News US School massacre

[Chilly]

Problem is, even if you did ban em in the states, it's too late. There's more guns than people there now. You'd be putting a HUGE industry out of business over night and we all know how the senate and congress work - there is literally no chance they can resist the gun lobby money.

 

[soze]

I would love to be able to go to the range and shoot a AR-15 or a G36 in the UK even if you had to store your guns at the range that would be fine with me. Problem with that I suppose is no matter how secure the vault on the site it would still be a massive arsenal the and a prime target for criminals looking for high end guns. Maybe a solution would be having to leave firing pin at the club and store the gun at home or the other way around. I don't believe I need these guns at home the figures on accidental deaths with firearms at home in America shows what happens when an amateur is allowed any gun they want at home. But I would still like to be able to target shoot with them.

 

[Mabs]

Problem is, even if you did ban em in the states, it's too late. There's more guns than people there now. You'd be putting a HUGE industry out of business over night and we all know how the senate and congress work - there is literally no chance they can resist the gun lobby money.

this, incidentally, is why they keep invading brown countries that cant defend themselves, you cant support a massive arms industry if you arent using the expensive missiles you buy from them regularly

 

[DaGaffer]

Problem is, even if you did ban em in the states, it's too late. There's more guns than people there now. You'd be putting a HUGE industry out of business over night and we all know how the senate and congress work - there is literally no chance they can resist the gun lobby money.

I agree with all of that. Always have, but at the same time people's attitudes can be changed (that's why I put up that earlier post; the American macho bullshit attitude towards gun ownership was on the wane once, it could happen again). Problem is that there's a litany of "things that are fucked up about modern America" and unfortunately they are inter-related and reinforce each other; the American arms industry (and corporate lobbying in general), "self-defence" gun culture, millennial religion and the cult of the individual that sees anything for the collective good, like public healthcare (particularly for mental health) as "socialist". All of these forces work together to make America an increasingly polarised and dangerous place, both for themselves and everyone else (and yes, for all of you who've bleated about Americans blowing up Afghan schoolkids, this is all part of the same problem).

 

[rynnor]

In the context of the realities in the US the only thing they can do is increase security at schools.

 

[ECA]

Which won't do shit, some fat rentacop on minimum wage will just be the first target and a free extra weapon.

 

[rynnor]

Which won't do shit, some fat rentacop on minimum wage will just be the first target and a free extra weapon.

Maybe it will serve as a deterrent - its a different thought from walking into an environment where you know noone else is armed to one where you know you will get shot at.

 

[Scouse]

Doesn't matter what they believe, its not true

*Disagree*...



Edit: And regardless of Wiki, the US legal system also disagrees with you Gaff - considering that the second amendment has been through court and come through shining with gun-law ownership intact.

 

[soze]

In the context of the realities in the US the only thing they can do is increase security at schools.

Banning semi automatics and limiting magazine size would have a big impact on massacres. Having to cock every shot and reload every 15 shots would help give people a chance to tackle the gun man. Of course only practical for rifles and sub machine guns.

 

[DaGaffer]

*Disagree*...



Edit: And regardless of Wiki, the US legal system also disagrees with you Gaff - considering that the second amendment has been through court and come through shining with gun-law ownership intact.

Oh please, the poster-boy for tinfoil headgear defending the US legal system? Money, money, money...

 

[opticle]

Sorry Opticle but seriously, what the fuck are you going on about? So you trust some 14 year olds more than 30 year olds? So it would be better to have NO age restriction then would it? Like in this country? But then I bet you'd be squeaking about a 14 year old with a shotgun certificate (there are loads of them here).

I'm not sure where you thought I meant NO restrictions, my point was that you need more restrictions than there are. Age and a clean criminal record does not mean you have the character that should be allowed to own a point and click killing device. It's a vast oversimplification to say those things are enough. (and I grew up with shotguns, so no squeaking here, ta .)

For those who didn't watch the video DaGaffer posted:

Gun-related deaths in 1991:
UK: 14. (Population 50million approx)
US: 23000. (Population 250million approx)

Control for population and that's still 1 : 4600 deaths.

*shrug*

Sure, I accept it'd be a difficult thing to control for all the reasons people have mentioned, I'm not an idiot. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. I feel pretty much exactly what DaGaffer said.

..And so long as we're not deluding ourselves that America's gun laws don't contribute to innocent folk children dying in their own country as well as overseas..

 

[Scouse]

Oh please, the poster-boy for tinfoil headgear defending the US legal system? Money, money, money...

No. I'm not defending the US legal system at all - I'm simply pointing out that the US consitution *does* have gun-ownership enshrined in it. And provided evidence.

 

[rynnor]

Banning semi automatics and limiting magazine size would have a big impact on massacres. Having to cock every shot and reload every 15 shots would help give people a chance to tackle the gun man. Of course only practical for rifles and sub machine guns.

In practice they just come loaded with more guns so they dont need to reload much - I think they will ban the semi autos but the only way to prevent such tragedies is to secure the targets.

 

[Scouse]

Gun-related deaths in 1991:
UK: 14. (Population 50million approx)
US: 23000. (Population 250million approx)
Syria: Since The Assad Government Started Killing Civilians: ~44,000 (Population ~20 million)

Equivalent number of deaths in the United States if the US Government had started a Syria-style action: ~765,000

= ~33 years worth of gun-death in the United States.

Amended to include a different perspective m8

 

[opticle]

Amended to include a different perspective m8

Dude, I totally agree. I don't know how that's relevant to debating the gun laws and the US children's massacre (which is a tragedy regardless of those figures), but I do agree. It's absolutely terrible and we're completely blinkered from it.

Edit: Oh, I get it.. you think the US militia could have stopped this.. ?

 

[Scouse]

I don't know how that's relevant to debating the gun laws and the US children's massacre

Quite obviously, it's relevant because the democrats are pushing their long-stated aim of banning gun ownership in the US on the back of this incident.

"OMGZ!111!!1 Think of the children" is one sure way to get idiots to support anything regardless of what the real danger is.

Edit: Oh, I get it.. you think the US militia could have stopped this.. ?

No, I'm saying that the gun ownership laws are to stop the US government doing to their people what the Syrian government is currently doing to it's people

Edit: Which is the equivalent of 28,333 of these school shootings if it was being carried out in the United States.

 

[opticle]

Quite obviously, it's relevant because the democrats are pushing their long-stated aim of banning gun ownership in the US on the back of this incident.

"OMGZ!111!!1 Think of the children" is one sure way to get idiots to support anything regardless of what the real danger is.

So you think the people should be allowed to have grenades, bazookas and working tanks too ? Because they'd definitely help when the revolution comes..

 

[Scouse]

So you think the people should be allowed to have grenades, bazookas and working tanks too ? Because they'd definitely help when the revolution comes..

A jump to the extreme to justify your position is a sign of weakness, young padawan

 

[noblok]

A jump to the extreme to justify your position is a sign of weakness, young padawan

A simple shotgun won't be of much use when the government decides to launch a drone attack on your town, though. The government will always have bigger guns.

Amended to include a different perspective m8

Number of deaths in the non-violent Egyptian revolution: 846. Tunisia: 338.

 

[Scouse]

Number of deaths in the FAILED Egyptian revolution: 846.

Yep. It was a failed revolution. But that's beside the point - your scenario is substantially different from the scenario being discussed.

Mubarak hadn't taken to starting to shoot his own people - it was a "popular uprising" - not defence from and overthrow of a violent regime - which is the scenario that has been planned for in the constitution.

Pointing at something and going "look - different things can happen" doesn't mean that violent attacks on a population by a government doesn't or can't happen.

 

[TdC]

A simple shotgun won't be of much use when the government decides to launch a drone attack on your town, though. The government will always have bigger guns.

I was thinking this last night. Some dude with a hunting rifle...or lets go extreme : a survivalist nutbag (or more than one) with a complete arsenal of weaps will last about 5 seconds against basically any military in the world. I'm sure some of the more bright US army types will have twinges of consciousness against fighting their own brethren but I'm also sure the government/high command will spin the issue so well they'll prolly be happy about beating the crap out of their countrymen.

So, because of this I've concluded all the gung-ho posturing in camo suits is either to keep their so called friends at a distance lest they (white anglo saxon protestant god forbid) be found to be gay or something, or to satisfy some deep ingrained need to be a retard by buying guns because it's the thing they've been programmed to do by companies, the marketing coup which DaGaffer mentioned. (note: I am talking about owning one or several weapons that are clearly not for sporting or hunting purposes)

 

[Scouse]

I was thinking this last night. Some dude with a hunting rifle...or lets go extreme : a survivalist nutbag (or more than one) with a complete arsenal of weaps will last about 5 seconds against basically any military in the world.

Disagree:

As of 30 September 2010, 1,430,895 people were on active dutyin the military, with an additional 848,000 people in the seven reserve components

So, about 2.2 million at best. Very well armed. Versus the 348 million remaining. Reasonably well armed.

If we ignore any inevitable crossover from the military to the public or vice versa, and half the number of the civilians (to account generously for too young/too old and infirm) then the military are still outnumbered about 80-1.


I fancy those odds.

 

[TdC]

lol, as if the US military would ever go mano-a-mano on anyone. dude, you do realize they're going to send in the mechanized infantry and apache attack helis, no?
also, you're assuming a complete uprising of the people against the government/military. That will never happen.
also, you're assuming the 300odd million peeps are adults, have assualt rifles and some training and will fight. mmmmmnope, never will happen.

sorry, your scenario isn't going to happen.

 

[noblok]

Mubarak hadn't taken to starting to shoot his own people - it was a "popular uprising" - not defence from and overthrow of a violent regime - which is the scenario that has been planned for in the constitution.

Why did the Syrian civil war start again? Oh, right, popular uprising. Then they got shot at, grabbed their weapons and look where we are now. The Syrian opposition is armed. This hasn't stopped the government murdering and torturing. I even think the argument can be made that violent resistance has increased the intensity of it.

I fancy those odds.

Very unlikely scenario, though (as TdC has pointed out).

 

[Scouse]

you're assuming the 300odd million peeps are adults...yadda

sorry, your scenario isn't going to happen.

You've not read and considered what I wrote properly there teeds. And you betray that by saying the above: I'm not assuming the 350 million people are adults, in fact - I account for half the population being unable to fight.

I also make no claims about training and arms. Any revolution of that sort in the US would *obviously* be a guerilla action.

You make a lot of noise about what's "never" going to happen (despite them all being a things that have happened throughout history) and that forms your entire argument.


Your argument seems to be that revolution in America is impossible. Which I find so self-evidently silly I'm going to discount it, erm, now...

 

[Scouse]

Why did the Syrian civil war start again? Oh, right, popular uprising. Then they got shot at, grabbed their weapons and look where we are now. The Syrian opposition is armed. This hasn't stopped the government murdering and torturing. I even think the argument can be made that violent resistance has increased the intensity of it.

The popular uprising in Syria is because they didn't like their oppresive governement. That's what revolution is for - to throw off an oppresive government.

Yes, they tend to be violent and include a lot of death - but the people knew that before they started and did it anyway.

I wonder why, eh?

Perhaps it's because freedom from oppression is something worth fighting for? All the US "Founding Fathers" did was give the Americans a fair chance in that fight, should it ever be needed.

 

[TdC]

not really. perhaps I should rephrase: it will never happen now. the previous incarnation of this happened when the weaponry owned by the civs was quite comparable to what the military of the time had, and the amount of discipline the civs possessed not to mention the general aptitude the civs had was VASTLY different to your average American today.

You seem to be saying that the US populous could rise up against the government and be successful. I am saying that it will not. Sure, there may be a small number of people who get together and become organized enough to resist the military for a short while. Who knows, they may even score some hits. Also, they may get extremely lucky and have some home guard forces or actual units defect to them so they can get some real soldiers in their ranks and then they will get pounded until they give up or are dead. That's not really a success story.

 

[noblok]

The popular uprising in Syria is because they didn't like their oppresive governement. That's what revolution is for - to throw off an oppresive government.

As it was in Tunisia and Egypt... You're right that there was less fighting in Tunisia and Egypt, but their revolutions were arguably more successful (or less of a failure) than the Syrian civil war and cost fewer lives. Maybe the reason there was less fighting was because one of the sides in the conflict refused to enter the fight? Who knows. Looking at the facts, however, it shows being armed is no guarantee you'll be able to shake off your oppressive regime (or even stand a fair chance fighting it).

 

[Scouse]

Looking at the facts, however, it shows being armed is no guarantee you'll be able to shake off your oppressive regime (or even stand a fair chance fighting it).

I agree. But being unarmed means you don't even have the means to try...

 

[Cyradix]

<sighs>