thomond2006 wrote: » Pro gun-control activists badly need to reference Dunblane more. Within a year very strict laws were passed in mainland UK and there's been no 'school shooting' since. While it's not nearly the same culture/conditions etc. in the US, it is an example of a 'federal' government fixing the problem.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre
Bazzo wrote: » If I can interrupt the politics for a moment: Does anyone know a good spot to get pissed enjoy a pint or two and watch the rugby in Manchester? Big screen preferably but not necessary if there are enough screens to be able to easily see it anyway.
thomond2006 wrote: » Pro gun-control activists badly need to reference Dunblane more. No 'school shooting' in the UK since.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre
Deleted User wrote: » The only thing that shields us from a similar fate is the standard of our education.
Buer wrote: » The reaction to Obama was the one that was highlighted by the media in terms of protests against his policies and liberal approaches. But it wasn't borne out in the elections. The Democrats won the senate and congress elections in 2008 and 2010, controlling both houses and then won the senate again in the first election of his second term. It was only in the final 2 years of his 8 year tenure that the public opinion slipped away from him and the electorate revolted somewhat which is often to be expected following 8 years of the same administration. I agree that the USA is in a bad way currently. It's near impossible to get 50 separate entities on the same page and there will never be anything close to resembling large scale agreement on major policies due to vested interests. But I do think things will very slowly change. They won't do so at the rate of other countries and that acccentuates the social issues in America but I do think they'll change.
irishbucsfan wrote: » How would you propose convincing Texas or Alabama's state senators to pass laws that would mandate gun registration? Canada's example shows how slow and unwieldy a federal solution can be?! It shows that a federal solution can be achieved at a cost of a fraction of a percent of the nation's GDP...
Teferi wrote: » The problem is the voting system - first past the post encourages a two party system, which in effect means you get people cheering on their side like a sports team with absolutely no objectivity. This problem is reinforced by a partisan media, constantly echoing what their readers and viewers want to hear.
Buer wrote: » . At least there was some humour in Trump carrying a cue card with the bullet points for him to try and ask of the survivors. If people can't understand how out of touch he is with this incident after seeing that, there's no hope for them.
mfceiling wrote: » Guns in schools. Just think about that.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Exactly. Those kids got their answer from the NRA via Trump yesterday. America is going to arm their teachers and station veterans in school corridors.
Deleted User wrote: » I dunno, I think their reaction to the Obama administration shows why Molloy might be right. At the end of the day, a lot of what we read doesn't effect day to day life in America but there is a growing % of the country getting swept up in the hate and partisanship which is going to destabilise them in a serious way in the coming decade.
prawnsambo wrote: » Shame on you. I just think that if states start to implement a first step like firearms registration and controls on carrying firearms across their state lines, that could well give the federal government the basis to push for that to happen on a federal level. But it's also a matter of resources. The Canadan example shows how slow and unwieldy a federal solution can be,
irishbucsfan wrote: » In America all politics is very much not local. Far, far more so since Citizen's United.
Buer wrote: » I don't know what the solution is but I do think it's possible for them to get back on track. 10 years ago, Obama was elected and the world believed that the USA had joined the modern age and was ready to be at the forefront of the western world once more. I don't think that optimism or hope will disappear based on one presidential administration.
prawnsambo wrote: » All politics is local. Anything imposed at a federal level will be resisted to the last drop of blood. (I may be exaggerating slightly here). But if you look at what those kids in Florida have started, they've brought it to the state legislature and that's the kind of pressure that can make local and state politicians start to worry about their seats. The issue with sanctuary cities and states is an example of how protracted a battle between local and federal government can be.
irishbucsfan wrote: » I don't see how it could even be considered remotely achievable, politically, to try to convince 50 small governments to individually bring in gun registration instead of convincing 2 federal bodies.
prawnsambo wrote: » I'm just thinking politically. Anything to do with the federal government will be resisted strenuously because it's 'the man'. Buy back is a couple of steps down the road, because you actually have to know what your base line is and without that, you can't measure success or failure. So imo, registration at state level would be the first step.
molloyjh wrote: » For me it isn't based on Trump alone. Even when Obama was there we saw a lot of the issues we're seeing now. Sure how many people in the States were convinced the guy was Muslim? Or wasn't even American? The Republicans had control of the houses for most of his tenure too didn't they? The whole set up over there is massively imbalanced. To fix the issues you need leadership from the top down. Even with a President like Obama, what really changed? Are they likely to get a more progressive person in that role at any point? And will that person get the support of the Houses to enact real change? Change itself won't just happen, it needs to be driven. The people won't drive it because the education system and the media have ensured they are too busy fighting with themselves. And if the people as a whole won't drive change then the politicians never will. If someone outside that sphere makes an effort to they have to face a media that will ensure they fail. If kids getting killed in school on a semi-regular basis isn't enough to force change, I honestly have no idea what is.
Buer wrote: » I believe there's hope for America. There is a lot of good there and a lot of earnest, genuine people who want what's best. But it gets lost in such a massive melting pot of money and greed where the biggest voices trump the masses. I spent the last week in NY and it's hard not to be touched by how much they wear their hearts on thier sleeves. It's the best and worst of them as it makes them as irrational as it does genuine. They're a nation of hearts ruling heads. But they do have some god awful issues and priorities that are extremely backwards. My sister in law went into a bar and asked if she could buy cigarettes there. The bar man laughed incredulously and told her that she can't buy cigarettes in a bar. When asked if there was somewhere she could purchase them nearby he told her, without a hint or irony, that there's a pharmacy across the street that sells them. I don't know what the solution is but I do think it's possible for them to get back on track. 10 years ago, Obama was elected and the world believed that the USA had joined the modern age and was ready to be at the forefront of the western world once more. I don't think that optimism or hope will disappear based on one presidential administration.
molloyjh wrote: » I'm convinced that America is lost. It's just too far gone and too much work is needed to rectify what is a completely failing system. Things have been getting progressively worse, particularly on the Republican side, for some time. I mean we all laughed at Bush Jnr, but I'm sure we'd all agree he was leagues ahead of this clown.
b.gud wrote: » A feicin Brown Thomas voucher! Are you feicin serious we're paying for a feicin wedding and you think to yourself, "do you know what they would really love, a voucher! Now where should I get it for somewhere that they can really use, I know Brown Thomas they'll get tonnes of use out of that." I'm going to be getting seriously p*ssed off over the next few weeks at the s**t stuff people give us :mad:
Buer wrote: » If people can't understand how out of touch he is with this incident after seeing that, there's no hope for them.
Buer wrote: » I think one from our five competitors is actually born and raised Irish. One other was born here but grew up elsewhere. The others are all involved through ancestry. The lad who was born and grew up here actually played for Leinster Youths.
Buer wrote: » The suggestion is insane. They've got a group of people who are paid poorly for the pleasure of trying to educate the next generation. Now they want to ask those people to be prepared to shoot a kid dead if they are called upon to do so. Can they actually imagine the fall out of this? There would be multiple accidental shootings by inadequately trained teachers who are going to take an approach of shoot first, question later in the same manner some of the police force do.
Podge_irl wrote: » I think there might be some pathetic indoor dry slope somewhere. But basically no. I presume they are either not Irish or moved abroad to train/live at a young age.
To be fair, he is far from the first to suggest that. So while he remains dumb, he has plenty of company.
irishbucsfan wrote: » The cost of the Canadian system really has not been enourmous in the greater scheme of things, and even if it had been enourmous it was caused by an inability to implement IT infrastructure and processes efficiently, and the world has moved on considerably since 2000. This is something that absolutely cannot be done a State level because States will refuse to comply and will refuse to fund it. As if it will even happen at all. It should be federal, because any future buyback program (IE, the most blindingly obvious course of action) would absolutely have to be federal, and the federal government can easily afford it while States can barely afford to keep their own governments running.