15 confirmed dead so far in Oregon college shooting

BoatMad

You could have the same exact laws in the US as you do here and we still won't see it happen here. It's a mentality.

Indeed , and it may explain the level of adult to adult homicide , it doesn't explain why the nut-jobs target schools in particular

BoatMad

zeffabelli wrote: »

The Swiss don't have a lone cowboy myth or Hollywood and a government that promotes violence as a first response solution to all your problems.

The US is a power obsessed culture from top to bottom.... From government to personal relationships (egalitarianism...) for example.

Overly simplistic analysis in my view . The key is the incredibly strong view that you have a personal right to defend yourself. Even anti gun campaigners do not attack that principle. Everything flows from that.

zeffabelli

BoatMad wrote: »

Overly simplistic analysis in my view . The key is the incredibly strong view that you have a personal right to defend yourself. Even anti gun campaigners do not attack that principle. Everything flows from that.

That's usually the first line of defence in the argument.

I would ask, defend yourself against what? Is this why people need six guns and a store of ammunition?

Seriously against what? A burgler?

I know if I had a gun, there would be a very good probability it would be turned on me. So I'd be bringing more danger into myself.

Carelessness and human error. This is the biggest thing people have to defend against.... Their own stupidity.

zeffabelli

BoatMad wrote: »

Indeed , and it may explain the level of adult to adult homicide , it doesn't explain why the nut-jobs target schools in particular

Killing kids is taboo and gets attention.

It hits the heart of every parent and ever child walks into school scared.

The only child to survive sandy hook played dead, it wasn't a gun that saved her.

The gun people are already saying arm the children. ****ing Zimbabwe

BattleCorp

zeffabelli wrote: »

I would ask, defend yourself against what? Is this why people need six guns and a store of ammunition?

People in America don't need a reason to have a gun. If they want one, legally they have the right to get one, or two, or three, or four, or four hundred.

Here in Ireland, you must have a reason to have a gun. It must be a reason that is recognised by the Gardai as being a legitimate reason for having a gun. That said, if you have good reason here in Ireland you can get one, two, three, four, or as many as you need to have. Personally I have five, and I know a few people here who own in excess of 10 guns.

gobsh!te

zeffabelli wrote: »

The Swiss don't have a lone cowboy myth or Hollywood and a government that promotes violence as a first response solution to all your problems.

The US is a power obsessed culture from top to bottom.... From government to personal relationships (egalitarianism...) for example.

That's an opinion in all fairness. I'm just looking for any information on differences. I found that Swiss gun laws are restrictive on wikipedia but I don't know how in relation to the US.

BoatMad wrote: »

The Us Has constitutional protection for the right to bear arms for the purposes of personal defense. It can never be like Switzerland.

That's the starting point

Switzerland requires a militia in it's Constitution and has a statutory right to bear arms under Article 3 of the 1997 Weapons Act.

I'm trying to see if it is related to the laws or whether it is a mental health issue.........or both.

It can't just be guns because the more I look into Swiss laws, the more I see this.

BattleCorp

gobsh!te wrote: »

That's an opinion in all fairness. I'm just looking for any information on differences. I found that Swiss gun laws are restrictive on wikipedia but I don't know how in relation to the US.



Switzerland requires a militia in it's Constitution and has a statutory right to bear arms under Article 3 of the 1997 Weapons Act.

I'm trying to see if it is related to the laws or whether it is a mental health issue.........or both.

It can't just be guns because the more I look into Swiss laws, the more I see this.

This is just from my own personal observations but Swiss people seem to obey laws much more that American people do.

I think it's the attitude of the people between the two countries is the main difference why Switzerland don't have the scale of gun crime as the US.

listermint

zeffabelli wrote: »

That's usually the first line of defence in the argument.

I would ask, defend yourself against what? Is this why people need six guns and a store of ammunition?

Seriously against what? A burgler?

I know if I had a gun, there would be a very good probability it would be turned on me. So I'd be bringing more danger into myself.

Carelessness and human error. This is the biggest thing people have to defend against.... Their own stupidity.

This in a nutshell.


Its more saddening that amusing at this stage of those hear that will defend this so called 'right' at all odds from there own personal obsession. Dog eat Dog in America. And they think Europeans are some lefty liberal lunatics for wanting to preserve life.

listermint

BoatMad wrote: »

Overly simplistic analysis in my view . The key is the incredibly strong view that you have a personal right to defend yourself. Even anti gun campaigners do not attack that principle. Everything flows from that.

Protecting yourself from your own thoughts.

Its ludicrous stuff.

gobsh!te

zeffabelli wrote: »

That's usually the first line of defence in the argument.

I would ask, defend yourself against what? Is this why people need six guns and a store of ammunition?

Seriously against what? A burgler?

I know if I had a gun, there would be a very good probability it would be turned on me. So I'd be bringing more danger into myself.

Carelessness and human error. This is the biggest thing people have to defend against.... Their own stupidity.

The right to bear arms is intended to prevent something happening like happened for example in Chile under Pinochet.

I have no problem with it to be honest but we need to know what the US is doing wrong.

What percentage of gun deaths are non gang related would be a start. I just watched a documentary showing kids in Switzerland going to the gun range with their family. Their dad had the guns locked away and the ammo somewhere else but they would be equiped. Same as some parts of the US but what the hell is the difference. Is it people on drugs? Third party purchases of guns in the US? Culture? I don't know.

On another point, it's disappointing to see Obama so silent on gun violence in his home city

zeffabelli

gobsh!te wrote: »

The right to bear arms is intended to prevent something happening like happened for example in Chile under Pinochet.

I have no problem with it to be honest but we need to know what the US is doing wrong.

What percentage of gun deaths are non gang related would be a start. I just watched a documentary showing kids in Switzerland going to the gun range with their family. Their dad had the guns locked away and the ammo somewhere else but they would be equiped. Same as some parts of the US but what the hell is the difference. Is it people on drugs? Third party purchases of guns in the US? Culture? I don't know.

On another point, it's disappointing to see Obama so silent on gun violence in his home city

It's cultural. You know how the autobahn works in Germany because they are Germans driving but would be a disaster in Ireland?

That's why.

MadsL

zeffabelli wrote: »

The Swiss don't have a lone cowboy myth or Hollywood and a government that promotes violence as a first response solution to all your problems.

The US is a power obsessed culture from top to bottom.... From government to personal relationships (egalitarianism...) for example.

In what ways do the US Government promote "violence as a first response solution to all your problems" if this is the case why is violent crime dropping consistantly in the US for the past three decades?

asherbassad

MadsL wrote: »

Timothy McVeigh used fertiliser, racing fuel and a rented box truck. All three are still freely available.

(FACEPALM)


This is where the pro-gun people show their level of intellect.

Does it not occur to you that these items have primary purposes other than what he used them for?

If someone beats someone to death with a telephone are you going to trot out that galactically inane argument?

BattleCorp

MadsL wrote: »

In what ways do the US Government promote "violence as a first response solution to all your problems" if this is the case why is violent crime dropping consistantly in the US for the past three decades?

I'll take your word that statistics show violent crime is dropping but you have to admit MadsL that people in the States seem to resort to violence a lot quicker than they would here in Ireland.

Guns aren't the problem over there. The willingness of deranged fcukers to abuse them by shooting up a school is the problem.

zeffabelli

MadsL wrote: »

In what ways do the US Government promote "violence as a first response solution to all your problems" if this is the case why is violent crime dropping consistantly in the US for the past three decades?

Death penalty.

Foreign policy.

How the cops - which are the government- mistreat their citizens.

And I dont believe for a second that crime is dropping.

Madsl, do you want this to change? Or are you happy enough with all these senseless tragedies?

MadsL

zeffabelli wrote: »

Death penalty.

Foreign policy.

How the cops - which are the government- mistreat their citizens.

And I dont believe for a second that crime is dropping.

Then you would be enrirely wrong; http://time.com/3577026/crime-rates-drop-1970s/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/01/02/in-major-cities-murder-rates-drop-precipitously/

As far as the death penalty more and more states are abolishing the death penalty; 19 states have already abolished it. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty

I'd agree cops are out of control, but this appears to be a recent trend so probably not relevant to your point, as for foreign policy the US is similar to the UK in it's overseas involvement so again I'm not sure how that supports your point.

zeffabelli

MadsL wrote: »

Then you would be enrirely wrong; http://time.com/3577026/crime-rates-drop-1970s/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/01/02/in-major-cities-murder-rates-drop-precipitously/

As far as the death penalty more and more states are abolishing the death penalty; 19 states have already abolished it. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty

I'd agree cops are out of control, but this appears to be a recent trend so probably not relevant to your point, as for foreign policy the US is similar to the UK in it's overseas involvement so again I'm not sure how that supports your point.

You just keep on denying....

You just dont want to see it...because you dont want to change it. You are happy enough with all this bloodshed.

Theboinkmaster

BoatMad wrote: »

The Us Has constitutional protection for the right to bear arms for the purposes of personal defense. It can never be like Switzerland.

That's the starting point

If only there was a method or precedent to amend the constitution :rolleyes:

MadsL

zeffabelli wrote: »

You just keep on denying....

Errm, you just got corrected on one of your assumptions about violent crime in the US, and I'm the one denying things??

You just dont want to see it...because you dont want to change it. You are happy enough with all this bloodshed.

That's an obnoxious allegation, how could I possibly be "happy...with bloodshed"??? I suggest you read my posts and see anywhere I have suggested such at thing. You in fact were the one suggesting exposing gun owners to public information about their ownership to expose them to attacks from criminals - I take it you would be happy enough with their blood shed?

The US faces very difficult challenges, balancing the right to self-defence with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies. Abolition simply will not work in the US, it didn't work with alcohol and drugs and it will not work with firearms.

BattleCorp

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

If only there was a method or precedent to amend the constitution :rolleyes:

There's not the will to change it in the US.

Between 38% and 42% of households have guns over there. These figures were obtained using surveys. Because these figures depend on people being honest, the actual figure could be higher. There could in fact be guns in up to 50% of houses over there.

And just because a household doesn't have any guns, that doesn't mean that they don't support the right to have a gun.

With those kinds of numbers, there's not a hope of amending the constitution.

And you'd also have to amend each State's constitution also. At least that's my understanding of things but I'll defer to superior knowledge if anyone knows what the legal situation would be. It won't be done in my lifetime.

MadsL

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

If only there was a method or precedent to amend the constitution :rolleyes:

And then? Forceably dearming citizens? That worked well in Waco, Texas.

MadsL

asherbassad wrote: »

(FACEPALM)


This is where the pro-gun people show their level of intellect.

Does it not occur to you that these items have primary purposes other than what he used them for?

If someone beats someone to death with a telephone are you going to trot out that galactically inane argument?

The primary purpose of firearms ownership in the US is not mass murder.

asherbassad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

And what positive impact has the restriction had? Are the weapons themselves somehow less lethal?

As ever, the only people impacted by guns laws are those who are law abiding. Criminals will do whatever they want, and more poorly thought out and implemented laws aren't going to change that.

As to your analogy of the shop keeper and taxi driver, they would be capable of protecting themselves with a concealed weapon of their own, the potential possession of which would be a potentially strong deterrent to the criminal in the first place.

That's a stupid statement. Real chicken/egg/cart/horse nonsense.

asherbassad

BoatMad wrote: »

The Us Has constitutional protection for the right to bear arms for the purposes of personal defense. It can never be like Switzerland.

That's the starting point

Purposes of personal defense is not cited in the US Consitution.

zeffabelli

asherbassad wrote: »

Purposes of personal defense is not cited in the US Consitution.

It'a the right to bear arms and the purposes are that the people can over throw the givnerment if they want to. It's a sentiment inherited from the revolution.

Technically arms can mean anything....not just guns but they'd never legalise those...so constitution smonstitution....

asherbassad

MadsL wrote: »

Then you would be enrirely wrong; http://time.com/3577026/crime-rates-drop-1970s/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/01/02/in-major-cities-murder-rates-drop-precipitously/

As far as the death penalty more and more states are abolishing the death penalty; 19 states have already abolished it. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty

I'd agree cops are out of control, but this appears to be a recent trend so probably not relevant to your point, as for foreign policy the US is similar to the UK in it's overseas involvement so again I'm not sure how that supports your point.

Not a recent trend. Only brought to the public's attention more easily due to the proliferation of camera phones and the internet.

zeffabelli

MadsL wrote: »

Errm, you just got corrected on one of your assumptions about violent crime in the US, and I'm the one denying things??



That's an obnoxious allegation, how could I possibly be "happy...with bloodshed"??? I suggest you read my posts and see anywhere I have suggested such at thing. You in fact were the one suggesting exposing gun owners to public information about their ownership to expose them to attacks from criminals - I take it you would be happy enough with their blood shed?

The US faces very difficult challenges, balancing the right to self-defence with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies. Abolition simply will not work in the US, it didn't work with alcohol and drugs and it will not work with firearms.

The right to bear arms has nothing to do with defence. It is a revolutionary sentiment for the purposes of over throwing the government if the people want to. Note it says "arms"...which can mean anything..;so I'm getting tired of the Constitutional argument because it really doesn't fly.

I agree abolition wont work and all you will do is create another black market making it even unsafer. There is already a very strong one.

Honestly this is not going to change, you are going to see more and more of this, worse and worse as shock value wears off and the greatest terrorist threat to Americans will be themselves.

zeffabelli

asherbassad wrote: »

Not a recent trend. Only brought to the public's attention more easily due to the proliferation of camera phones and the internet.

No this has been going on for ages. But it has gotten worse with the militarisation of the police and also the greater sense of entitlement they have post 911.

asherbassad

MadsL wrote: »

The primary purpose of firearms ownership in the US is not mass murder.

The primary purpose of semi-automatic machine guns IS mass killing/murder.

And the primary purpose of ALL guns is to kill. Don't try and get cutesy with the McVeigh thing. It makes your argument sound infantile.

BattleCorp

As ever, the only people impacted by guns laws are those who are law abiding. Criminals will do whatever they want, and more poorly thought out and implemented laws aren't going to change that.

That's a stupid statement. Real chicken/egg/cart/horse nonsense.

It's not that stupid actually.

I'm a law abiding citizen. If a law is passed to make my guns illegal, I will hand in my guns, because I'm a law abiding citizen.

The criminal doesn't have a licence for his guns. He doesn't give a fcuk about what the Gardai say. He'll still sneak in his guns with shipments of drugs.

Who suffers if guns are restricted or banned? Not the criminal, he never had a licence in the first place. It's the law abiding citizen who suffers.

Most drug dealers get their guns smuggled in with shipments of drugs. Often they get guns as sweetners in their drug deals. Buy 10kg of coke, get 10 AK47's free sort of thing.