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

[Athos]

well fucking guide him all the way there Tregaurd.

If your point is an increasingly fragmented society suffering from the violence and predation that goes hand in hand with poverty and always has being exacerbated by drug wars and ever increasing firepower-then ok. Its not a mystery as to the social factors that drive gun crime and massacres. Surely a society should look to adress both root AND branch. Tough on the causes of gun mentals and slightly less wild west on the issuing of firearms to any twonk with 35 quid and a grudge

Yep, and I said as much in post #207.

 

[Azrael]

Yes, America has concentrated pockets of deprivation, awash with (illegal) guns, drugs, gangbangers, and broken homes, many of whose residents feel hopeless, and see crime as the only option. European countries with low homicide rates tend not to, or at least, not on anything like the same scale, or to the same severity.

Even if guns were banned, and seized, given the number already in circulation, the illegal supply would take decades to dry up, if it ever did. Even then, gangs would switch over to knives, and many would still die. Focusing on tackling deprivation would do far more good than gun control, especially when the gun control measures proposed -- cosmetic bans on "assault weapons" functionally identical to other semi-auto rifles; limits on magazine capacity; background checks -- are tokenism.

 

[8den]

Since most of these whackjobs have clean records, the laws you're proposing are as unlikely to stop them as they were able to stop Breivik. That's not a solution that isn't 100% effective; it's a solution that's widely ineffective, and therefore, not a solution at all.

Are you really saying that because a law isn't widely effective it shouldn't be enforced or tried.

Lots of people get away with drink driving, should we repeal drink driving laws?

Secondly waiting periods and medical checks (not just criminal background checks) would stop alot of these attacks because many already had identifiable mental health issues, and a mandatory psych test before the issue of the licence might spot people with mental issues and put them in the direction of treatment before they hurt themselves and others.

Are you really going to argue against the above?

Why not just propose that private ownership of semi-auto weapons be banned? Hell, barring farmers and others who can show need, why not just call for a ban on all private firearms ownership?

My argument is this, People are entitled to own firearms. The amount and type of firearms should be heavily restricted, and the sale of ammo too. Concealment licences are only available to people who can show a genuine need. Heavy restrictions on the transportation of weapons. A ban on private sales. (hell in some states it's easier to buy a gun than whiskey). Mandatory waiting periods, and background checks. Before getting a firearms licence you'd have to go through stringent medical tests and firearms training. Weapons must be held in a secure location and the police should be allowed to inspect said locations. And a buy back of current firearms in the US should be brought in.

 

[8den]

Exactly. It's a very complex and nuanced issue. The well-meaning by childishly simplistic arguments that the US should ban all guns overnight, and that it'd take six months to collect them all in, and that thereafter there'd necessarily be no mass shootings, and that there are no US-specific components to the equation such that other countries' experiences can be read accross directly, and that there are no wider consequences of adopting that course, and that anyone who disagrees with that notion is an Alex Jones-style gun nut, is as ridiculous as it is unhelpful.

Given that buy backs worked successfully in both the UK and Australia please explain how a buy back would be unsuccessful in the US.

And you're been compared to an Alex Jones gun nut, because you've used the exact same arguments as him down to the same wording.

(the Hitler, Mao, Stalin took away the guns argument) that you used on page three FYI.

If you don't like being compared to Alex Jones quit quoting the dumb fucker.

Of course, gun control will have to be considered as a part of the solution, but given that most of these incidents involve legally owned guns, and given that people in other countries are able to hold guns without the same consequnces, I supect that unless you can effectively remove all guns (which of course you can't, even if you wanted to/would be the right thing to do), tinkering with the laws will be a relatively small part of the jigsaw.

In all other western democracies gun control is much more rigidly enforced, so suggesting that US gun law is equitably to these other countries is both laughably naive and deeply ironic, because you keep complaining other people's arguments on this thread lack nuance.

 

[DotCommunist]

at least, not on anything like the same scale, or to the same severity.

bullshit. You know nothing of britain if you think we don't have estates, poverty pockets. Often cheek by jowl with the richer areas because of space limitations.

 

[Belushi]

Yes, America has concentrated pockets of deprivation, awash with (illegal) guns, drugs, gangbangers, and broken homes, many of whose residents feel hopeless, and see crime as the only option. European countries with low homicide rates tend not to, or at least, not on anything like the same scale, or to the same severity.

Azrael! Welcome back

 

[littlebabyjesus]

bullshit. You know nothing of britain if you think we don't have estates, poverty pockets. Often cheek by jowl with the richer areas because of space limitations.

Not the same level as the US though. And despite pigfucker et al, they still have free health care and other services that they wouldn't have in the US. I don't see ghettoes here in the same way.

 

[8den]

If you say so.

Your Hitler, Mao Stalin took the guns bit. Is American democracy so tenuous that the only thing stopping a fascist uprising is the NRA?

 

[Belushi]

Not the same level as the US though. And despite pigfucker et al, they still have free health care and other services that they wouldn't have in the US. I don't see ghettoes here in the same way.

And a racial divide which is different to that in Europe.

 

[DotCommunist]

Not the same level as the US though. And despite pigfucker et al, they still have free health care and other services that they wouldn't have in the US. I don't see ghettoes here in the same way.

I bloody do, I've lived on them. And if certain local hoods had access to cheap guns n ammo it would have been even shitter. My inner stalinist was fostered by such environs.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I bloody do, I've lived on them. And if certain local hoods had access to guns it would have been even shitter. My inner stalinist was fostered by such environs.

I've also lived on deprived estates. And I've also lived in the southern states of the US. Believe me they are a whole different level of bad.

 

[8den]

As for the frequency of gun massacres, Norway's a tiny country, with a population of a shade over five million, not so far away from that of Oregon, with a population of just under four million. When was the last equivalent massacre in Oregon? Or, indeed, in any state of the union. Most seem to go decades without, just like most European countries.

As has been pointed out previously on this thread the US has have over 270 mass shootings this year, there have been 45 shootings in schools this year
US firearms homicides exceed every other western country by a massive degree

. By any argument the amount of mass shootings in the US far exceeds any other country in the Western World.

 

[Azrael]

8den, I could probably agree in principle with making gun licenses contingent on psych tests, but many nations don't require them to own firearms, and on practical and political grounds, in America, it'd be near impossible to make a psych test a condition for firearms ownership.

What could, and should, be done, is pumping funding into mental health services, and aggressively enforcing the civil commitment laws. Many of these mass-murderers are already known to the authorities, and with better screening, most could be found and treated before they commit their crimes.

 

[Athos]

Your Hitler, Mao Stalin took the guns bit. Is American democracy so tenuous that the only thing stopping a fascist uprising is the NRA?

Again, you seek to reduce a complex issue to childlike simplicity. I'm sorry, but I really don't see much point in discussing this with you.

 

[8den]

8den, I could probably agree in principle with making gun licenses contingent on psych tests, but many nations don't require them to own firearms, and on practical and political grounds, in America, it'd be near impossible to make a psych test a condition for firearms ownership.

Sorry but crap. No one. No is arguing that enforcing gun control in America would be easy. It's one side of the debate is saying "enforcing gun control in America is impossible, so we shoudn't try", this is the country that 60 years ago said "we're putting someone on the moon" and five years later did it.
Gun control and buy backs are possible they've been achieved in Australia in a country where there were mass protests against the idea. And they worked.

What could, and should, be done, is pumping funding into mental health services, and aggressively enforcing the civil commitment laws. Many of these mass-murderers are already known to the authorities, and with better screening, most could be found and treated before they commit their crimes.

And these should be done hand in hand with more stringent gun control laws.

 

[8den]

Again, you seek to reduce a complex issue to childlike simplicity. I'm sorry, but I really don't see much point in discussing this with you.

I didn't, I'm quoting you. Who are channeling Alex Jones. You don't want to argue with me because your arguments are simple minded, not over complex like you claim.

 

[Azrael]

bullshit. You know nothing of britain if you think we don't have estates, poverty pockets. Often cheek by jowl with the richer areas because of space limitations.

Of course it does, as do other European nations. As littlebabyjesus says, the scale and severity's different. The closest equivalent I can think of is the ring of banlieues circling Paris, and even there, it's one city, and probably not as bad.

Azrael! Welcome back

Cheers!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yeah, Paris occurred to me as an example too. But even there, the residents will have decent health care and other facilities.
It is effectively segregated, though, which is how it is in many parts of the Southern states. The poor don't live near the rich - they are kept apart from them.

 

[DotCommunist]

And a racial divide which is different to that in Europe.

done a sad face reading about places having a black church and a white church a few years back. I know theres loads more to the divide but that one struck me somehow. Its church. There shouldn't be any division, 'and the creed and the colour and the name don't matter, I was there' right?

else whats the point

 

[Athos]

I didn't, I'm quoting you. Who are channeling Alex Jones. You don't want to argue with me because your arguments are simple minded, not over complex like you claim.

If it helps you to think that, that's fine by me. In any event, there's little point us discusing it, since you don't seem able to understand the issues.

 

[DotCommunist]

probably not as bad

I try not to draw equivalence when discussing these things. Is a favela worse that a banliue? is a scottish glasgow scheme worse than an english council estate? Its all the same thing. And guns do not help it at all.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I try not to draw equivalence when discussing these things. Is a favela worse that a banliue? is a scottish glasgow scheme worse than an english council estate? Its all the same thing. And guns do not help it at all.

Sorry, I can't agree. Is a favela worse than a banlieu? By many objective measures, yes it is. And poor bits of the US where only black people live are far more comparable to a Brazilian favela than to a French banlieu.

 

[8den]

If it helps you to think that, that's fine by me. In any event, there's little point us discusing it, since you don't seem able to understand the issues.

No I do, you just want to pretend I don't because thats easier for you. But lets not pretend you've got a towering intellect that the rest of us cant grasp.

 

[Athos]

No I do, you just want to pretend I don't because thats easier for you. But lets not pretend you've got a towering intellect that the rest of us cant grasp.

The reason you can't grasp it isn't because I've got a towering intellect.

 

[8den]

The reason you can't grasp it isn't because I've got a towering intellect.

I'm not alone in this thread in people asking you to clarify your position. And anyone channeling Alex Jones arguments can't claim their position is "complex".

But you go wait for the government to round you up into FEMA campaigns and give you autism with Flu vaccines.

 

[Azrael]

8den, I'm not offering a counsel of despair, I'm simply looking at which policies are most effective and practical.

I already said that, if any gun control's pursued, it should be a total ban on handguns -- which would require a Supreme Court reversal or constitutional amendment, and would light a political firestorm, so it's hardly a timid position!

Since (at least) tens of thousands of times every year guns are used for self-defense, I don't personally agree with a handgun ban, but if any gun control policy's to be pursued, it should be that.

 

[Athos]

But you go wait for the government to round you up into FEMA campaigns and give you autism with Flu vaccines.

You see, it's this sort of bollocks that udermines you; if you were capable of building a coherent argument, you wouldn't have to resort to such nonsense. Pathetic.

Anyway, since you're no loger even making a pretence of discussing the issue, let's leave it. You think you know what you're talking about; I think you don't; let's agree to disagree on that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Welcome back Azrael.

You're about the only right-winger there's ever been on here worth talking to.

/damns with faint praise

 

[Azrael]

Cheers for the damnation, LBJ, and right back at ya, you anarchos make for great table talk between the baby eating.

 

[8den]

8den, I'm not offering a counsel of despair, I'm simply looking at which policies are most effective and practical.

I already said that, if any gun control's pursued, it should be a total ban on handguns -- which would require a Supreme Court reversal or constitutional amendment, and would light a political firestorm, so it's hardly a timid position!

Since (at least) tens of thousands of times every year guns are used for self-defense, I don't personally agree with a handgun ban, but if any gun control policy's to be pursued, it should be that.

For starts more than half of mass shooters use assault weapons and high capacity magazines so those are two things that should be made completely illegal straight off the bat. Theres no possible justification for private ownership for either of these things.

Furthermore the idea that guns prevent violence and are a successful deterrent is widely exaggerated. Most statistics used to defend this position are criticize for many false positives (for example people who claim they "heard" an intruder and yelled that they had a gun to scare off an intruder (who may or may not have even existed) is used as an example of someone using a firearm for self defence in many pro gun studies.

if there is a handgun in your house you are more likely to be the victim of gun violence, this is a fact
Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study Furthermore owning a handgun means you are more likely to commit suicide. There were nearly 40,000 suicides in the US in 2010, and in more than half of them guns were used. Guns & Suicide: The Hidden Toll | Magazine Features | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Magazine Features

Once again in Australia after the buy back there was a significant drop in the suicide rate. Not just in the suicide rate using firearms but the overall suicide rate dropped. After the Gun buy back the firearms suicide rate dropped by massive 74% and there was no increase in non firearms related suicide to correlate with that.

Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.

This comes on top of a 50% decrease in firearm homicides.

So as I said to purchase a handgun you should have to go through the same hoops as I suggested my post above. Background check. Criminal background check. Medical check. Practical and Theoretical training. And a mandatory 30 day waiting period. With weapons held in a secure location that can be inspected by police.

Can you argue against any of the above?