Yet another mass shooting in America

First topic message reminder :

The USA, home of the free and land of the deranged mass shooter.

No doubt usual vigils, well meaning words, heart felt condolences etc given out but ultimately naff all be done to alleviate the scourge of gun crime.
What's the NRA line, only way to deal with this is to arm more people?

Yep that's really working out fine and dandy....

mountain man wrote:

There are so many illegal guns on the street now any gun control laws will only disarm law abiding citizens.

Seeing as this thread is about mass shootings and they tend to be committed by seemingly ordinary people with no history of crime or violence then yes, gun control WILL prevent some of these.

The old chestnut of saying it's no good, too late the bad guys all have guns anyway is a pathetic cop-out I'm afraid.

If nothing is done to at least try and prevent mass killing of innocent men, women and children then how will it ever end?
The line of saying "well just arm more good guys" isn't working.

Ok, so disarming the populace MAY reduce mass shootings committed by previously non criminals. What % of deaths to general crime does that account for? 1% of total deaths to crime? Well done.

Now what are the other effects? What does a society look like where only criminals have guns, and the police do F all? That's not even a hypothetical question, it's your average high crime democrat city that millions of ppl are fleeing. Also, your policy is very unpopular, ppl don't want to vote for it, and they are opposing it with their wallets too. Clearly millions of Americans (including liberals) are taking to calculated risk, that being armed is the lesser of 2 evils.

Well in that case in your words do F all and F all will change.

As an outsider I find it incredible that there will be a mass shooting in a school and nothing is ever done about it.

As for police doing nothing about it, well if strict laws were introduced(never happen) then the police could sieze any guns held apart from a very few which were held by carefully vetted individuals for hunting etc.
This of course would be a massive operation costing probably billions over time but it would be possible if the will was there.
Yes, guns will always be kept illegally you only need to see situation in NI to know that but doing something is surely better than doing nothing.

I've also yet to see any justification as to why anyone needs an assault rifle!

mountain man wrote:Well in that case in your words do F all and F all will change.

As an outsider I find it incredible that there will be a mass shooting in a school and nothing is ever done about it.

As for police doing nothing about it, well if strict laws were introduced(never happen) then the police could sieze any guns held apart from a very few which were held by carefully vetted individuals for hunting etc.
This of course would be a massive operation costing probably billions over time but it would be possible if the will was there.
Yes, guns will always be kept illegally you only need to see situation in NI to know that but doing something is surely better than doing nothing.

I've also yet to see any justification as to why anyone needs an assault rifle!

Doing nothing is better than making things worse.

Gun sales are rising because crime is rising. If you want to reduce the number of guns in circulation, address why ppl are buying them in such numbers.

Where are the illegal guns coming from? Maybe try tackling that?

End gun free zones, don't advertise that you are unarmed and helpless.

None are perfect, but are a lot better than unconstitutional, and undemocratic gun seizure of property legally acquired by law abiding civilians. I'd imagine that would go down well. Hey, we are the police, we let rioters and looters run amok since 2020, never arrested them, or prosecuted them either, we are here to remove any means for you to defend yourself. Oh yeah, and if you call us, we won't show up, staffing issues.

But the situation will get worse if nothing changes.

As someone else mentioned, young school kids have classroom "shooter" drills and some have bullet proof plating in backpacks.

What sort of deranged world is that?

What's next step, arming 9 year olds?

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:More shooting deaths will tend to occur in poor neighborhoods, which, in a lot of circumstances, will tend to have a certain racial bias.

However if you are looking at proper mass shootings or deaths due to what are best classified as terrorist activities I would not be at all surprised if it was a white protagonist.

Not sure what you mean by "racial bias". But yes around 70% of mass shootings are committed by blacks which would be almost exclusively in poorer areas (poor due to high crime- explained in previous posts).

I don't really get the need to distinguish between "proper" and other mass shootings, I mean the victims are just as dead, the perpetrator just as evil.

The link you posted does not say that; you are 11 times more likely to be convicted of a crime in the USA if you are black. 70% of known perpetrators does not equal 70% of mass shootings being committed by black people. The term you insist on using is somewhat vile.

Blacks are far more likely to be convicted because the rate of crime is so much higher, is not complex or racist. Asians have a lower conviction rate than whites, I guess the whites are also being systematically oppressed. Men have far higher rates than women, guess we have a sexism against men issue too by your logic. Their neighbourhoods are policed more because the crime rate is so much higher. Police forces tend to focus on areas where more crime is committed.

Obviously this is changing due to progressive policies, leftwing activist DAs, and defunding and demonising of the police. But more some reason crime is going up, murders up, robberies up, and so much so that business after business are leaving the inner cities because the lefties in charge have de-criminalised theft and drug use.

That's not even vaguely true. You are again confusing absolute numbers and percentages with conviction rate, two separate issues. You really do not understand the nuance of the debate.

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:More shooting deaths will tend to occur in poor neighborhoods, which, in a lot of circumstances, will tend to have a certain racial bias.

However if you are looking at proper mass shootings or deaths due to what are best classified as terrorist activities I would not be at all surprised if it was a white protagonist.

Not sure what you mean by "racial bias". But yes around 70% of mass shootings are committed by blacks which would be almost exclusively in poorer areas (poor due to high crime- explained in previous posts).

I don't really get the need to distinguish between "proper" and other mass shootings, I mean the victims are just as dead, the perpetrator just as evil.

The link you posted does not say that; you are 11 times more likely to be convicted of a crime in the USA if you are black. 70% of known perpetrators does not equal 70% of mass shootings being committed by black people. The term you insist on using is somewhat vile.

Blacks are far more likely to be convicted because the rate of crime is so much higher, is not complex or racist. Asians have a lower conviction rate than whites, I guess the whites are also being systematically oppressed. Men have far higher rates than women, guess we have a sexism against men issue too by your logic. Their neighbourhoods are policed more because the crime rate is so much higher. Police forces tend to focus on areas where more crime is committed.

Obviously this is changing due to progressive policies, leftwing activist DAs, and defunding and demonising of the police. But more some reason crime is going up, murders up, robberies up, and so much so that business after business are leaving the inner cities because the lefties in charge have de-criminalised theft and drug use.

That's not even vaguely true. You are again confusing absolute numbers and percentages with conviction rate, two separate issues. You really do not understand the nuance of the debate.

What have I said that isn't true?

Where does your 11 times stat come from?

mountain man wrote:But the situation will get worse if nothing changes.

As someone else mentioned, young school kids have classroom "shooter" drills and some have bullet proof plating in backpacks.

What sort of deranged world is that?

What's next step, arming 9 year olds?

You can't win, but fair play for trying. They don't want to know.

I'm surprised more NRA types aren't rather asking why they can't buy more actual military hardware - APCs, heavy machine guns, grenades, rockets etc. I'm sure that if F16s or M1 Abrams weren't so expensive, you'd have more up in arms that they should be able to own that sort of stuff as private citizens for 'self-defence'. Thou shalt not get in the way of the 'people' allegedly acting as a 'militia' and if a casualty of that is an ongoing massacre of innocents, well, so be it.

You are aware that more ppl in the US are buying guns, right? More liberal ppl too? Is every gun owner in the US an "NRA type"?

I find it interesting that is completely ignored.

Since 2020, crime is up, riots and looting are commonplace, the police are less responsive, and for some strange reason millions of americans who have never owned a gun are suddenly buying them. Could this be related?

People are buying guns because the USA has become one of the most f*cked up nations outside the third world, where people live in fear, stoked up by politicians who use fear as a way to gain and wield power.
Americans see mass shootings and kids being mowed down in school as an acceptable consequence of the sacred 2nd Amendment. Their crocodile tears and worthless 'thoughts and prayers' are puke-inducing hypocrisy.
It's almost a mass psychosis spreading throughout the country.
How many Americans think Civil War is on the way - 20%? 25%? - something like that. Wouldn't surprise me if it happened.

JuliusHMarx wrote:People are buying guns because the USA has become one of the most f*cked up nations outside the third world, where people live in fear, stoked up by politicians who use fear as a way to gain and wield power.
Americans see mass shootings and kids being mowed down in school as an acceptable consequence of the sacred 2nd Amendment. Their crocodile tears and worthless 'thoughts and prayers' are puke-inducing hypocrisy.
It's almost a mass psychosis spreading throughout the country.
How many Americans think Civil War is on the way - 20%? 25%? - something like that. Wouldn't surprise me if it happened.

This. I have nothing further to add.

JuliusHMarx wrote:People are buying guns because the USA has become one of the most f*cked up nations outside the third world, where people live in fear, stoked up by politicians who use fear as a way to gain and wield power.
Americans see mass shootings and kids being mowed down in school as an acceptable consequence of the sacred 2nd Amendment. Their crocodile tears and worthless 'thoughts and prayers' are puke-inducing hypocrisy.
It's almost a mass psychosis spreading throughout the country.
How many Americans think Civil War is on the way - 20%? 25%? - something like that. Wouldn't surprise me if it happened.

So crime isn't going up? The fear of crime is a figment of their imagination created by evil Republicans.

Ah yeah, the classic power grab, give your citizens guns. That way you can more easily oppress them.

No, you give your citizens more guns, not to oppress them, but to beat the citizens of the other side when the time comes.
Or maybe just to storm the Capitol properly next time and get the job done right.

JuliusHMarx wrote:People are buying guns because the USA has become one of the most f*cked up nations outside the third world, where people live in fear

Funnily enough I was telling Red the other day that thankfully the World's greatest Economy has the UK to learn from...

With its..

Place at the bottom of the G7.....Record amount of strikes.....Record number of evictions.....11% Inflation and most of its public sector workers using Foodbanks...

As for guns well the Founding Fathers brought in the second Amendment because as a new Country they were worried about protecting rights for a people made up of 85% Farmers.......We became a culture of guns that is hard to roll back....Misguided perhaps but they didn't have a crystal ball.

But like I said it is good we have the UK to learn from..

The UK is also f*cked up. Didn't realise it was a competition.

JuliusHMarx wrote:No, you give your citizens more guns, not to oppress them, but to beat the citizens of the other side when the time comes.
Or maybe just to storm the Capitol properly next time and get the job done right.

Wait just to clarify.

Republicans are arming their supporters in order to start a revolution? Via the 2nd amendment, which allows any American to bear arms, including liberals? Is this a serious position?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Place at the bottom of the G7.....Record amount of strikes.....Record number of evictions.....11% Inflation and most of its public sector workers using Foodbanks...

One out of five is true.

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:No, you give your citizens more guns, not to oppress them, but to beat the citizens of the other side when the time comes.
Or maybe just to storm the Capitol properly next time and get the job done right.

Wait just to clarify.

Republicans are arming their supporters in order to start a revolution? Via the 2nd amendment, which allows any American to bear arms, including liberals? Is this a serious position?

See, this is why I prefer Duty. He is capable of understanding what other people write, whereas you aren't.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:People are buying guns because the USA has become one of the most f*cked up nations outside the third world, where people live in fear

Funnily enough I was telling Red the other day that thankfully the World's greatest Economy has the UK to learn from...

With its..

Place at the bottom of the G7.....Record amount of strikes.....Record number of evictions.....11% Inflation and most of its public sector workers using Foodbanks...

As for guns well the Founding Fathers brought in the second Amendment because as a new Country they were worried about protecting rights for a people made up of 85% Farmers.......We became a culture of guns that is hard to roll back....Misguided perhaps but they didn't have a crystal ball.

But like I said it is good we have the UK to learn from..

Well the UK like pretty much every country has it's share of problems, don't think anyone denies that but one of them isn't the worry my kids will be shot especially at school. The possibility of being shot is so remote it just doesn't register here. I'm not sure same could be said for USA, in fact the exact opposite is being used as reason why "the good guys" are arming up even more.

Anyway, let's not make this US v UK or anywhere else. That hardly helps anyone and will just degenerate into tit for tat name calling.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:People are buying guns because the USA has become one of the most f*cked up nations outside the third world, where people live in fear

Funnily enough I was telling Red the other day that thankfully the World's greatest Economy has the UK to learn from...

With its..

Place at the bottom of the G7.....Record amount of strikes.....Record number of evictions.....11% Inflation and most of its public sector workers using Foodbanks...

As for guns well the Founding Fathers brought in the second Amendment because as a new Country they were worried about protecting rights for a people made up of 85% Farmers.......We became a culture of guns that is hard to roll back....Misguided perhaps but they didn't have a crystal ball.

But like I said it is good we have the UK to learn from..

What a ridiculous post, you're better than that Truss.

This isn't about the economy or any issue aside from gun regulation in the US and the very real fear parents have for their children going to school there. The UK having its fair share of self inflicted problems but thankfully gun crime isn't among them.

45,000 gun related deaths in the USA in 2021, 24,000 of those were self inflicted.

mountain man wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:People are buying guns because the USA has become one of the most f*cked up nations outside the third world, where people live in fear

Funnily enough I was telling Red the other day that thankfully the World's greatest Economy has the UK to learn from...

With its..

Place at the bottom of the G7.....Record amount of strikes.....Record number of evictions.....11% Inflation and most of its public sector workers using Foodbanks...

As for guns well the Founding Fathers brought in the second Amendment because as a new Country they were worried about protecting rights for a people made up of 85% Farmers.......We became a culture of guns that is hard to roll back....Misguided perhaps but they didn't have a crystal ball.

But like I said it is good we have the UK to learn from..

Well the UK like pretty much every country has it's share of problems, don't think anyone denies that but one of them isn't the worry my kids will be shot especially at school. The possibility of being shot is so remote it just doesn't register here. I'm not sure same could be said for USA, in fact the exact opposite is being used as reason why "the good guys" are arming up even more.

Anyway, let's not make this US v UK or anywhere else. That hardly helps anyone and will just degenerate into tit for tat name calling.

As I said the USA became a Sovereign nation in 1776 and had to put in safety measures to keep it the land of the free and one of those measures of keeping it free was giving a Country full of Farmers the right to take arms against potential tyranny.

Easy to mock but tell me how you can change it ???...I've outlined above the problem with federal and State regulation..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:As I said the USA became a Sovereign nation in 1776

1784, Truss, not 1776.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:No, you give your citizens more guns, not to oppress them, but to beat the citizens of the other side when the time comes.
Or maybe just to storm the Capitol properly next time and get the job done right.

Wait just to clarify.

Republicans are arming their supporters in order to start a revolution? Via the 2nd amendment, which allows any American to bear arms, including liberals? Is this a serious position?

See, this is why I prefer Duty. He is capable of understanding what other people write, whereas you aren't.

"No, you give your citizens more guns" - So this would be republicans giving guns to republican voters?

"but to beat the citizens of the other side" - use the given guns to beat democrat voters

"when the time comes." - I guess that would after losing an election, don't really need to start a civil war if you're winning.

Now currently, the right don't want gun control, so anyone can buy a gun, left or right, black or white. But somehow that's them trying to arm their side only?

What did I misunderstand?

Yes, I specifically meant that Republican politicians literally give their supporters guns.
Debating with zealots of any political persuasion is pointless and dull.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yes, I specifically meant that Republican politicians literally give their supporters guns.
Debating with zealots of any political persuasion is pointless and dull.

Wow, debasing yourself to petty personal attacks. I think you need to leave your echo chamber once in a while.

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yes, I specifically meant that Republican politicians literally give their supporters guns.
Debating with zealots of any political persuasion is pointless and dull.

Wow, debasing yourself to petty personal attacks. I think you need to leave your echo chamber once in a while.

C'mon, surely you are self-aware enough to recognise yourself as a right-wing zealot?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yes, I specifically meant that Republican politicians literally give their supporters guns.
Debating with zealots of any political persuasion is pointless and dull.

Wow, debasing yourself to petty personal attacks. I think you need to leave your echo chamber once in a while.

C'mon, surely you are self-aware enough to recognise yourself as a right-wing zealot?

Says the "moderate left winger" who thinks the republicans are arming their voters to overthrow the US.

I mean, how am I the zealot? I'm not the one throwing insults, or regurgitating political talking points, or wanted to end the dialogue? I've clarified my position and gave you my reasoning each time. Hardly the behaviour of a zealot. More like someone who has thought about their position and is capable of defending it in the marketplace of ideas.

Guess I was wrong about the self-awareness bit.

But I do find some amusement in the way you repeatedly interpret my viewpoint into your own binary way of thinking, rather than understanding it correctly.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Guess I was wrong about the self-awareness bit.

But I do find some amusement in the way you repeatedly interpret my viewpoint into your own binary way of thinking, rather than understanding it correctly.

Doubling down on the petty insults, nice.

So what's your viewpoint then? Please enlighten me.

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Guess I was wrong about the self-awareness bit.

But I do find some amusement in the way you repeatedly interpret my viewpoint into your own binary way of thinking, rather than understanding it correctly.

Doubling down on the petty insults, nice.

So what's your viewpoint then? Please enlighten me.  

No, as I mentioned previously, I don't find any lengthy debate with you to be worth my time. It serves no purpose.

the-goon2 wrote: the marketplace of ideas.

What happens when you've left that place. Do you visit the thought pond and throw some in. See what ripples you create. Get some low hanging fruit on the way back.

Gareth, go and get the guitar.

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:As I said the USA became a Sovereign nation in 1776

1784, Truss, not 1776.

Declaration of Independence was 1776......That is the special date....

Yep the War ended later....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:As I said the USA became a Sovereign nation in 1776

1784, Truss, not 1776.

Declaration of Independence was 1776......That is the special date....

Yep the War ended later....

And 1784 was when the US became sovereign.

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:As I said the USA became a Sovereign nation in 1776

1784, Truss, not 1776.

Declaration of Independence was 1776......That is the special date....

Yep the War ended later....

And 1784 was when the US became sovereign.

Semantics......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:As I said the USA became a Sovereign nation in 1776

1784, Truss, not 1776.

Declaration of Independence was 1776......That is the special date....

Yep the War ended later....

And 1784 was when the US became sovereign.

Semantics......

No, actually, an important distinction.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:As I said the USA became a Sovereign nation in 1776

1784, Truss, not 1776.

Declaration of Independence was 1776......That is the special date....

Yep the War ended later....

And 1784 was when the US became sovereign.

Semantics......

That one must burn, eh Truss?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:As I said the USA became a Sovereign nation in 1776

1784, Truss, not 1776.

Declaration of Independence was 1776......That is the special date....

Yep the War ended later....

And 1784 was when the US became sovereign.

Semantics......

I'm anti-semantic.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Guess I was wrong about the self-awareness bit.

But I do find some amusement in the way you repeatedly interpret my viewpoint into your own binary way of thinking, rather than understanding it correctly.

Doubling down on the petty insults, nice.

So what's your viewpoint then? Please enlighten me.  

No, as I mentioned previously, I don't find any lengthy debate with you to be worth my time. It serves no purpose.

I disagree, I can see that you are someone who doesn't leave their little echo chamber so can't handle views they disagree with.

Your positions are poorly through out, poorly argued, and you lack the ability to engage with my ideas.

Your only responses are hissy fits, name calling and moral grandstanding.

Are you aware, that for example, Walmart are closing 4 major stores in inner city Chicago because of crime (that's Walmart's reasoning btw). It will mean that there will be a food desert and the cost for basics will rise significantly. This completely validates my position.

Businesses leaving > less jobs > less services > higher cost of living > poverty. Why did the business leave again?

What do you think is the reason behind such a move. And what's your solution?

A solution is a solute dissolved in water (or other solvent).
FACT.

JuliusHMarx wrote:A solution is a solute dissolved in water (or other solvent).
FACT.

You cant argue when FACT is in capital letters.

Samo wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:A solution is a solute dissolved in water (or other solvent).
FACT.

You cant argue when FACT is in capital letters.

For the most part, yes, but you can argue a FACT if you end your argument with GOSPEL.

That's not a FACT it is a definition. That something dissolves to form a solution would be a fact.

No name Bertie wrote:That's not a FACT it is a definition.  That something dissolves to form a solution would be a fact.

GOSPEL

Pew research.........Is gun violence a big problem ??

.......Divided in to Race.....Rural/Urban etc..

Black Democrats
------------------
Yes 82%
No..17%

White Democrats
-------------------
Yes 39%
No 35%

Hispanic Democrats
----------------------
Yes 58%
No 18%

Rural Democrats
-------------------
Yes 35%
No 42%

Urban Democrats
-------------------
Yes 65%
No 14%

Not telling you what you didn't know already but as the GOP is more gun hungry......White Rural Democrats (Where the money is)........Don't see gun violence as that big of a problem.

Ta for that, Truss. Have you got a link to the actual survey and the questions, in particular, that were used?

Been reading this thread for a few days now.  Some of what I've read frankly bemuses me. Does anyone outside of a lunatic asylum not think that the need for primary school children to have drills not for fire alarms but for the (very possible) appearance of a gunman in the building indicates a serious problem ?

I get that reform isn't easy.  And yes , right to bear arms , blah blah blah...tradition dies hard. But that principle was accepted at a time when "arms" generally meant a single shot musket not an assortment of automatic weapons...who the hell outside of the military or  a specialist police unit needs an assault rifle?

As for that old "if only the bad guys have guns , the good guys can't protect themselves" nonsense : it really doesn't hold water. Criminals , by and large , have no interest in going round shooting people (except maybe one another) : they want to make a profit . Get the money and get away. An untrained civilian carrying a weapon is probably in more danger from an encounter with armed criminals than an unarmed person who presents no threat to the robbers. If it becomes an arms race : back the criminals to have the advantage.

It really is a mind set though. Saw that case the other day where an elderly fellow shot a lad who rang his doorbell after mistaking the address. Whatever comes out eventually as to whether the old guy didn't like blacks or whatever , what struck me was his quoted words when arrested. He quite matter of factly said that hearing the doorbell unexpectedly "I took my gun and went to the door"... In most countries one might call out "who's there ?" rather than automatically reach for a firearm. And of course in this particular case it seems quite likely that the fact that he had a gun in his hand combined with panic at seeing a black youth at his door (plus he was presumably a senile old goat) caused him to shoot. Take the gun away and no harm is done. (Obviously I am making assumptions in this case. But I use it as an illustration of the dangers of a popular belief that a stranger is likely to be armed and dangerous so you need to be similarly tooled up in response. Surely this needs to be somehow dialled back ?

A complete ban on assault weapons would be a decent start , would it not ?

alfie wrote:Been reading this thread for a few days now.  Some of what I've read frankly bemuses me. Does anyone outside of a lunatic asylum not think that the need for primary school children to have drills not for fire alarms but for the (very possible) appearance of a gunman in the building indicates a serious problem ?

I get that reform isn't easy.  And yes , right to bear arms , blah blah blah...tradition dies hard. But that principle was accepted at a time when "arms" generally meant a single shot musket not an assortment of automatic weapons...who the hell outside of the military or  a specialist police unit needs an assault rifle?

As for that old "if only the bad guys have guns , the good guys can't protect themselves" nonsense : it really doesn't hold water. Criminals , by and large , have no interest in going round shooting people (except maybe one another) : they want to make a profit . Get the money and get away. An untrained civilian carrying a weapon is probably in more danger from an encounter with armed criminals than an unarmed person who presents no threat to the robbers. If it becomes an arms race : back the criminals to have the advantage.

It really is a mind set though. Saw that case the other day where an elderly fellow shot a lad who rang his doorbell after mistaking the address. Whatever comes out eventually as to whether the old guy didn't like blacks or whatever , what struck me was his quoted words when arrested. He quite matter of factly said that hearing the doorbell unexpectedly "I took my gun and went to the door"... In most countries one might call out "who's there ?" rather than automatically reach for a firearm. And of course in this particular case it seems quite likely that the fact that he had a gun in his hand combined with panic at seeing a black youth at his door (plus he was presumably a senile old goat) caused him to shoot. Take the gun away and no harm is done. (Obviously I am making assumptions in this case. But I use it as an illustration of the dangers of a popular belief that a stranger is likely to be armed and dangerous so you need to be similarly tooled up in response. Surely this needs to be somehow dialled back ?

A complete ban on assault weapons would be a decent start , would it not ?

Great post. Way too sensible, but great post.

As an anecdote, when I was an undergraduate university student from '84-'87, I spent one of those years in digs with, amongst others, a great guy from Texas who was in the UK studying. We also had with us another guy who was fun, but occasionally took things too far; this latter guy was also a good rugby player.

Picture the scene: late one night (around 02.00 I think it was), rugby guy comes back from a night on the tiles with friends, somewhat the worse for wear. He's in some sort of fancy dress as he's 'lost' whatever drinking game was going on with his mates. Rugby guy, laughing all the while, decides he needs to crash and opens the wrong bedroom door; that of our American friend from Texas. America dude wakes up hearing a kerfuffle, sees laughing and weirdly dressed rugby guy, shouts, rapidly rolls to one side and apparently punches the wall, breaking at least one finger/knuckle as I recall. Once everything had died down, we asked American dude what he was trying to do. His response? I was going for the pump-action shotgun I keep loaded by the bed at 'home' in Texas. Not only was the shotgun a norm for him re. presumptive intruders, but even half asleep, his response was automatic. We laughed about it a lot once the sun had come up, but this was nearly 40 years ago. Wonder what would the outcome have been, had he actually had that shotgun to hand?

alfie wrote:Been reading this thread for a few days now.  Some of what I've read frankly bemuses me. Does anyone outside of a lunatic asylum not think that the need for primary school children to have drills not for fire alarms but for the (very possible) appearance of a gunman in the building indicates a serious problem ?

I get that reform isn't easy.  And yes , right to bear arms , blah blah blah...tradition dies hard. But that principle was accepted at a time when "arms" generally meant a single shot musket not an assortment of automatic weapons...who the hell outside of the military or  a specialist police unit needs an assault rifle?

As for that old "if only the bad guys have guns , the good guys can't protect themselves" nonsense : it really doesn't hold water. Criminals , by and large , have no interest in going round shooting people (except maybe one another) : they want to make a profit . Get the money and get away. An untrained civilian carrying a weapon is probably in more danger from an encounter with armed criminals than an unarmed person who presents no threat to the robbers. If it becomes an arms race : back the criminals to have the advantage.

It really is a mind set though. Saw that case the other day where an elderly fellow shot a lad who rang his doorbell after mistaking the address. Whatever comes out eventually as to whether the old guy didn't like blacks or whatever , what struck me was his quoted words when arrested. He quite matter of factly said that hearing the doorbell unexpectedly "I took my gun and went to the door"... In most countries one might call out "who's there ?" rather than automatically reach for a firearm. And of course in this particular case it seems quite likely that the fact that he had a gun in his hand combined with panic at seeing a black youth at his door (plus he was presumably a senile old goat) caused him to shoot. Take the gun away and no harm is done. (Obviously I am making assumptions in this case. But I use it as an illustration of the dangers of a popular belief that a stranger is likely to be armed and dangerous so you need to be similarly tooled up in response. Surely this needs to be somehow dialled back ?

A complete ban on assault weapons would be a decent start , would it not ?

The "elderly fellow"probably watched Fox News 24/7.....

I alluded to earlier that State law supercedes Federal law......Unless its specifically bound in the Constitution and there would be hell to pay trying to change that.....The Tenth Amendment has always been a problem...

navyblueshorts wrote:Ta for that, Truss. Have you got a link to the actual survey and the questions, in particular, that were used?

Yep, think I've found it. Another example of Truss posting something which he doesn't understand and hasn't even quoted correctly.



https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/

So, for example:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
White Democrats
-------------------
Yes 39%
No  35%

Truss has confused this category with whites as a whole. But he hasn't even got this right. So whites as a whole group: 39% a very big problem; 25% moderately big; 28% a small problem; 8% not a problem at all. White democrats: 72% a very big problem; 21% moderately big; 7% a small problem; 0% not a problem.

And all the other categories are misquoted.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Ta for that, Truss. Have you got a link to the actual survey and the questions, in particular, that were used?

Yep, think I've found it. Another example of Truss posting something which he doesn't understand and hasn't even quoted correctly.



https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/

So, for example:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
White Democrats
-------------------
Yes 39%
No  35%

Truss has confused this category with whites as a whole. But he hasn't even got this right. So whites as a whole group: 39% a very big problem; 25% moderately big; 28% a small problem; 8% not a problem at all. White democrats: 72% a very big problem; 21% moderately big; 7% a small problem; 0% not a problem.

And all the other categories are misquoted.

Condensed the data.....

If by condensed, you mean lied and misrepresented, then I suppose so.

Politely, as the moderators don't seem to care, can I please ask that you stop posting such rampant misinformation?