Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
15 confirmed dead so far in Oregon college shooting
Options
Comments
-
what is the practical benefit to society of alcoholic beverages?
its help to procreate the human race , by making ugly people, attractive !0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »In addition to Madsl's response, I'd make another observation. Your counter argument is based on the theory that killing is always bad and provides no good to society.
If there were no good reason for a gun to kill, why do the Gardai have them? Why were Cosmonauts, of all people, armed with a handgun? Why do thousands of farmers in Ireland have them? It is putting one's head in the sand to focus on the evil which can be done with firearms without considering the positive. Other than the dubious benefit of giving you a buzz and tasting good, what is the practical benefit to society of alcoholic beverages?
Alcohol is legal, but driving while drunk isn't because we balance the right of individuals to enjoy themselves with the harm they can do to others while pursuing that enjoyment.
In America, the balance between enjoying a hobby (owning collecting and shooting guns) and protecting others from the risks of guns has gone completely out of control.
Owning a gun for self protection is illegal in most countries for a good reason, the monopoly on violence rests with the state. We don't go vigilante, we have police and security forces to protect us from the bad guys. Is it perfect? No, but it's better than the alternative of having a proliferation of deadly weapons and no real way of controlling them.0 -
What do you propose? Apart from outing every gun owner's address in the US?
Any concrete suggestions?
I've already proposed several.
1. The US needs to lead by example and not kill its citizens through the courts.
2. The lone cowboy mythology and manhood in connteporary America. Clearly there is an alienation problem and a problem when Csitlin Jenner is held up as a hero. The same problem emerges in the amount of fathers who abandon their children. Same disease, different manifestation.
3. Cultural shifts in the redundancy of men and alternative models other than violence as a solution.
4. The fetishisation and desensitisation. To violence. Look at the approval ratings for water boarding and other forms of torture.
5. Give men and boys cultural permission to express feelings other than anger. There has to be a middle ground between robo cop and Caitlin Jenner.
6. Stop hero worshipping the military. No they are not fallen heroes on Memorial Day. They are victims who allowed themselves to be used and exploited by a government that has demonstrated political stupidity in strategy for the last 50 years at least.
7. De militarise the police.
8. Stop the stupid war on drugs you will never ever win.0 -
its a good soundbite statement , but meaningless
the presence of firearms in the US is a complex issue, but has been clearly shown to be supported by the US constitution. The right to self defense, the " self help mentality " in the US, etc etc all play a part in the mentality.
But arguing about this is like trying to make white people in Ireland change to black. What is present in the US is present under the law of the land and the constitution
the issue is what stops nut-jobs shooting up schools, given the legal situation that pertains in the US. The rest of the arguments are just rants at windmills
Ah the classic form of debate when you cannot counter the argument infer the other poster is using soundbites and rethoric.Yet surprisingly little population-level evidence supports the notion that individuals diagnosed with mental illness are more likely than anyone else to commit gun crimes. According to Appelbaum,25 less than 3% to 5% of US crimes involve people with mental illness, and the percentages of crimes that involve guns are lower than the national average for persons not diagnosed with mental illness. Databases that track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that fewer than 5% of the 120 000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness.26
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/
"nut jobs" is it ? that account for what is it 12,500 killed per year in the United States.
You need to wake up the reality its a mess, its a whole bucket of mess and scapegoating mental illness is something that only people with an agenda will do. (you own a gun and dont want to give it up, or you sell guns and dont want to give that up)0 -
zeffabelli wrote: »I've already proposed several.
1. The US needs to lead by example and not kill its citizens through the courts. - Not gonna happen, death penalty appeals to the eye for an eye bible belt.
2. The lone cowboy mythology and manhood in connteporary America. Clearly there is an alienation problem and a problem when Csitlin Jenner is held up as a hero. The same problem emerges in the amount of fathers who abandon their children. Same disease, different manifestation. - Not sure where you are going with Caitlin Jenner but the hero complex is well documented.
3. Cultural shifts in the redundancy of men and alternative models other than violence as a solution. -Redundancy of men?
4. The fetishisation and desensitisation. To violence. Look at the approval ratings for water boarding and other forms of torture. - Poeple are approving the violence as a means to an end, not the violence itself. As a necessary evil rather than something to encourage.
5. Give men and boys cultural permission to express feelings other than anger. There has to be a middle ground between robo cop and Caitlin Jenner. - Agin something against Ms Jenner?
6. Stop hero worshipping the military. No they are not fallen heroes on Memorial Day. They are victims who allowed themselves to be used and exploited by a government that has demonstrated political stupidity in strategy for the last 50 years at least. - Never gonna happen.
7. De militarise the police. - Should happen, has started to happen. plus I would add the average plod should spend a lot more time on the range. They seem to miss a lot more than they hit.
8. Stop the stupid war on drugs you will never ever win. Starting to happen.
You are saying these things as if they are somehow easy? The hero complex in the US is revered for the last two centuries. The icon. The celebrity. It is the reason the military is revered and firefighters suffer a mortality rate 10 times higher than other developed countries. They put themselves in riskier situations.
The hero culture has existed since Paul Revere, Davy Crockett, Ulysses S Grant, through pony expess, through John Wayne, the comic book heros of the 40-through the 70s, Batman, MacGyver, Die Hard etc. All 'hero's' putting themselves in danger in self sacrifice. Changing a culture of 300mil people? You might as well wish the guns away.
I would be saying regular psych evals for gun owners as a possible avenue to follow. You get an eye test before renewing your driving licence, psych eval before renewing the gun licences.
Something like 60% of all gun related deaths are suicides. Clearly the root cause needs to be tackled here because in these cases guns are simply the means to an end. (obviously no pun intended.)
As mentioned before, the vast majority of gun homicides are committed by criminals on criminals. A group that is already barred from owning weapons. In Philadelphia, people with a record are 22 times more likely to be shot dead than someone without a criminal history. An end to private sales of firearms would be an avenue to pursue here. Registration of all weapons regardless of calibre. (Obviously not a register available to the public because that's just stupid)0 -
Advertisement
-
zeffabelli wrote: »I've already proposed several.
1. The US needs to lead by example and not kill its citizens through the courts.
2. The lone cowboy mythology and manhood in connteporary America. Clearly there is an alienation problem and a problem when Csitlin Jenner is held up as a hero. The same problem emerges in the amount of fathers who abandon their children. Same disease, different manifestation.
3. Cultural shifts in the redundancy of men and alternative models other than violence as a solution.
4. The fetishisation and desensitisation. To violence. Look at the approval ratings for water boarding and other forms of torture.
5. Give men and boys cultural permission to express feelings other than anger. There has to be a middle ground between robo cop and Caitlin Jenner.
6. Stop hero worshipping the military. No they are not fallen heroes on Memorial Day. They are victims who allowed themselves to be used and exploited by a government that has demonstrated political stupidity in strategy for the last 50 years at least.
7. De militarise the police.
8. Stop the stupid war on drugs you will never ever win.
Im all for reasoned debate, but this conribution is akin to a beauty queens , " saving the planet & world peace " speech
you cannot " wish away " 100s of years of cultural conditioning, nor in the US is there any support for what you say. You might as well say the solution is when the vulcans arrive !0 -
Owning a gun for self protection is illegal in most countries for a good reason, the monopoly on violence rests with the state. We don't go vigilante, we have police and security forces to protect us from the bad guys. Is it perfect? No, but it's better than the alternative of having a proliferation of deadly weapons and no real way of controlling them.
You say that owning a gun for self protection is a bad thing.
But what about owning a gun for other reasons? What about target shooting, hunting, pest control etc? Are these not legitimate reasons for owning a gun?
Do you propose that people shouldn't have access to firearms for these reasons?0 -
Alcohol is legal, but driving while drunk isn't because we balance the right of individuals to enjoy themselves with the harm they can do to others while pursuing that enjoyment.
In America, the balance between enjoying a hobby (owning collecting and shooting guns) and protecting others from the risks of guns has gone completely out of control.
The numbers of hobby gun owners in the US is not dissimilar to other countries. ( even if they tend to open far more guns then other enthusiasts else where )
Most casual owners of guns in the US do so for personal defence issues , these are not hobby users. no more then if a person buys a lawn mower , they are not " into " lawn mowers. self defence is a recognised right in the US and bearing arms in defence of that right is entirely culturally acceptableOwning a gun for self protection is illegal in most countries for a good reason, the monopoly on violence rests with the state. We don't go vigilante, we have police and security forces to protect us from the bad guys. Is it perfect? No, but it's better than the alternative of having a proliferation of deadly weapons and no real way of controlling them.
There are various legal perspectives on gun ownership for self defense in so called " civilised" countries. Your blanket ascertain is not correct. There are degrees varying from the US perspective all the way to the most opposite like Ireland. Most farmers in ireland do not in practice have a shotgun for hunting or shooting vermin actually !. ( but they cant say that )
Again this is a debate , that is useless , the US is where it is, you need practical implementable suggestions , not pie in the sky arguments0 -
Most farmers in ireland do not in practice have a shotgun for hunting or shooting vermin actually !. ( but they cant say that )
I'm not 100% sure on that point. There aren't many burglars shot by farmers here in Ireland. I'm too lazy to google but Padraig Nally is the last one I can remember. If farmers had them for self defence, surely there would have been a lot more people shot.Again this is a debate , that is useless , the US is where it is, you need practical implementable suggestions , not pie in the sky arguments
There's no way all guns will ever be removed from American society. It's too deeply embedded in their custom and traditions. Plus there are hundreds of millions of them in circulation at the moment and guns tend not to go out of date. Most guns in circulation now will work fine in 100 years if they are minded properly. Shutting the door after the horse has bolted springs to mind.
A hell of a lot of Americans feel the same way Charlton Heston felt about his gun. He said "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. Anybody suggesting a blanket gun ban in the States is talking out of their hoop as it will never happen. It's pie in the sky like wishing for World Peace.
Charlton Heston actually made another very relevant quote, "There are no "good guns". There are no "bad guns". Any gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a decent person is no threat to anybody — except bad people."
America need to work on creating decent people, people who don't have the inclination to shoot up a school. How that would be done, I'm not sure.0 -
Im all for reasoned debate, but this conribution is akin to a beauty queens , " saving the planet & world peace " speech
you cannot " wish away " 100s of years of cultural conditioning, nor in the US is there any support for what you say. You might as well say the solution is when the vulcans arrive !
What is your solution /s
All you appear to be doing is batting down other people arguments.
You claim to be for reasoned debate, but anything so far is akin to saying there is not problem when its quite clear the guy behind you has been shot (so to speak)0 -
Advertisement
-
BattleCorp wrote: »I'm not 100% sure on that point. There aren't many burglars shot by farmers here in Ireland. I'm too lazy to google but Padraig Nally is the last one I can remember. If farmers had them for self defence, surely there would have been a lot more people shot.
There's no way all guns will ever be removed from American society. It's too deeply embedded in their custom and traditions. Plus there are hundreds of millions of them in circulation at the moment and guns tend not to go out of date. Most guns in circulation now will work fine in 100 years if they are minded properly. Shutting the door after the horse has bolted springs to mind.
A hell of a lot of Americans feel the same way Charlton Heston felt about his gun. He said "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. Anybody suggesting a blanket gun ban in the States is talking out of their hoop as it will never happen. It's pie in the sky like wishing for World Peace.
Charlton Heston actually made another very relevant quote, "There are no "good guns". There are no "bad guns". Any gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a decent person is no threat to anybody — except bad people."
America need to work on creating decent people, people who don't have the inclination to shoot up a school. How that would be done, I'm not sure.
So is it more so the vocal minority rather than the Majority who believe this ? Id imagine that is more the case. The fact that the vocal minority ride rough shot over the rest of the populations views on gun ownership is key to one of the problems.
In effect slogans such as what you describe from Charlton Heston are fundamental to the problem, the guys with the guns are in charge they are in the minority and they wont be changed.
America is a mess.0 -
Althoug I think Zeffa's a little off point with his ideas, I do think his fundamental assessment is correct that there needs to be a significant shift in culture. Shooting at each other is seen as an effective way of settling scores. Shooting at police is seen as an effective way of not going to jail. Shooting up schools is seen as an effective way of getting famous on TV. These need to have the cycles broken. I'm not sure it's possible to actually muzzle TV companies from focusing on the mass killers (First Amendment, and all that), but maybe it's doable by agreement. I would very much like to see someone try.listermint wrote: »"nut jobs" is it ? that account for what is it 12,500 killed per year in the United States.
You need to wake up the reality its a mess, its a whole bucket of mess and scapegoating mental illness is something that only people with an agenda will do. (you own a gun and dont want to give it up, or you sell guns and dont want to give that up)
Slightly different issue. People don't much care about the vast majority of those 12,500 murdered per year. Criminal killing criminal? The only people who worry about it are the relatives of those killed. And the proven solution to that sort of violence has been shown earlier in the thread: Effective policing. You can make the argument that policing in the US is not very effective, certainly, but the solution to that is better policing, not gun controls for which the majority of murderers don't care about or follow. People do, however, seem to care a lot more about mass murders and suicides. (How many times has that "More likely to be injured or killed by gun if a gun in the house" thing been cited on this thread and others like it?). And the root of -that- is mental health. A system which is also stretched past breaking in the US as well, as it happens.
I might suggest that from this point on, suggestions be proposed in the following manner:
General suggestion:
Intended effect of that suggestion: (i.e. why will it work?)
Method of execution: (i.e. how will it be implemented)
So Aka has made two suggestions which seem, on the face of it, relatively sensible. Psych evals and registration.
1) Problems with psych eval idea.
You're talking a whole hell of a lot of people getting their heads examined. As mentioned, already people who are not getting the mental help they are needing are not getting it. This is going to require a lot of resources and money. Granted, solvable. The next question is the level of responsibility the psychologist has. I am no expert, but I do wonder just how effective a psych interview is going to be. Does not a psychologist have to conduct a series of observations in order to come up with a reasonably reliable conclusion? What happens when the psychologist gives the all-clear, and almost a year later (Assuming this is a recurring requirement), the guy goes on a shooting spree? I can see a lot of psychologists refusing to take on the issue in the first place. Has this proposal ever been seriously considered (or implemented) in any other jurisdiction? If so, what happened?
2) Problem with registration.
a) Canada. It's been tried. About twenty years ago, the Canadian government thought it would be a good idea to create a registry of all firearms. A few hundreds of millions of dollars later, the project was abandoned as ineffective. Similar results have occurred in Maryland with their ballistic database.
b) Registration tells you who owns guns, by serial number, at the time of registration. What does it do for you in practice?0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »Althoug I think Zeffa's a little off point with his ideas, I do think his fundamental assessment is correct that there needs to be a significant shift in culture. Shooting at each other is seen as an effective way of settling scores. Shooting at police is seen as an effective way of not going to jail. Shooting up schools is seen as an effective way of getting famous on TV. These need to have the cycles broken. I'm not sure it's possible to actually muzzle TV companies from focusing on the mass killers (First Amendment, and all that), but maybe it's doable by agreement. I would very much like to see someone try.
Slightly different issue. People don't much care about the vast majority of those 12,500 murdered per year". Criminal killing criminal? The only people who worry about it are the relatives of those killed. And the proven solution to that sort of violence has been shown earlier in the thread: Effective policing. You can make the argument that policing in the US is not very effective, certainly, but the solution to that is better policing, not gun controls for which the majority of murderers don't care about or follow. People do, however, seem to care a lot more about mass murders and suicides. (How many times has that "More likely to be injured or killed by gun if a gun in the house" thing been cited on this thread and others like it?). And the root of -that- is mental health. A system which is also stretched past breaking in the US as well, as it happens.
I might suggest that from this point on, suggestions be proposed in the following manner:
General suggestion:
Intended effect of that suggestion: (i.e. why will it work?)
Method of execution: (i.e. how will it be implemented)
So Aka has made two suggestions which seem, on the face of it, relatively sensible. Psych evals and registration.
1) Problems with psych eval idea.
You're talking a whole hell of a lot of people getting their heads examined. As mentioned, already people who are not getting the mental help they are needing are not getting it. This is going to require a lot of resources and money. Granted, solvable. The next question is the level of responsibility the psychologist has. I am no expert, but I do wonder just how effective a psych interview is going to be. Does not a psychologist have to conduct a series of observations in order to come up with a reasonably reliable conclusion? What happens when the psychologist gives the all-clear, and almost a year later (Assuming this is a recurring requirement), the guy goes on a shooting spree? I can see a lot of psychologists refusing to take on the issue in the first place. Has this proposal ever been seriously considered (or implemented) in any other jurisdiction? If so, what happened?
2) Problem with registration.
a) Canada. It's been tried. About twenty years ago, the Canadian government thought it would be a good idea to create a registry of all firearms. A few hundreds of millions of dollars later, the project was abandoned as ineffective. Similar results have occurred in Maryland with their ballistic database.
b) Registration tells you who owns guns, by serial number, at the time of registration. What does it do for you in practice?
Both of these are evasive tactics,
1) no other country in the entire planet has this problem none!
2) why do people not want to register their weapons, is this again coming back to slightly lawless nature of owning weaponry ?
You are offering no solutions here other than "people dont care about 12,500 deaths per annum. Sorry for being obtuse but why anyone would want to live in such a place is frankly beyond me. This is meant to be the cradle of freedom, the bastion of good in the developed world. If the USA is holding other countries to its lofty standards they really need some introspection.0 -
listermint wrote: »Both of these are evasive tactics,
1) no other country in the entire planet has this problem none!
2) why do people not want to register their weapons, is this again coming back to slightly lawless nature of owning weaponry ?
You are offering no solutions here other than "people dont care about 12,500 deaths per annum. Sorry for being obtuse but why anyone would want to live in such a place is frankly beyond me. This is meant to be the cradle of freedom, the bastion of good in the developed world. If the USA is holding other countries to its lofty standards they really need some introspection.
1) no other country has such a particular legally defined right to bear arms, no one is disputing the US is different. But thats the way it is.
2 ) Register of firearms really achieves nothing, all it does is connect specific firearms to specific legal owners. In countries like Ireland, where there is in effect specific licensing of specific types of firearms to specific people , then a registry is a key to ensuring that illegal exchanges of firearms are not occurring ( which in fact doesnt happen anyway )
But in the US, what does it achieve , in many countries the argument is to track legally held firearms falling into incorrect hands, but in the US the availability of firearms renders that irrelevant0 -
Okay; do you understand that you just suggested a ban there?justchecked wrote: »But I didn't suggest a ban, just further restriction.
There is no legitimate need in US (or other) society for certain types of weapons.
The bans in the UK and Ireland and Australia were not complete bans on all forms of firearm - to my knowledge, no state in the history of the world has ever enacted something like that, not even Japan. Gun bans are always partial restrictions on ownership based on some criteria like type or calibre or whatever.
This is where the actual debate is grinding down in the US, because calling to ban some things is always going to be opposed by those who own those things and a lot of the time, there is very little actual evidence provided to justify the selection of what will be banned and what won't.
A ban that does not appear to be grounded in evidence, and formulated in a way that suggests a deficit of technical knowledge of the firearms involved or the legislation currently in place is something that is only going to succeed in creating conflict.
For example:Keeping something very basic at home will cover all legit uses.
The toys can be kept somewhere else.
Now, first of all, you've got to define your terms "very basic" and "legit uses".
That's not easy, but give it a whirl.
Then you have your choice of language ("toys") which is basically trolling people.
If you're serious about a measure like this, you need specific proposals, researched and with the evidence presented, and framed in neutral terms; otherwise you're just getting people on the defensive in the first ten seconds and now you don't have a dialogue, you're back to people shouting at each other.
Worse yet, you still haven't proven that it will work, and the evidence from previous trials all says it won't.
Do you drive? Drink? Smoke? Eat fast food or any other industrially prepared food? Eat chocolate or bananas or drink coffee? Use electricity from coal-fired plants? Or do any one of the dozen things we do every day that we know kill people every day? (How's that computer you're posting on and the chips in it doing? How's your android or apple smartphone? How about the shirt on your back or those affordable jeans?)Personally if I was in their shoes I'd be very willing to say 'sure, if theres a chance it could save some lives lets give it a go'.
If you can say "Here is the proof that doing this will save lives", you'd have an argument. But you are Irish and we live in a country where we chose to let people die so that second learner driving licence holders could drive unaccompanied for a few months. Literally - we knew doing that would lead to a measurable number of deaths, the statistics were exceptionally clear, and we decided to anyway, for convenience sake.
I'm not saying it's right - I'm just saying that we're guilty as sin of doing this ourselves, so throwing rocks is a bit hypocritical unless we throw them at ourselves too.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »General suggestion:
Intended effect of that suggestion: (i.e. why will it work?)
Method of execution: (i.e. how will it be implemented)
So Aka has made two suggestions which seem, on the face of it, relatively sensible. Psych evals and registration.
1) Problems with psych eval idea.
You're talking a whole hell of a lot of people getting their heads examined. As mentioned, already people who are not getting the mental help they are needing are not getting it. This is going to require a lot of resources and money. Granted, solvable. The next question is the level of responsibility the psychologist has. I am no expert, but I do wonder just how effective a psych interview is going to be. Does not a psychologist have to conduct a series of observations in order to come up with a reasonably reliable conclusion? What happens when the psychologist gives the all-clear, and almost a year later (Assuming this is a recurring requirement), the guy goes on a shooting spree? I can see a lot of psychologists refusing to take on the issue in the first place. Has this proposal ever been seriously considered (or implemented) in any other jurisdiction? If so, what happened?
Agreed that you would have no chance to start blanket psych evals but phasing them in with a focus on suicidal ideation would be a good start. A 2 per cent drop in suicide gun deaths would far outweigh the lives saved if mass shootings were completely eliminated.
2) Problem with registration.
a) Canada. It's been tried. About twenty years ago, the Canadian government thought it would be a good idea to create a registry of all firearms. A few hundreds of millions of dollars later, the project was abandoned as ineffective. Similar results have occurred in Maryland with their ballistic database.
b) Registration tells you who owns guns, by serial number, at the time of registration. What does it do for you in practice?
The idea behind registration is to restrict private sales and so guns in criminals hands. Joe soap would have to explain how his gun got into Crim's hands. Sure he can declare it stolen but that will only work once.
Apparently I have to put more text here. :rolleyes:0 -
Theres a large amount of defence of the right of ownership (feels like stumbled on to an NRA forum) and very little from the same guys offering plausible solutions either.
Again just batting down opposing views and offering nothing of a solution yourselfs.
Does anyone of you prescribe to the fact that there is actually a problem or do you prescribe to the notion of nothing to see here.
Interested or did i miss any points of view in terms of working to some form of resolutions ???0 -
OK guys if guns aren't the problem what is? There certainly is a problem because these attacks seem to happen every few months.0
-
listermint wrote: »So is it more so the vocal minority rather than the Majority who believe this ? Id imagine that is more the case. The fact that the vocal minority ride rough shot over the rest of the populations views on gun ownership is key to one of the problems.
In effect slogans such as what you describe from Charlton Heston are fundamental to the problem, the guys with the guns are in charge they are in the minority and they wont be changed.
America is a mess.
It's a significant minority who own guns in America. I read somewhere that it was about 38% - 42% of households have firearms. These figures are based on a poll and are only accurate if the respondents were honest. The NRA estimates that it's closer to 50% as some firearms owners wouldn't freely admit to having firearms.
And don't assume that people who don't have firearms means that they are anti-firearm. Many people who don't have guns are strong believers in the right to have a gun should they want one.
So no, I don't think a sizeable majority of people are being rode rough shot over by a minority. That minority in favour of the second ammendment could, in fact, be the majority.0 -
its a good soundbite statement , but meaningless
the presence of firearms in the US is a complex issue, but has been clearly shown to be supported by the US constitution. The right to self defense, the " self help mentality " in the US, etc etc all play a part in the mentality.
But arguing about this is like trying to make white people in Ireland change to black. What is present in the US is present under the law of the land and the constitution
the issue is what stops nut-jobs shooting up schools, given the legal situation that pertains in the US. The rest of the arguments are just rants at windmills
The Greeks use to f*ck little boys. It use to be routine for husbands to beat their wives (It still happens but it's not as cavalier now). People use to send their pregnant daughters off to a convent....
All deeply ingrained in cultures at a time in history. All flipped.
The constitution is made up of amendments...the name in itself suggests it can be changed. It just takes the will of the people.
There's been a war on drugs for almost 40 years. There's been mandatory minimum sentencing. Attitudes are changing towards that and there's actual discussion going on around it with less people being vehemently opposed to the fact the war on drugs is a sham than the fact the accessibility of guns are providing sick people with a weapon to kill many with ease.
There isn't even honest discussion over here. When people talk about Australia or the UK, they get shut down because they aren't America...but that's the case with a lot of things....like socialism. Once you suggest that we look at a different countries way of doing something people get up in arms...why would we try to emulate a different country...we're the greatest country in the world!!0 -
Advertisement
-
Agreed that you would have no chance to start blanket psych evals but phasing them in with a focus on suicidal ideation would be a good start. A 2 per cent drop in suicide gun deaths would far outweigh the lives saved if mass shootings were completely eliminated.
In a free society the idea that you would simply carry out blanket psych evals on someone simply because they hold a gun is quite ridiculous , where do you stop this argument, psych evals for drivers, psych evals for power saw purchases, chain saw buyers etcThe idea behind registration is to restrict private sales and so guns in criminals hands. Joe soap would have to explain how his gun got into Crim's hands. Sure he can declare it stolen but that will only work once.
That is not the issue in the US, its not the issue in Ireland, in fact most firearms held privately are not that useful to a criminal. Registration in ireland is necessary because a specific type of firearm is licensed to a specific owner. in the US that is not the case.
Again you are trying to connect law abiding citizens to criminality. should be restrict cars because some get stolen and used to rob banks !!!0 -
steddyeddy wrote: »OK guys if guns aren't the problem what is? There certainly is a problem because these attacks seem to happen every few months.
indeed this is the 64 million dollar question, what is it in the USA that throws up nut-jobs that seems to target kids in school.
how do we stop the nut0jobs that then get this idea and act on it.0 -
The Greeks use to f*ck little boys. It use to be routine for husbands to beat their wives (It still happens but it's not as cavalier now). People use to send their pregnant daughters off to a convent....
All deeply ingrained in cultures at a time in history. All flipped.
The constitution is made up of amendments...the name in itself suggests it can be changed. It just takes the will of the people.
There's been a war on drugs for almost 40 years. There's been mandatory minimum sentencing. Attitudes are changing towards that and there's actual discussion going on around it with less people being vehemently opposed to the fact the war on drugs is a sham than the fact the accessibility of guns are providing sick people with a weapon to kill many with ease.
There isn't even honest discussion over here. When people talk about Australia or the UK, they get shut down because they aren't America...but that's the case with a lot of things....like socialism. Once you suggest that we look at a different countries way of doing something people get up in arms...why would we try to emulate a different country...we're the greatest country in the world!!
Im all in favour of you campaigning to change the Constitution of the USA, to remove the right to bear arms, right after you remove the 8th amendment to the irish constitution too.
The fact is there is NO majority across 38 states for such an action
Hence its just a pie in the sky debate.
personally I think when first contact with the Vulcans arrives, the USA will lay down its arms . my argument is as bout as valid as yours
sick people and accessibility is certainly an issue, Many if not most people in the USA would have no issue in restricting guns from being acquired by people diagnosed as mentality ill.
The issue is how you do that, without infringing on the rights of ordinary people who are NOT mentally ill0 -
indeed this is the 64 million dollar question, what is it in the USA that throws up nut-jobs that seems to target kids in school.
how do we stop the nut0jobs that then get this idea and act on it.
Well the education system is atrocious. Also there seems to be a cultural idea that violence is a solution. The guys commuting the attack seem socially isolated to say the least. What's the mental health service in the states like? Does it require health insurance?0 -
There isn't even honest discussion over here. When people talk about Australia or the UK, they get shut down because they aren't America...but that's the case with a lot of things....like socialism. Once you suggest that we look at a different countries way of doing something people get up in arms...why would we try to emulate a different country...we're the greatest country in the world!!
But that's the starting point. Americans genuinely believe that USA is the greatest country in the world. That their way is right. The war on drugs has run for more than 30 years without any great success, but the detractors are only recently getting traction. Ignoring that point is as useless as wishing the guns away. Any proposed solutions must take the attitudes of the people into account.0 -
But that's the starting point. Americans genuinely believe that USA is the greatest country in the world. That their way is right. The war on drugs has run for more than 30 years without any great success, but the detractors are only recently getting traction. Ignoring that point is as useless as wishing the guns away. Any proposed solutions must take the attitudes of the people into account.
Americans genuinely believe that USA is the greatest country in the world.
Some do, many are quite open to debate and many will accept that for example the war on Iraq was wrong and misguided, ( and why the Bush name is toxic)
try getting a few foreigners to criticise Ireland and see the reaction0 -
steddyeddy wrote: »Well the education system is atrocious. Also there seems to be a cultural idea that violence is a solution. The guys commuting the attack seem socially isolated to say the least. What's the mental health service in the states like? Does it require health insurance?
have you had your kids in an american public school, I have , the system is far from "atrocious", Yes there is an issue if you want free schooling and you live in a ghetto, now you need to be able to afford private schooling
But for ordinary mom and pop middle class public schools, the system is up there with Ireland or many other countries
( ireland has a very poor secondary school rating internationally )0 -
indeed this is the 64 million dollar question, what is it in the USA that throws up nut-jobs that seems to target kids in school.
how do we stop the nut0jobs that then get this idea and act on it.
I'll throw my hat into the ring on this one.
Having lived there, I don't think I am talking through my hole. Hopefully not anyway.
America considers itself to be number one in the world. They always want to be the best. That's their culture.
It's also their culture to stand strong in the face of adversity. Unfortunately that means that if someone slights them or does something wrong on them, straight away there's the feeling that they have to get even. "Someone is going to pay for this wrong that has been done to me." Sadly, they often reach for a gun to get even.
Then there's the quest for fame. Sadly reality television will tell you that there's a sizable portion of people who will do pretty much anything to get famous.
Then throw in poor mental health care and the lack of supports for people with mental problems. That leads to a lot of disillusioned people wandering around.
All this can lead to some deranged person thinking that I'm going to get even with society. I'll show them kind of attitude. I'm going to shoot up a school. And you know what, I'm going to be number one. I'm going to kill sh1t loads of people, I'll show them. The more I kill, the more I'll be famous (sadly the reality). That'll teach them to laugh at me etc. etc. etc.
There's not one single thing that you can put your finger on. Yes, if you got rid of every single gun in America, you would have less mass shootings. But it's an impossible task to get rid of every single gun. We banned drugs years ago........that hasn't really worked out now, has it?0 -
have you had your kids in an american public school, I have , the system is far from "atrocious", Yes there is an issue if you want free schooling and you live in a ghetto, now you need to be able to afford private schooling
But for ordinary mom and pop middle class public schools, the system is up there with Ireland or many other countries
( ireland has a very poor secondary school rating internationally )
But you're one person. America is several million people with an educational outcome largely dependent on the circumstances you're born into. You can't judge a nation by how good the education I'd for a select few.
Ireland ranks higher than America as regards secondary schools. As did Russia at one point.
Do the mental health services require health insurance to avail of?0 -
Advertisement
-
Don't like writing long posts so you're wrong and we'll leave it there.don't like reading long posts heres a brief tl/dr:
No?
Okay then, go back and read one paragraph's worth of text. It won't tax you that much...
You're incorrect. By way of example, properly funding the police to tackle crime and enforce firearms laws would have prevented Dunblane. Hamilton would have been arrested in the 70s and banned from having a firearm ever again if the law had been adhered to, and there were several other points where it could have been averted from the 70s to within a few months of the shooting, including the point where his licence was renewed without making a telephone call to the club he claimed to be a member of and in spite of a written request by two police officers - one the local child protection officer, the other the inspector sent to interview him - to never let him have firearms as he was woefully unsuited to have them and that they were concerned that he did.properly fund the police to tackle drug/gang crime - this will stop a lone nutter shooting up a school.
do not make it more difficult for a lone nutter to amass an arsenal - this won't help at all.
In other words, enforcing the law actually can stop mass shootings; not writing new ones, but actually paying for manhours to be spent enforcing existing ones. Can that one thing stop all of them? I don't think so, simple solutions rarely get everything; but I think the parents of the children killed in Dunblane wouldn't argue against you trying it.0
Advertisement