Gun control

[Buster15]

It won't be easy so let's not bother.

That pretty much sums it up.
It was so upsetting and depressing to see President Obama try to get the country to take action on this increasing problem with no chance of success.
It will continue unabated until it becomes so socially unacceptable. Don't hold your breath.

 

[cesc's_mullet]

Holy feck! News Stations can't keep up. El Paso is old news already!

Sorry I was referring to the El Paso one.

 

[Bamboozler]

It won't be easy so let's not bother.

That wasn't the connotation of the statement, however, in the same breath suggest real world solutions that will work given the context of where we are at. Feel good emotive responses that have zero impact on the intended audience does exactly what it says on the tin. No one is condoning anything and no one is suggesting that doing nothing is the answer, but as of yet no one is able to put forward something that would work, thats all.

 

[RedPed]

Sorry I was referring to the El Paso one.

Well like I said, that's old news now. We're onto Ohio at the moment.

 

[sun_tzu]

I'm just wondering what type of incident would actually make America take notice and do something about gun reform? I know kids getting shot to pieces is not enough. Just wondering.

I dunno... Someway for the gun companies to make More money from decommissioning / regulating guns than they can from selling them?

 

[Bamboozler]

That is just a cop out. If you ban them, you take them out of the public arena. Credit card companies surely must have details on purchases made from 'Joe's Gun Supplies' etc. You can trace purchases if you want. You can ban cash purchases. Communities/police already have a lot of knowledge about current gun owners. Gun stores must have CCTV. Stores must have their 'regulars' that visit frequently.

Their must be membership groups/forums/clubs. That would be a good place to start. You can outlaw advertising. You can restrict where guns are sold. Cops can actually do their jobs and do random searches (yeah it would be an outrage for white folk), like they do for drugs etc. You can have amnesties or buy backs. Every one knows someone with a gun. For the greater good of their country they can report them anonymously. Their can be stiffer penalties for possessing them. People won't be so brazen about possessing them. They would only have to be seen once with a gun then you have them.

If America really cared, they could easily take out half to two-thirds of all guns straight away.

In the UK, it is illegal to sell, buy or carry certain banned knives and you have to be over 18 to even buy one in a store. It's also an offence to carry one on your person. Doesn't stop knife crime as everyone has a kitchen but we're not going to make it easy either.

Anything has to be a start. All we hear are the same old excuses.

Not a cop out at all, just simply calling out the elephant in the room. People are quick to criticise but then offer little to no way of remedying the issue other than illogical ideals that would never work given the context.

There is no way of tracing firearms, there are no registries, tracing credit card purchases wouldn't work either. Most companies register their company as something mundane so as not to attract too much attention from financial institutions as well as billing details. Banning purchases does nothing to the 300+ million in circulation, even if you started an instant ban tomorrow it would do nothing to the ones in circulation. Making them illegal and forcing them to be taken back doesn't work either, New Zealand are seeing that as we speak and they had a fraction of the guns in circulation that the US does.

In order to implement an outright ban you would need to change the constitution, not going to happen. Hence the perspective of trying to make remedies that would work in the real world. It isn't a resignation that you cannot do anything about it, but simply a realistic approach that in order to do the things you are suggesting it would require a huge act of congress, and there just isn't support for that to work.

People have made statements about not being able to have a rational conversation, but the fact is that no one can put forward a rational way of doing it within the context of the US political system and the basis of the constitution. Hence why you see comments about 'build a wall around America... Let them shoot themselves' etc...

Whether you agree with how its structured is moot, it is the way it is and remedies have to placed within it. Rightly or wrongly.

Knife crime is at an all time high in the UK based upon the latest statistics, London being the epicenter. The laws and regulations making it difficult to obtain a knife are all in place to purchase a firearm in the USA.

 

[Rado_N]

That wasn't the connotation of the statement, however, in the same breath suggest real world solutions that will work given the context of where we are at. Feel good emotive responses that have zero impact on the intended audience does exactly what it says on the tin. No one is condoning anything and no one is suggesting that doing nothing is the answer, but as of yet no one is able to put forward something that would work, thats all.

A straight up ban is the starting point, with government buy-backs following on from that at the beginning. Gun owners love to refer to themselves as "law abiding citizens", and I'm sure the vast majority of them are and will tow the line as much as they might not like it.

Obviously that won't lead to 100% of the guns being removed from society but it will achieve a number of things including but not limited to preventing accidental gun deaths in the home and making it a damn site more difficult for people to get their hands on a firearm in every day circumstances.

When simply being in possession of a firearm becomes a felony you can bet your arse the vast vast majority of people won't be willing to take the risk of keeping theirs.

Following on from there you're left with criminals, so the police and ATF etc can actually do something useful and work with the litany of evidence they will have available to them to trace gun ownership.

It won't be easy and it will take time but you have to start somewhere and once these things (not just guns but ammunition etc) are not freely available it will become more straightforward for authorities to trace activity etc.

Even if it takes a few generations for things to start resembling a decent society you have to start somewhere.

 

[Bamboozler]

A straight up ban is the starting point, with government buy-backs following on from that at the beginning. Gun owners love to refer to themselves as "law abiding citizens", and I'm sure the vast majority of them are and will tow the line as much as they might not like it.

Obviously that won't lead to 100% of the guns being removed from society but it will achieve a number of things including but not limited to preventing accidental gun deaths in the home and making it a damn site more difficult for people to get their hands on a firearm in every day circumstances.

When simply being in possession of a firearm becomes a felony you can bet your arse the vast vast majority of people won't be willing to take the risk of keeping theirs.

Following on from there you're left with criminals, so the police and ATF etc can actually do something useful and work with the litany of evidence they will have available to them to trace gun ownership.

It won't be easy and it will take time but you have to start somewhere and once these things (not just guns but ammunition etc) are not freely available it will become more straightforward for authorities to trace activity etc.

Even if it takes a few generations for things to start resembling a decent society you have to start somewhere.

I understand the perspective, but this would require a change in the constitution, that is no simple nor easy task... and that is the point i'm trying to make. I agree that something like the above would eventually yield some element of positive results (although the last Assault Weapon Ban did nothing statistically) but the process to get it is nigh on impossible, so any remedies need to be within the context of the constitution, and therein lies the problem.

 

[RedPed]

Not a cop out at all, just simply calling out the elephant in the room. People are quick to criticise but then offer little to no way of remedying the issue other than illogical ideals that would never work given the context.

There is no way of tracing firearms, there are no registries, tracing credit card purchases wouldn't work either. Most companies register their company as something mundane so as not to attract too much attention from financial institutions as well as billing details. Banning purchases does nothing to the 300+ million in circulation, even if you started an instant ban tomorrow it would do nothing to the ones in circulation. Making them illegal and forcing them to be taken back doesn't work either, New Zealand are seeing that as we speak and they had a fraction of the guns in circulation that the US does.

In order to implement an outright ban you would need to change the constitution, not going to happen. Hence the perspective of trying to make remedies that would work in the real world. It isn't a resignation that you cannot do anything about it, but simply a realistic approach that in order to do the things you are suggesting it would require a huge act of congress, and there just isn't support for that to work.

People have made statements about not being able to have a rational conversation, but the fact is that no one can put forward a rational way of doing it within the context of the US political system and the basis of the constitution. Hence why you see comments about 'build a wall around America... Let them shoot themselves' etc...

Whether you agree with how its structured is moot, it is the way it is and remedies have to placed within it. Rightly or wrongly.

Knife crime is at an all time high in the UK based upon the latest statistics, London being the epicenter. The laws and regulations making it difficult to obtain a knife are all in place to purchase a firearm in the USA.

Ffs, just change the constitution! It's not rocket science! No law is and should be irreversible. Using the 2nd Amendment as a crutch when it was ratified hundreds of years ago is such bullshit. Times have moved on since then.

Something historical and extremely radical is going to have to happen for things to change. All people are serving up are lame ass excuses. And I'm sorry, that's all they are.

And you're surprised by the 'build a wall around America', 'leave them to it' sentiment?

 

[Synco]

Worth remembering that some of those killed may well have been for gun control every single bit as much as us. Or may have been too young to have an opinion.

I reckon that if he wanted to consider that, he would have already done so. It takes effort to ignore something so obvious. Plus the El Paso killer was almost certainly a racist targeting non-white people... "let them shoot themselves to pieces", yeah.

 

[Rado_N]

I understand the perspective, but this would require a change in the constitution, that is no simple nor easy task... and that is the point i'm trying to make. I agree that something like the above would eventually yield some element of positive results (although the last Assault Weapon Ban did nothing statistically) but the process to get it is nigh on impossible, so any remedies need to be within the context of the constitution.

This is it though, the deification of the Founding Fathers and the Bible like reverence of the Constitution are a huge part of the problem and things that need to change.

It's all well and good saying "oh that can't be done", it can and it should, it just takes corruption-free leadership and the will to get it done but the US is run by money and so long as that remains the case nothing will change because the vicious cycle continues.

Corporate America buys the politicians, who write their laws and block change and put "conservative" judges in positions of power that prevent any meaningful reform to campaign finance or anything else, so they make more money to buy more politicians etc etc.

America as a country is, quite frankly, broken beyond repair and it would take the overturning of Citizens United to even begin to form a foundation on which real change could take place.

Sadly the only landmark decision that looks likely to be overturned in the near future is Roe, which will just drag the country even further backwards.

 

[Bamboozler]

Ffs, just change the constitution! It's not rocket science! No law is and should be irreversible. Using the 2nd Amendment as a crutch when it was ratified hundreds of years ago is such bullshit. Times have moved on since then.

Something historical and extremely radical is going to have to happen for things to change. All people are serving up are lame ass excuses. And I'm sorry, that's all they are.

And you're surprised by the 'build a wall around America', 'leave them to it' sentiment?

The constitution is the constitution, in order for it to be changed it requires a nigh on impossible process. Whether you agree with that process or not is moot, it is the process never the less.

I am not surprised by the comments no, however, you cannot make a stand based around 'rational arguments' by throwing emotive rhetoric around. That was the point.

 

[0le]

It's all well and good saying 'gun control' and 'banning guns' but how do you retrieve the 300 million plus guns already in circulation? There are no registries, there are no records to say where it is or who has it, just the point of sale transaction. New Zealand are currently dealing with the same issue, making certain guns illegal outright and asking people to hand them in, some people will, some people won't.

Banning handguns in the UK was easy, all firearms are registered on a license, along with address and legal owner. The powers that be can (and did) simply went to the registered addresses and forced their purchase / turn in. That is simply impossible in the US. As someone else said previously, the culture is so entrenched and has been for so long that there simply is no way to legislate itself out of trouble. Any new laws making things difficult to get hold of are circumvented by the sheer number of them already in circulation.

Integrating better and more thorough checks and actually utilizing the laws already in place (mental health referrals, communication between health professionals etc) will be a big help.

How did we send man to the moon? How did we build nuclear power stations and hydro dams? How did we drill for oil under hundreds of bars of pressure? How did we build a civil aircraft that could fly at supersonic speed? How did we find treatment for health problems like HIV and cancer.

But you're probably right, removing guns from society will be very difficult - far too difficult than anything solved previously in human history.

 

[Jericholyte2]

The constitution is the constitution, in order for it to be changed it requires a nigh on impossible process. Whether you agree with that process or not is moot, it is the process never the less.

I am not surprised by the comments no, however, you cannot make a stand based around 'rational arguments' by throwing emotive rhetoric around. That was the point.

The constitution is easy enough to change if there is the political will to do so.

That is the only factor stopping this - the political environment within the USA won’t allow this as long as groups like the K̶K̶K̶ fund a significant proportion of the nation’s representatives’ campaigns.

 

[Bamboozler]

How did we send man to the moon? How did we build nuclear power stations and hydro dams? How did we drill for oil under hundreds of bars of pressure? How did we build a civil aircraft that could fly at supersonic speed? How did we find treatment for health problems like HIV and cancer.

But you're probably right, removing guns from society will be very difficult - far too difficult than anything solved previously in human history.

Space travel wasn't protected nor prohibited by the constitution, neither were technological advances in aeronautics or health sciences ;o)

 

[rpitchfo]

The constitution is the constitution, in order for it to be changed it requires a nigh on impossible process. Whether you agree with that process or not is moot, it is the process never the less.

I am not surprised by the comments no, however, you cannot make a stand based around 'rational arguments' by throwing emotive rhetoric around. That was the point.

Nonsense. It’s not a fundamental law of physics. There are houses in my village much older than the constitution of the United States. It was written by people it can be changed by people.

 

[0le]

Space travel wasn't protected nor prohibited by the constitution, neither were technological advances in aeronautics or health sciences ;o)

So only a piece of paper written hundreds of years ago is what is stopping you saving lives? Right..

 

[Bamboozler]

Nonsense. It’s not a fundamental law of physics. There are houses in my village much older than the constitution of the United States. It was written by people it can be changed by people.

Correct, but you are assuming that 'people' all share the same viewpoint as yourself. That is not true whether you agree with it or not.

Look up what it takes to change the constitution and why it hasn't been done many times.

 

[Bamboozler]

So only a piece of paper written hundreds of years ago is what is stopping you saving lives? Right..

You can say that about any founding law or principle. As above, you don't have to agree with it, but you cannot ignore it and wish that it was the way you think it ought to be. Its the founding basis of the country, all of its laws and principles are defined by it and derived from it. You may see it as only a piece of paper, but that is only seeing things from your own lens.

No need to be defensive, I'm not pursuing any element of argument nor personal vendetta. Just trying to be open and honest with the reality of it.

 

[0le]

You can say that about any founding law or principle. As above, you don't have to agree with it, but you cannot ignore it and wish that it was the way you think it ought to be. Its the founding basis of the country, all of its laws and principles are defined by it and derived from it. You may see it as only a piece of paper, but that is only seeing things from your own lens.

No need to be defensive, I'm not pursuing any element of argument nor personal vendetta. Just trying to be open and honest with the reality of it.

I am not being defensive. Your comments are just nonsense - "its too difficult so don't bother".

 

[Bamboozler]

I am not being defensive. Your comments are just nonsense - "its too difficult so don't bother".

That would be your interpretation, I never said those words. I asked for rational solutions within the context of the law, it isn't easy at all.

The 'nonsense' is simply saying 'change the constitution' and that its a 'piece of paper'.... those are opinions that do not reflect the reality of the processes required to do so.

 

[marukomu]

Couldn't they just ban bullets?

 

[Valar Morghulis]

You can say that about any founding law or principle. As above, you don't have to agree with it, but you cannot ignore it and wish that it was the way you think it ought to be. Its the founding basis of the country, all of its laws and principles are defined by it and derived from it. You may see it as only a piece of paper, but that is only seeing things from your own lens.

No need to be defensive, I'm not pursuing any element of argument nor personal vendetta. Just trying to be open and honest with the reality of it.

Surely the average American should be able to look at things now and realise the second amendment has no place in modern society. I wonder when will there finally be a big enough groundswell of people to ensure change occurs, it's happened in most other developed countries decades ago.

Maybe it's just the case that the average IQ of your nation is just too low to ever force meaningful change in this regard.

 

[RedPed]

That would be your interpretation, I never said those words. I asked for rational solutions within the context of the law, it isn't easy at all.

The 'nonsense' is simply saying 'change the constitution' and that its a 'piece of paper'.... those are opinions that do not reflect the reality of the processes required to do so.

Like I said excuse after excuse. On the one hand you're saying the constitution is damn near impossible to change then you're saying it would take firm resolve from the people in power to change it.

Americans have been so brainwashed they have a warped reality on most things. We haven't even gone into the plight of the survivors who may end up bankrupt when they come out of hospital because Americans can't get their head around healthcare for all.

Use the constitution all you want. If it matters that much, people will get round a table and do something about it. Using historical context to frame the rhetoric is frankly quite pathetic (and I'm not referring to you specifically as being pathetic).

 

[utdalltheway]

That was Chris Rock’s thing, kinda.
Make bullets so expensive that people might think twice about using them.

 

[SteveJ]

Maybe it's just the case that the average IQ of your nation is just too low to ever force meaningful change in this regard.

I think that comment is unfair - it's surely a matter of mindset, not intelligence.

 

[Bamboozler]

Surely the average American should be able to look at things now and realise the second amendment has no place in modern society. I wonder when will there finally be a big enough groundswell of people to ensure change occurs, it's happened in most other developed countries decades ago.

Maybe it's just the case that the average IQ of your nation is just too low to ever force meaningful change in this regard.

You are looking at the element of law all wrong, you can't apply emotion nor opinion to one particular law that doesn't apply to them all. That's not how Law works. The process to change any amendment is the same regardless of its context or your personal opinion / interpretation of it. That isn't an excuse, that is 100% factual.

Making statements about an entire country's IQ speaks volumes about you as a person. I am English by the way. If you want to look at the 'average' IQ of England as a comparison, go to Blackpool.... Hardly any different ;o)

Like I said excuse after excuse. On the one hand you're saying the constitution is damn near impossible to change then you're saying it would take firm resolve from the people in power to change it.

Americans have been so brainwashed they have a warped reality on most things. We haven't even gone into the plight of the survivors who may end up bankrupt when they come out of hospital because Americans can't get their head around healthcare for all.

Use the constitution all you want. If it matters that much, people will get round a table and do something about it. Using historical context to frame the rhetoric is frankly quite pathetic (and I'm not referring to you specifically as being pathetic).

Correct on the first 2 points, it is nigh on impossible to change and it would take a huge consensus from the politicians (two thirds of both houses) and then the people via the States. There just isn't the support for it on that scale to pass. That isn't an opinion, its a matter of fact. If it weren't, then it would've been done already. Politicians simply use it to garner support and then when voted in to power realise they cannot follow through.

With regards to healthcare? You are assuming that they do not have healthcare and are being treated at a non state funded hospital. If this were England, they would've died waiting to see a Doc...............

 

[Classical Mechanic]

@Bamboozler I like how you call into question the character of a poster that claimed Americans were dumb and then straight after make a sweeping generalisation about the intelligence of people from Blackpool!

 

[Bamboozler]

@Bamboozler I like how you call into question the character of a poster that claimed Americans were dumb and then straight after make a sweeping generalisation about the intelligence of people from Blackpool!

You are quite right, I apologise, shouldn't have responded in kind.

 

[arnie_ni]

When nothing got done after Sandy Hook, I lost all hope that it would change. Maybe what needs to happen is many in a row, like if there's one or two more now. I don't know.

Dont want to turn this into a political point scoring to much, but why does everyone blame the Republican party for the gun issue, when obama and the Democrats were in power for sandy hook?

Genuine question.

 

[0le]

@Bamboozler

No one is saying changing the legislation would be easy. But some of your posts come across as if its impossible and that there is no point to even try. The way to do it is to educate people, holding rallies and gradually gaining the necessary support to implement some changes to legislation. It has happened previously, with the civil rights movements. Yes, there remains issues regarding that example, but hurdles have been overcome and hurdles can be overcome in the future. Doing nothing for gun control is not an option.

 

[RedPed]

@Bamboozler

No one is saying changing the legislation would be easy. But some of your posts come across as if its impossible and that there is no point to even try. The way to do it is to educate people, holding rallies and gradually gaining the necessary support to implement some changes to legislation. It has happened previously, with the civil rights movements. Yes, there remains issues regarding that example, but hurdles have been overcome and hurdles can be overcome in the future. Doing nothing for gun control is not an option.

I think it is gradually getting to that stage where people will say enough is enough. It's worked up to a point with race. People are getting on board with the gender and environmental fight. You can only have so many mass shootings before people are no longer able to hide behind cheap talk, thoughts and prayers and their constitutional rights before serious bipartisan action has to be taken.

The people of Hong Kong have come out in their numbers to rally against something which is wrong. They just went out and did it. If people are saying that there aren't that number of Americans to take to the streets and demand change then yeah America is fecked.

 

[bucky]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Rado_N]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

"Thoughts and prayers"

Compare that to the numbers killed by Islamic terrorism, and the response from Trump et al.

 

[Revan]

I'm just wondering what type of incident would actually make America take notice and do something about gun reform? I know kids getting shot to pieces is not enough. Just wondering.

Nothing. I think it was during a baseball match when Rand Paul got almost shot, and another Republican senator/congressman who got shot and had to fight for his life, and Republicans solution like always to ask for more guns.

It is a cancer that has been spread past the point of being able to get controlled. Some small uproar every time it happens, thoughts and prayers from the Republicans, and then the next mass shooting. Rinse and repeat.

 

[Adisa]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[matherto]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

*Bangs head against wall*

 

[matherto]

Civil War is the only chance for it to change, which sounds counter intuitive but it might give people a realisation of the horrors on their doorstep that America has been spared of that Europeans had to deal with more than once since the last American Civil War.

Not that I'm wishing for that to happen but as others have said, no type of mass shooting seems to shift anything and now we're all desensitized to them.

 

[RedPed]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

They'll be going home to polish their own rifles.

 

[Carolina Red]

Give it up @Carolina Red. You aren’t allowed to change your stance on this. The cafe has decided. Unless we see photographic evidence of you taking your weapon to a furnace or of you fly tipping, we ain’t buying it.

Tell me about it man!