 2 million handguns and shotguns (semi-auto and pump-action with a capacity of more than three rounds). So, less than half of a percent of the size of a possible US buyback.
There's also an added problem regarding a US buyback: The tensions between federal and state gun laws.
I'm not saying that a buy back would be simple or easy to do. But it's not impossible.
 
I'm not calling for Americans to do anything, and I doubt they could even have gun control if they wanted to. I just find the nonsense about "I need my guns to protect against tyranny" . . . irritating.

It's certainly a convenient argument, and one that is utilised across a broad political spectrum. It does have some small utility in terms of local tyranny historically though, and that feeds into modern arguments.
I think we need to pay more attention to how the federal state benefits, though. While the benefits aren't immediately obvious, it's certainly the case that the threat of armed paramilitaries in border states have made people smugglers need to up their game.
 
I'm not saying that a buy back would be simple or easy to do, but not impossible.

Sure, but at that volume, and across so many state polities, we're currently in the range of "technically-feasible, but legally and economically non-feasible", even were the political will there.
 
It is a fact though that guns are business and Americans love business, which is a driver.

Abortions are also business (in the US health care model) and the American conservative right aren't so keen on those. I think its an irrelevant angle.
 
Abortions are also business (in the US health care model) and the American conservative right aren't so keen on those. I think its an irrelevant angle.
I don't think the abortion industry grosses $33bn a year. The gun industry drives the advertising and buys the politicians so you'd expect it to have an effect.
 
Yes yes it is.

I don't know about impossible, but it would be a hell of a struggle. The knowledge of arms making is so embedded that there are probably hundreds of thousands who can make their own not even counting those who work in the industry that BandWagon has pointed out, so even a buyback is incredibly difficult once you couple that with the fact that we can only estimate the number of guns already out there.
 
These are all reasons why introducing gun control would not be 100% effective. that doesn't mean such a scheme shouldn't be inacted. If nothing else it would drastically reduce the numbers of guns.
 
I don't think the abortion industry grosses $33bn a year. The gun industry drives the advertising and buys the politicians so you'd expect it to have an effect.

That quote refers to the 'firearms industry' - are you sure that is all the domestic market?
 
You'd have to resolve yourself to seeing hundreds of little Wacos if you tried a compulsory buy back. I don't think even those in favor of gun control would be willing to kill a couple thousand people implementing it.

A couple of thousand? That's a smidge over two months of firearms homicides at the usual rate.

Not supporting such a thing, just trying to provide a little context.
 
You'd have to resolve yourself to seeing hundreds of little Wacos if you tried a compulsory buy back. I don't think even those in favor of gun control would be willing to kill a couple thousand people implementing it.
Yeah, it's got to be politics of the possible. The country has between 30 and 50 per cent of all civilian guns in the world. You're not going to get rid of all those right away.

What level of support does the 2nd amendment have, would you say, and who is it primarily who supports it? If there are lessons to be learned from Brazil, I would think that they are that gun control measures need to come as a bottom-up response to gun crime, not a top-down imposition.
 
A couple of thousand? That's a smidge over two months of firearms homicides at the usual rate.

Not supporting such a thing, just trying to provide a little context.

I'm aware of the stats. The people who own lots of guns see the gun violence issue as something that doesn't effect them. (For them, its a "black on black crime" issue as racist as that may be). If you brought the issue home to them, there'd be hell to pay.
 
A couple of thousand? That's a smidge over two months of firearms homicides at the usual rate.

Not supporting such a thing, just trying to provide a little context.
Yeah, but some deaths have different meanings from others. Thousands killed by the state for refusing to hand over guns that many people in the country believe they have a right to own?

On this at least, I agree with dwyer - it's an impossibility to disarm the US at the moment.
 
This is the country who decided to go and went to the moon within a decade. With political will and public support they can end mass shootings.
 
This is the country who decided to go and went to the moon within a decade. With political will and public support they can end mass shootings.
the 'and public support' bit is crucial here. Also, the mass shootings make the news, but most of the victims of gun crime in the US are young, black men, whose deaths barely even make the local news, let alone the international media. Ending their deaths is the main issue wrt gun crime in the US - and as in Brazil, talking about that without also talking about drugs and social deprivation is pointless.
 
Yeah, but some deaths have different meanings from others. Thousands killed by the state for refusing to hand over guns that many people in the country believe they have a right to own?

On this at least, I agree with dwyer - it's an impossibility to disarm the US at the moment.

For some it would be all their right-wing, anti-government fears/fantasies come true.
 
I'm aware of the stats. The people who own lots of guns see the gun violence issue as something that doesn't effect them. (For them, its a "black on black crime" issue as racist as that may be). If you brought the issue home to them, there'd be hell to pay.

Yeah, but some deaths have different meanings from others. Thousands killed by the state for refusing to hand over guns that many people in the country believe they have a right to own?

On this at least, I agree with dwyer - it's an impossibility to disarm the US at the moment.

I agree with you both, at least on most point. I think it would go well over a couple of thousand once the One World Government rumour mill was up to speed.
 
I have been reading some comments on another site:

guns are not the problem, killers are

Killers only target schools because they can't fight back, get guns in schools and they will be safe!

Always the same sort of stuff, lunacy, I am so glad we didn't arm the population of my sons secondary school so that they would "be safe!" ..
 
These are all reasons why introducing gun control would not be 100% effective. that doesn't mean such a scheme shouldn't be inacted. If nothing else it would drastically reduce the numbers of guns.

No, obviously it would make no difference to the number of guns already in existence.

This is yet another example of the emotional reaction that replaces logic in the minds of so many anti-gun loonies.
 
I have been reading some comments on another site:

guns are not the problem, killers are

Killers only target schools because they can't fight back, get guns in schools and they will be safe!

Always the same sort of stuff, lunacy, I am so glad we didn't arm the population of my sons secondary school so that they would "be safe!" ..

I don't know what you've been reading, but nobody sensible is suggesting that schoolchildren should be armed.

However it is undeniable that, had the victims of the college shooting been armed, fewer of them would have been killed.
 
This is the country who decided to go and went to the moon within a decade. With political will and public support they can end mass shootings.

The American public is massively in favor of maintaining the second amendment as it stands. Furthermore, that support grows stronger with every mass shooting, because people better understand the need for self-defense.
 
Back
Top Bottom