Yet another US shooting

[Trackdaybob]

Just now, Granny Danger said:

I posted something very similar on here after the last one and got accused of being s sociopath.

Meh, they can say what they like.

I'm just saying it as I see it.

I'm paying less and less attention to the news, media, social media, etc as it's all just doom and gloom, shit like this, thoughts and prayers, likes and shares. They're welcome to it all.

I'm more concentrated on my on wee window in the world, the things that are important to me and I'm much better off for it.

As much as I did enjoy my recent times in the USA (3-4 months a year last three years), ultimately, it's a fucked up country that refuses to deal with a very real situation that could, with a little effort, be improved upon but for whatever reason chooses not to.

I'm not saying they could ever completely eradicate the threat but they could take steps towards the greater good but they won't. Good luck to them. 

[The_Kincardine]

8 minutes ago, Trackdaybob said:

I'm not saying they could ever completely eradicate the threat but they could take steps towards the greater good but they won't. Good luck to them. 

'Gun activists' don't see it as a threat but as acceptable collateral damage.  For them the right to carry a gun to go for your messages matters much more than a small number of folk killed in mass shootings.

[pandarilla]

'Gun activists' don't see it as a threat but as acceptable collateral damage.  For them the right to carry a gun to go for your messages matters much more than a small number of folk killed in mass shootings.

It's incredible but you're right. I see it like some ancient African customs - each to their own but it's fucked up beyond belief.

When acceptable collateral damage includes the death of an 18 month old baby then you know you've lost the plot.

[Cerberus]

Just now, The_Kincardine said:

'Gun activists' don't see it as a threat but as acceptable collateral damage.  For them the right to carry a gun to go for your messages matters much more than a small number of folk killed in mass shootings.

This is it.
It's an acceptable expense for their freedom to own guns. You might as well try and take their car/house/kids.
I can guarantee you that people directly affected by shootings still won't want gun control.

 

[welshbairn]

2 hours ago, The Marly said:

Or The Progressive Liberal

"It's in our white culture that people sent to jail for beating their wife and kid and kicked out of the Army should be allowed to buy assault rifles godangit." 

(Just filling in)

Edited November 6, 2017 by welshbairn

[The_Kincardine]

5 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

 

It's incredible but you're right. I see it like some ancient African customs - each to their own but it's fucked up beyond belief.

When acceptable collateral damage includes the death of an 18 month old baby then you know you've lost the plot.

 

 

Indeed.

I haven't seen it stated explicitly yet but I have a hefty wager that two "good ole boys" chasing the shooter in a truck and forcing him off the road will be seen as vindication of Texas' liberal gun policy.  "Look, we got the guy.  The system works".

[chomp my root]

15 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

'Gun activists' don't see it as a threat but as acceptable collateral damage.  For them the right to carry a gun to go for your messages matters much more than a small number of folk killed in mass shootings.

Yup and hard for the rest of us to get our heads round.

That the Second Amendment is an AMENDMENT kind of suggests that things were changed to include it, a lot of Septics seem to see it as unchangeable because it suits their personal agenda.  I can understand why they would want firearms to hunt or even a handgun for home defence, the logic of being able to rally against the State if the State was trying to oppress them falls flat on its arse, having an assault rife isn't going to help when the State roll up in a tank or helicopter gunship, basically utter bollocks but its a mass delusion that a hell of a lot of them buy into. Any change will have to be 'forced' on them, its ingrained into the psyche of far too many, can't see it happening any time soon, even Obama who was keen on changes couldn't swing it. 

[chomp my root]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

"It's in our culture that people sent to jail for beating their wife and kid and kicked out of the Army should be allowed to buy assault rifles godangit." 

(Just filling in)

A couple of wids there, any takers for this one ????

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, chomp my root said:

Yup and hard for the rest of us to get our heads round.

That the Second Amendment is an AMENDMENT kind of suggests that things were changed to include it, a lot of Septics seem to see it as unchangeable because it suits their personal agenda.  I can understand why they would want firearms to hunt or even a handgun for home defence, the logic of being able to rally against the State if the State was trying to oppress them falls flat on its arse, having an assault rife isn't going to help when the State roll up in a tank or helicopter gunship, basically utter bollocks but its a mass delusion that a hell of a lot of them buy into. Any change will have to be 'forced' on them, its ingrained into the psyche of far too many, can't see it happening any time soon, even Obama who was keen on changes couldn't swing it. 

The utterly obvious thing about the 2nd Amendment was it wasn't about having individual rights to buy modern military grade weapons, it was about encouraging armed militias in case of attack, most likely from Britain. Guns were very expensive back then, and most people didn't own one.

[Granny Danger]

5 minutes ago, Cerberus said:

I can guarantee you that people directly affected by shootings still won't want gun control.

 

The strange thing is they will not all be morons.  Many of them will, maybe even most of them, but there will be s large number of intelligent and educated people who will also hold this position.

Is it some cultural, group think physcosis 

[chomp my root]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

The utterly obvious thing about the 2nd Amendment was it wasn't about having individual rights to buy modern military grade weapons, it was about encouraging armed militias in case of attack, most likely from Britain. Guns were very expensive back then, and most people didn't own one.

Aye, a lot seems to have been lost or twisted along the way. Like I say, I've heard the justification that they need to be able to fight against the State if the people feel they're being oppressed being used a fair bit. That this crap hasn't been called out as absolutely futile tells a story in itself, its quite despairing that culturally there is the 'want' to have automatic weapons that are only designed to kill people.  I've shot over the years myself as well as doing the bang-sticks when I was in the Forces, I'm very comfortable with firearms but for the life of me, I really don't get this mass psychosis about being armed to the teeth.

[Louis Litt]

If it really isn't a gun problem, but, like Trump said, a mental health problem, I'd be really interested to know why he lifted Obama's ban on mental health patients needing checks to buy a gun in February this year.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Louis Litt

[The Marly]

If it really isn't a gun problem, but, like Trump said, a mental health problem, I'd be really interested to know why he lifted Obama's ban on mental health patients needing checks to buy a gun in February this year.

Because he has mental health problems of his own.

[chomp my root]

27 minutes ago, Louis Litt said:

If it really isn't a gun problem, but, like Trump said, a mental health problem, I'd be really interested to know why he lifted Obama's ban on mental health patients needing checks to buy a gun in February this year.

Is this real ? Sorry for questioning  but I hadn't heard this, that's frightening on a number of different levels.

[welshbairn]

19 minutes ago, Louis Litt said:

If it really isn't a gun problem, but, like Trump said, a mental health problem, I'd be really interested to know why he lifted Obama's ban on mental health patients needing checks to buy a gun in February this year.

That was very limited, just people who needed help filling in benefit claim forms because of mental difficulties. Literate psychopaths were still cool, as are people on the No Flight List because of suspected terrorist links. The daft thing is that the NRA is not some monolithic force that controls everything, they spend a tiny $4 million a year in lobbying and bribing politicians which is minuscule compared to the likes of Pharma and polluting industries etc. Politicians are scared shitless of them though. The polls are weird, an increasing amount of people are against gun control, slightly over 50% after many years of being under, but it's a different story if you ask specific questions.

http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/26/opinions-on-gun-policy-and-the-2016-campaign/

[Louis Litt]

9 minutes ago, chomp my root said:

Is this real ? Sorry for questioning  but I hadn't heard this, that's frightening on a number of different levels.

See welshbairn's post, quoting it of a newspaper it covers people with 'a mental disorder so severe that they cannot work and need a representative to manage their benefits.'

Obviously not all levels of mental illness, but given the fact he's claiming that mental health issues are in fact the issue here, it's still absolutely laughable and talking such blatant shite which he doesn't believe it makes you want to cry.

[chomp my root]

1 minute ago, Louis Litt said:

See welshbairn's post, quoting it of a newspaper it covers people with 'a mental disorder so severe that they cannot work and need a representative to manage their benefits.'

Obviously not all levels of mental illness, but given the fact he's claiming that mental health issues are in fact the issue here, it's still absolutely laughable and talking such blatant shite which he doesn't believe it makes you want to cry.

The whole thing is so exasperating that you want to greet. Or mock. Or both. 

[Thistle_do_nicely]

I kinda get that gun culture is entrenched pretty heavily in 'murica and there are a lot of firearms in civilian hands so it would be hard, politically and practically, to start... but disarming the general public has to start somewhere, somehow, surely?

Surely?

Edited November 6, 2017 by Thistle_do_nicely

[chomp my root]

2 minutes ago, Thistle_do_nicely said:

I kinda get that gun culture is entrenched pretty heavily in 'murica and there are a lot of firearms in civilian hands so it would be hard, politically and practically, to start... but disarming the general public has to start somewhere, somehow, surely?

Surely?

They don't need to be disarmed, the 'spirit' of the 2nd Amendment could be met and the automatic weapons could be banned. They could still 'bear arms' without the lethality of automatic weapons. I can't be arsed to check but I'm sure I read/heard a similar percentage of Canadians have firearms, just not in the same quantities or type of firearms, there's only a small fraction of fatalities though.

[Sherrif John Bunnell]