Today's shooting in America thread

[HelloCity]

 

[Bill Walker]

Just my opinion, the UK accepted tight gun restrictions after Dunblane, Australia accepted tight gun restrictions after Port Arthur. But I am really 100% sure a big percentage of America would never accept tight gun restrictions. It's too embedded in their culture.
It would probably lead to civil war (as Chicagoblue alluded too).
Nothing will change, guns will always be available in America. This thread will still be going in 20 years.

 

[SWP's back]

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Just my opinion, the UK accepted tight gun restrictions after Dunblane, Australia accepted tight gun restrictions after Port Arthur. But I am really 100% sure a big percentage of America would never accept tight gun restrictions. It's too embedded in their culture.
It would probably lead to civil war (as Chicagoblue alluded too).
Nothing will change, guns will always be available in America. This thread will still be going in 20 years.

Slavery was embedded in the culture. Women not being allowed to vote was embedded in the culture. Gay people not being allowed to marry was embedded in the culture. Smoking nearly anywhere was embedded in the culture. Driving without a seatbelt if you wanted was embedded in the culture.

Do you really believe regular people who own guns are going to give up ALL the positives of living a free life and go to war against the state because they have to turn in an A15 or whatever? I’d bet a pretty good number of people who own guns are fucking cosplay cowards to begin with — you really think they have the moxie to fight? At least slave owners had an ENORMOUS economic reason to fight change.

I’m getting tired of these “we can’t because . . .” arguments (I know you aren’t necessarily arguing that). I know them already. They aren’t arguments about what’s right — they’re arguments about why we can’t do what’s right. How about let’s start with what’s right, then figure out how to pressure decision-makers into doing it.

 

[idahoblues]

We’re a work in progress, I believe we’ll get there

 

[SWP's back]

Unbelievable stat.

 

[Bigga]

Just my opinion, the UK accepted tight gun restrictions after Dunblane, Australia accepted tight gun restrictions after Port Arthur. But I am really 100% sure a big percentage of America would never accept tight gun restrictions. It's too embedded in their culture.
It would probably lead to civil war (as Chicagoblue alluded too).
Nothing will change, guns will always be available in America. This thread will still be going in 20 years.

I, actually, think you're wrong here.

We've ALL been subject to change. The difference is whether we're aware of it or not. Most of us have had medicines we don't like, but when that medicine is in water or mixed into food, we're not aware so 'accept' it.

The reason why the kick off to change is so vehement is because the rhetoric is so loud. Booming, in fact and this is designed. Laws are always changed subtly and with "a spoonful of sugar" or "pork barrels" or whatever terminology the US uses now, even in the UK.

Generally termed language in law has never been an issue before, so there should be the ability to specify language that allows the "incremental" (a popular word governmentally) advancement to modern day living in the US.

One cannot live in the halcyon days of the Wild West and be living in a society trying to build an advanced future because then the chaos of 'WestWorld' becomes its reality.

Sorry, I'm in explorative thinking mode.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I, actually, think you're wrong here.

We've ALL been subject to change. The difference is whether we're aware of it or not. Most of us have had medicines we don't like, but when that medicine is in water or mixed into food, we're not aware so 'accept' it.

The reason why the kick off to change is so vehement is because the rhetoric is so loud. Booming, in fact and this is designed. Laws are always changed subtly and with "a spoonful of sugar" or "pork barrels" or whatever terminology the US uses now, even in the UK.

Generally termed language in law has never been an issue before, so there should be the ability to specify language that allows the "incremental" (a popular word governmentally) advancement to modern day living in the US.

One cannot live in the halcyon days of the Wild West and be living in a society trying to build an advanced future because then the chaos of 'WestWorld' becomes its reality.

Sorry, I'm in explorative thinking mode.

It’s actually a myth that the wild west was a free-for-all for guns.

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West

Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business

www.smithsonianmag.com

They figured out very early on that having men openly carrying around guns was a bad idea.

They aren't going to be able to legislate and regulate away all guns but they should start by narrowing the places where they are legal to possess them and the type of guns one can legally possess.

I'd also make the manufacture of 3D printed bumper stocks or magazines and home manufacture of the vast majority of the types of ammunition if not all, federal offences.

No one needs to own an AR-15, an assault rifle, a pistol or a shotgun with military grade reload and firing rates.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Slavery was embedded in the culture. Women not being allowed to vote was embedded in the culture. Gay people not being allowed to marry was embedded in the culture. Smoking nearly anywhere was embedded in the culture. Driving without a seatbelt if you wanted was embedded in the culture.

Do you really believe regular people who own guns are going to give up ALL the positives of living a free life and go to war against the state because they have to turn in an A15 or whatever? I’d bet a pretty good number of people who own guns are fucking cosplay cowards to begin with — you really think they have the moxie to fight? At least slave owners had an ENORMOUS economic reason to fight change.

I’m getting tired of these “we can’t because . . .” arguments (I know you aren’t necessarily arguing that). I know them already. They aren’t arguments about what’s right — they’re arguments about why we can’t do what’s right. How about let’s start with what’s right, then figure out how to pressure decision-makers into doing it.

I'm also tiered of all the 'you don't live here so you wouldn't understand/it's nothing to do with you arguments'.

I travel fairly regularly to the US for work (OH/CA/FL/NV), so I do have a fair bit of experience of gun culture. I've actually been in the US when there have been mass shooting events. I was there for the Parklands shooting, the Vegas shooting and the last time I was in Ohio when the Dayton shooting took place. I've also certainly seen my fair share cosplay assholes taking their long gun for a walk to the shops just in case...

The fact is I DON'T understand the US's fascination with allowing untrained individuals the right to possess a weapon capable of firing 45 rounds a minute at an effective range of 1000m when Lawn Darts are banned because 1 person died that one time, and I can't buy a Kinder Egg for love nor money.

NOTHING I have heard from the pro-gun crowd is ever going to change that.

 

[Octavian]

Unbelievable stat.

Surely enough is enough?