Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

The USA locks up more than 2 million people at any one time. It certainly has the most brutal sentencing and penitentiary system in the western world. And yet... law isn't 'enforced'. That's another of the law-and-order fantasies.
Against parents parents who, through their negligence, cause their children's deaths, no, it often isn't, just as it's poorly enforced against crooked gun dealers who supply the black market, and idiots/crooks who don't report their gun stolen (mandatory in only a handful of states). The unacceptably high incarceration rate caused by inflexible mandatory minimums and the "war on drugs" doesn't make laws uniformly enforced.

Go on most any gun rights blog or forum, and you'll see equal frustration that existing gun laws aren't being enforced. Former AG Eric Holder was held in civil and criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents relating to "Fast and Furious," a botched gun-sting that saw illegal weapons end up in the hands of cartels.
 
So you support state intervention in what you're allowed to do on the road? And you support whatever needs to be done to make these lumps of metal safer? What's good for the goose, as you say...
I support reasonable regulation of automobiles, just as I support reasonable regulation of firearms, including making legal carry contingent on training, removing weapons from people who've shown themselves unfit to have them, and universal background checks.

In neither case do I support universally restricting ownership in response to a tiny number of negligent parents. What goes for cars goes for guns.
 
I support reasonable regulation of automobiles, just as I support reasonable regulation of firearms, including making legal carry contingent on training, removing weapons from people who've shown themselves unfit to have them, and universal background checks.

In neither case do I support universally restricting ownership in response to a tiny number of negligent parents. What goes for cars goes for guns.
And yet the former is largely aimed not at people who wilfully attempt vehicular manslaughter or whatever soft label it's given, but at the incompetent, the average and the unlucky, and the *accidents* they have. Not negligent as in long term negligent parents, but negligent as in, 'to err is human'. You know, people who actually passed background checks and an ever-higher training bar.

So maybe more like, 'what's good for this goose that I don't like is in no way translatable to firearms'?
 
Against parents parents who, through their negligence, cause their children's deaths, no, it often isn't, just as it's poorly enforced against crooked gun dealers who supply the black market, and idiots/crooks who don't report their gun stolen (mandatory in only a handful of states). The unacceptably high incarceration rate caused by inflexible mandatory minimums and the "war on drugs" doesn't make laws uniformly enforced.

Go on most any gun rights blog or forum, and you'll see equal frustration that existing gun laws aren't being enforced. Former AG Eric Holder was held in civil and criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents relating to "Fast and Furious," a botched gun-sting that saw illegal weapons end up in the hands of cartels.

In general, laws aren't really 'enforced' though are they. They're either obeyed or not, and when they're not, there are police and others who will go after the person who didn't obey the law. Places with low levels of crime don't generally have those low levels due to effective enforcement. That's the law-and-order fantasy I was referring to - it's exemplified by many on the right:

crime levels are increasing - response, be tough on crime, more police, tougher sentencing;
crime levels continue to increase - conclusion, you're not being tough enough: more police, tougher sentencing;
crime levels continue....

You get the idea - I think even you recognise the futility of this approach wrt drug laws.
 
Steve Elliott - I am a responsible gun owner. I bought... | Facebook

for those who have FB, but to précis it's a piece from a Californian who has destroyed his own hand gun and the reasons why. No he's not a pinko lefty liberal, been a gun owner since he was 12; it's worth a read

This turned up on my Fb too. My first though was that it was probably completely made up, but the profile looks fairly kosher at least. Given the amount of devastation guns have wrought to his family, such a move isn't so surprising.

His most recent post says that his original post showing the destroyed gun has been reported for "graphic violence". :D
 
I'm glad the screamingly-obvious "concealed swimming pools" crack got so many likes: material more leaden than a cathedral roof needs all the help it can get!

Mauvais, you're right about the auto industry introducing safety measures to help "the incompetent, the average and the unlucky," but which child shooting falls into those categories? Is there even one? In what circumstance would a child gaining access to an unsecured, loaded weapon not count as parental negligence?

LBJ, I agree that the law's strongest where it's followed voluntarily (which is why I believe drug prohibition's not only wrong, but inherently flawed), but where that fails, enforcement plays its part, such as NYC's success in driving down crime. In any case, negligent parents should be prosecuted to bring them to justice, as an end in itself.
 
I'm glad the screamingly-obvious "concealed swimming pools" crack got so many likes: material more leaden than a cathedral roof needs all the help it can get!

Ta :) I think they reflected how relevant swimming pools are to tackling gun crime.
 
Mauvais, you're right about the auto industry introducing safety measures to help "the incompetent, the average and the unlucky," but which child shooting falls into those categories? Is there even one?
Given that guns are apparently normalised and casualised in some bits of the world, leaving a loaded gun somewhere - often apparently not even punishable after the fact - such that it's briefly available to others is probably comparable in negligence to crashing a car into a line of stopped traffic because you weren't paying attention for a few seconds. And yet even now, there's a fair chance that your car will intervene and stop you doing this. The modern world in general tries to reduce hazards, and in this context, guns are a distinct outlier. So keep on racking up the comparisons by all means, it's at least mildly entertaining.
 
I'm glad the screamingly-obvious "concealed swimming pools" crack got so many likes: material more leaden than a cathedral roof needs all the help it can get!

Mauvais, you're right about the auto industry introducing safety measures to help "the incompetent, the average and the unlucky," but which child shooting falls into those categories? Is there even one? In what circumstance would a child gaining access to an unsecured, loaded weapon not count as parental negligence?

LBJ, I agree that the law's strongest where it's followed voluntarily (which is why I believe drug prohibition's not only wrong, but inherently flawed), but where that fails, enforcement plays its part, such as NYC's success in driving down crime. In any case, negligent parents should be prosecuted to bring them to justice, as an end in itself.

I'm sure the woman shot dead in Walmart by her two year old son rummaging in her purse and finding her concealed carry pistol (in Walmart ffs, WHY would you take your gun into Walmart with a 2 year old to shop for groceries...is it just me?...but I digress) would love to be alive to face prosecution for being a negligent parent...

The above incident alone should be enough for anyone to see the logic of "no gun, no death"
 
I'm sure the woman shot dead in Walmart by her two year old son rummaging in her purse and finding her concealed carry pistol (in Walmart ffs, WHY would you take your gun into Walmart with a 2 year old to shop for groceries...is it just me?...but I digress) would love to be alive to face prosecution for being a negligent parent...

The above incident alone should be enough for anyone to see the logic of "no gun, no death"

Isn't Walmart a surprisingly big gun/ammo dealer all by itself? They might be having a rollback on your favourite caliber!
 
mauvais said:
Given that guns are apparently normalised and casualised in some bits of the world, leaving a loaded gun somewhere - often apparently not even punishable after the fact - such that it's briefly available to others is probably comparable in negligence to crashing a car into a line of stopped traffic because you weren't paying attention for a few seconds. And yet even now, there's a fair chance that your car will intervene and stop you doing this. The modern world in general tries to reduce hazards, and in this context, guns are a distinct outlier. So keep on racking up the comparisons by all means, it's at least mildly entertaining.

Back in the days before the handgun ban in the UK, it was a licence-stripping offence to not have your empty pistol in a locked container, although you could carry the magazine or loose rounds in the same container. Carrying a concealed loaded weapon, prison time.
 
Mauvais, you appear to believe (I'll word this carefully, lest DotCommunist pull another hit-and-run accusation of lying) that I'm claiming guns are equivalent to cars in all respects. They're not, I'm not. I've said that, if limiting access to a source of danger is a solution to childhood deaths, it should be applied consistently, to all sources of danger.

MrsDoyle, I'm sure she would, but I never disputed that in some circumstances "no gun = no death," just like in others, "no car = no death, no backyard pool = no death, no trampoline = no death." In other circumstances, such as the self-defense case I linked, "no gun = death."

ViolentPanda, apart from Northern Ireland, which had, and continues to have, thousands of active concealed carry permits. Wait, what's that, the British government believes that legal carry is an effective self-defense tool? On one side of the Irish Sea, yup; yet by some act of magic, once you hit Great Britain, they claim it stops working. Who do voodoo? We do.
 
Mauvais, you appear to believe (I'll word this carefully, lest DotCommunist pull another hit-and-run accusation of lying) that I'm claiming guns are equivalent to cars in all respects. They're not, I'm not. I've said that, if limiting access to a source of danger is a solution to childhood deaths, it should be applied consistently, to all sources of danger.
I'm well aware of what you're trying to claim, or rather, how you're trying to claim it. The fact remains that you tried to divert attention onto automotive as a parallel and it backfired, because it's a great example of an interventionist, safety-led model. Noone but you tried to narrow the subject down to limiting access to something, even though that also works perfectly adequately in this comparison. I'd be quite happy to look at far broader measures like reducing lethality of weapons.

As for your NI data, I think we can agree that a paintball gun is a partially effective self-defence tool in a game of paintball. The rest of your implications - and using NI as a model for gun safety - are again laughable.
 
Mauvais, you appear to believe (I'll word this carefully, lest DotCommunist pull another hit-and-run accusation of lying) that I'm claiming guns are equivalent to cars in all respects. They're not, I'm not. I've said that, if limiting access to a source of danger is a solution to childhood deaths, it should be applied consistently, to all sources of danger.

MrsDoyle, I'm sure she would, but I never disputed that in some circumstances "no gun = no death," just like in others, "no car = no death, no backyard pool = no death, no trampoline = no death." In other circumstances, such as the self-defense case I linked, "no gun = death."

ViolentPanda, apart from Northern Ireland, which had, and continues to have, thousands of active concealed carry permits. Wait, what's that, the British government believes that legal carry is an effective self-defense tool? On one side of the Irish Sea, yup; yet by some act of magic, once you hit Great Britain, they claim it stops working. Who do voodoo? We do.
you parted your arse cheeks, a voice came forth from what lies between and I pulled you on it. So no, not 'hit and run'. If it had been you'd have responded at the time rather than making a sly snipe some days later.
 
I'm well aware of what you're trying to claim, or rather, how you're trying to claim it. The fact remains that you tried to divert attention onto automotive as a parallel and it backfired, because it's a great example of an interventionist, safety-led model. Noone but you tried to narrow the subject down to limiting access to something, even though that also works perfectly adequately in this comparison. I'd be quite happy to look at far broader measures like reducing lethality of weapons.

As for your NI data, I think we can agree that a paintball gun is a partially effective self-defence tool in a game of paintball. The rest of your implications - and using NI as a model for gun safety - are again laughable.
yeah a region thats spent the best part of the last 40 years in low level civil war :D great stuff azreal
 
In other circumstances, such as the self-defense case I linked, "no gun = death."
Not quite true. In that case, 'gun = no death'. The counterfactual can't be run definitively. If she hadn't had a gun, what else would she have done? What else was to hand? We don't know.
 
The pools/cars kill children is an incredibly specious comparison. The only purpose a gun has is to kill, neither a pool or car was designed with the intention to kill.

Furthermore there aren't "car rights" activists or "pool rights activists" trying to prevent laws requiring seatbelts or lifeguards are there?

To use the auto industry as an example there is an industry that for the most part works to actively attempt to minimise fatalities, and furthermore has federal oversight ensuring automobiles are safer and safer for both pedestrians and passengers. The gun lobby actively campaigns against things like background checks, waiting periods etc....If the american car industry worked the same way the gun lobby worked they'd be claiming safety equipment and mandatory auto insurance unconstitutional.

Making cars completely safe is impossible, there will always be accidents, but people are working to limit and prevent these accidents the same cannot be said of the pro gun lobby.

The similar argument can said for swimming pools. Public pools are required to have lifeguards, and in many states private pools are required to have safety gates etc. Again simple safety measures that the pro gun lobby opposes. It should be common sense to ensure that children who cannot swim are away from pools by a gate or a fence, similarly parent's guns should be under lock and key so children cannot reach them.

Finally no one has every taken a swimming pool into a elementary school and used it to intentionally murder dozens of children.
 
Last edited:
MrsDoyle, I'm sure she would, but I never disputed that in some circumstances "no gun = no death," just like in others, "no car = no death, no backyard pool = no death, no trampoline = no death." In other circumstances, such as the self-defense case I linked, "no gun = death."

except for the incredibly indisputable point that neither cars, pools or trampolines were expressly designed for lethal or wounding intent I can see your point. So then, given that seatbelts, airbags, speed limits, driving tests, driving licences, age and health restrictions on driving, anti lane stray measures - pool covers, splash alarms, bouyancy aids, lifeguards - safety cages and crash mats respectively exist as mitigation against death in the examples you give there; what on earth more than the humble and ancient 'safety' or maybe not keeping it loaded can be done to make the gun safer....hmmm....*ponders*
 
tbh if the americans kept their current gun laws but required weapons to be kept in a locked cabinet when not in use i would expect a large drop in mass killings, esp in schools. in addition if they were only allowed to purchase weapons after undergoing weapons safety training, the same as that given to soldiers or marines, you'd see a greater drop. no abridgement of the right to bear arms, but sensible means to a) prevent accidental shootings and access to weapons by minors, and b) weeding out at least some of the people who only want a gun to kill their classmates or fellow workers.
 
yeah a region thats spent the best part of the last 40 years in low level civil war :D great stuff azreal
From the looks of things, you can get a self-defence firearms permit if & only if you can present PSNI with evidence that it's a proportionate response to a credible & specific threat against your life. I don't suppose an answer of "the government" really scores any points in that regard.
 
ViolentPanda, apart from Northern Ireland, which had, and continues to have, thousands of active concealed carry permits. Wait, what's that, the British government believes that legal carry is an effective self-defense tool? On one side of the Irish Sea, yup; yet by some act of magic, once you hit Great Britain, they claim it stops working. Who do voodoo? We do.

And people can be, and have been, refused licenses for personal protection weapons, if the authorities are satisfied that any guns obtained under such license will be used for purposes other than "personal protection".
 
Mauvais, you appear to believe (I'll word this carefully, lest DotCommunist pull another hit-and-run accusation of lying) that I'm claiming guns are equivalent to cars in all respects. They're not, I'm not. I've said that, if limiting access to a source of danger is a solution to childhood deaths, it should be applied consistently, to all sources of danger.

MrsDoyle, I'm sure she would, but I never disputed that in some circumstances "no gun = no death," just like in others, "no car = no death, no backyard pool = no death, no trampoline = no death." In other circumstances, such as the self-defense case I linked, "no gun = death."

ViolentPanda, apart from Northern Ireland, which had, and continues to have, thousands of active concealed carry permits. Wait, what's that, the British government believes that legal carry is an effective self-defense tool? On one side of the Irish Sea, yup; yet by some act of magic, once you hit Great Britain, they claim it stops working. Who do voodoo? We do.

Are you really trying to compare the situation in Northern Ireland as being comparable to anywhere else?

Those personal protection licences in NI are generally given to either active or retired members of the PSNI/RUC, prison officer, (judges, members of the crown prosecution services, civil servants etc) people for whom there is credible evidence that they are potential targets of paramilitaries. There is a less than 3,000 of them.

There's are world of difference between providing a gun to someone who spent much of their professional career searching their car every morning to check for potential bombs and the situation in the US.
 
Think Some sein fein councillors have been supplied and trained with personal protection weapon:hmm:
Que lots of black humour re are you sure you wouldn't prefer a little armalite? trying aiming a bit higher than the knee caps etc etc etc :D
 
Think Some sein fein councillors have been supplied and trained with personal protection weapon:hmm:
Que lots of black humour re are you sure you wouldn't prefer a little armalite? trying aiming a bit higher than the knee caps etc etc etc :D
What, no "hands across the barricades" bonding over a shared love of things that go bang?
 
Several replies are taking comparisons between particular aspects of guns and other things as wholesale comparisons. I can take this as a good-faith mistake for now, but it'll be hard to do so if it persists after it's been highlighted here.

So no, Mauvais, 8den, and DotCommunist, I wasn't using Northern Ireland as a model of gun safety: I was showing that, since it employs conflicting policies on either side of the Irish Sea, the British government doesn't believe its own assertion that guns are ineffective self-defense tools. In Britain, no matter how credible and imminent the threat, firearm certificates aren't issued on grounds of self-defense, and haven't been since the 1960s.

Likewise, Mauvais & MrsDoyle, I'm not drawing a wholesale comparison between the gun industry and the car industry, I'm showing inconsistency between how people respond to one source of childhood danger (firearms) and others (everything from drowning, to fire hazards, to, yes, automobiles). MrsDoyle, there's no widespread campaign to restrict access to cars, such as by making licenses "may issue," or by significantly raising the standards in driving tests, just as there's no campaign to ban backyard pools, despite carwrecks and drowning killing many more children than guns.

Oh, and DotCommunist, I did raise your evidence-free accusation of lying at the time. I'm happy to assume you missed that, and the invitation remains for you to withdraw or substantive it. Otherwise, I'll continue giving it as much weight as it deserves.
 
The government doesn't assert that guns aren't effective self defence tools, does it? Yet another strawman. If it asserts anything then it's that in most cases guns are not a valuable, desirable or overall acceptable thing to have in society.

And yeah, how people (e.g. you) respond to danger certainly is inconsistent. Neat if unintentional summary - that's the whole point.
 
And on the NI point; I've not got time to check thoroughly now but it was a condition of the Good Friday agreement, that NI could make it's own less restrictive gun laws to reflect the fact that certain high profile citizens (who are now ageing of course, so this easement won't be needed for ever) are given the right to maintain the means of defending themselves against residual sectarian attack.

A firearm certificate for a personal protection weapon will only be authorised where the PSNI deems there is a ‘verifiable specific risk’ to the life of an individual and that the possession of a firearm is a reasonable, proportionate and necessary measure to protect their life.

It would not be possible for me, say, to obtain one of these personal protection permits today; nor any other NI citizen without a verifiable need for personal protection. It is a unique situation due to the history of the area.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom