Today's shooting in America thread

[Constantine]

Because a change in the demand curve begins with not buying the product in the first place. And the most logical place to make the self-sacrifical ask is with rational, law-abiding folks, not with lunatic-fringers.

To be fair Slips has been kind enough to wade into this fray with his views when he didn't have to, so while it seems like I'm challenging him in particular, my thoughts on the topic could apply to any rational, law-abiding gunowner (and I've adressed the two self-outed gunowners on this thread as well).

Plus you know all well-meaning Yanks secretly would move to Canada in a second if we could get a job there and it wasn't cold enough to freeze your fucking nuts off three-quarters of the year.

However, it's changing. In my City, within 10 days, six people were shot. Of those, five died, including two police officers.

 

[BlueHammer85]

I don't even care mate. I don't own a gun and never will.

And if everyone had that attitude kids wouldn’t be getting shot dead in schools on a regular basis.

 

[Slipper One]

Ok, I'll answer it. You keep banging on about strong gun ownership, but the US has the strongest gun ownership in the world; this has been statistically true for years. I'll leave a graph to make it easier for you:

View attachment 73577

Look at the US, see how it's pretty much pitch black? That's because it has higher gun ownership than anywhere; let's assume it was the colour of France, or Germany, let's assume the US was that navy blue colour...do you not think mass shootings would significantly reduce if it were? Of course they fucking would. The premise of your argument seems to be "the ratio between gun ownership and mass shootings in the US doesn't perfectly match that of Canada, ergo gun ownership is not the issue", which is lunacy. Gun ownership is the issue. All these massacres take place because gun ownership is blackly prevalent (as shown by the graph) and commonplace. Again, were the colour of the US a lighter shade, you can take away at least one of Columbine, Sandy Hook, Uvalde, Nashville etc.

Something you seem oblivious to is that this high percentage of gun ownership feeds the culture of mass shooting. Guns are basically an everyday staple of American households; bread, milk, guns. And a gun isn't there to provide sustenance like food and drink, it's there to kill. Is it any surprise so many killings occur when guns are the make-up of Americana? I reiterate the point I made the other day, no civilian should be able to carry a firearm. They should be reserved for the military, police, and any other relevant security forces.

In the grand scheme of things, a few of your vegetables being ravaged by a hungry squirrel is of less consequence than a child being murdered while they learn their multiplication tables. You not getting a lamb chop on someone's table isn't the same as a parent living in fear of waving their child off for the last time.

And as I've answered your question, maybe you could answer mine, which you conveniently ignored days ago. What would your opinion be if one of your loved ones became just another of these statistics?

But your not answering my question are you.

I am not saying there are more mass shootings in the US because they have more guns...................I'm suggesting it's because there is no regulation and control.

In many countries throughout the world, there are many people owning guns, but do not have mass shootings like the US.

I'll say it again for you, I don't believe it's the actual number of guns, it's the regulation (or lack of it) that is.

Using your map as a guide, Yemen, Czech Republic, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Finland are very dark blue, yet I don't believe they have mass shooting issues, (aside from war).

---------------

I ignored your question because I thought it was a stupid one.
If I lived in the US, I'd be demanding that there are regulations in place for gun ownership and I don't understand why there aren't in this day and age.
It's inconceivable to me that somebody could simply walk into Walmart and buy a firearm of choice and head out the door into the community.

Realistically guns will not be banned, so there would be no point chasing rainbows regardless of how emotional my feelings would be.

 

[Slipper One]

Give up your pathetic gun/s

Your excuse because you desperately need one to help with animals attacking your garden is a load of waffle

Tell your family and friends to get rid of theirs aswell - do some good in the world

Why, what do my guns have to do with the issue the US have with mass shootings?

 

[Slipper One]

Because a change in the demand curve begins with not buying the product in the first place. And the most logical place to make the self-sacrifical ask is with rational, law-abiding folks, not with lunatic-fringers.

To be fair Slips has been kind enough to wade into this fray with his views when he didn't have to, so while it seems like I'm challenging him in particular, my thoughts on the topic could apply to any rational, law-abiding gunowner (and I've adressed the two self-outed gunowners on this thread as well).

Plus you know all well-meaning Yanks secretly would move to Canada in a second if we could get a job there and it wasn't cold enough to freeze your fucking nuts off three-quarters of the year.

Don't be a wuss, it's only from perhaps the end of November until the end of March......just a few weeks really. :)

 

[Blue and true]

But your not answering my question are you.

I am not saying there are more mass shootings in the US because they have more guns...................I'm suggesting it's because there is no regulation and control.

In many countries throughout the world, there are many people owning guns, but do not have mass shootings like the US.

I'll say it again for you, I don't believe it's the actual number of guns, it's the regulation (or lack of it) that is.

Using your map as a guide, Yemen, Czech Republic, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Finland are very dark blue, yet I don't believe they have mass shooting issues, (aside from war).

---------------

I ignored your question because I thought it was a stupid one.
If I lived in the US, I'd be demanding that there are regulations in place for gun ownership and I don't understand why there aren't in this day and age.
It's inconceivable to me that somebody could simply walk into Walmart and buy a firearm of choice and head out the door into the community.

Realistically guns will not be banned, so there would be no point chasing rainbows regardless of how emotional my feelings would be.

But there's obviously not a one size fits all when it comes to the ratio of gun ownership:mass shootings with different countries. Regulation is non-existent, I admit. But the biggest issue, as I think we've both alluded to, is the culture and ethos that pervades the states when it comes to guns. The cultures in the countries you mentioned differ largely from the US; namely none of them, at least to my knowledge, have an equivalent second amendment written into their constitution. Short of banning firearms for civilian use, the regulations you speak of would be worhtless in the states; to use some modern political parlance, they'd be sticking plasters that do nothing to fix the wound. And if guns were banned wholesale for civilian use in the US, I like to think other nations would follow suit; because it's the common sense, humane thing to do.

You're a farmer, so you're obviously caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to this. But with respect, if all firearms were prohibited, you'd find a way to survive, to adapt. What is much harder to survive and adapt to is the grief that comes with losing a child in the manner some poor American families are. And remember, they are losing them for the sake of a few sentences on a piece of paper that should now be incompatible with the modern age.

With respect, my question wasn't stupid. It only seems stupid because you have never been personally affected by such a tragedy. That's the biggest issue with gun control; those who sport the second amendment badge can't see past their own selfishness, but you can bet your bottom dollar their stance would change at the death of a loved one.

 

[Constantine]

But Trudeau's ban on handguns will do nothing to reduce gun crime, absolutely nothing. It's a media/political stunt.

The efforts should be on stopping or reducing the smuggling of firearms across the border, but he ducks that issue because it's a tough one to get long term success with.

Best go with the easy option that can be spun as effective gun control improvements.

Quote from Time Magazine on March 1: "Canadians must not fall victim to disinformation. Comprehensive bans on weapons that can injure and kill many people in a short period of time can and do save lives. The proposed assault weapons ban would bring the country closer in line with other peer nations, including Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Japan and the United Kingdom. In these countries, assault weapons bans introduced as part of comprehensive firearm legislation have led to a reduction in the number of mass shootings, and in some instances reduced firearm-suicides and homicides."

 

[Slipper One]

But there's obviously not a one size fits all when it comes to the ratio of gun ownership:mass shootings with different countries. Regulation is non-existent, I admit. But the biggest issue, as I think we've both alluded to, is the culture and ethos that pervades the states when it comes to guns. The cultures in the countries you mentioned differ largely from the US; namely none of them, at least to my knowledge, have an equivalent second amendment written into their constitution. Short of banning firearms for civilian use, the regulations you speak of would be worhtless in the states; to use some modern political parlance, they'd be sticking plasters that do nothing to fix the wound. And if guns were banned wholesale for civilian use in the US, I like to think other nations would follow suit; because it's the common sense, humane thing to do.

You're a farmer, so you're obviously caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to this. But with respect, if all firearms were prohibited, you'd find a way to survive, to adapt. What is much harder to survive and adapt to is the grief that comes with losing a child in the manner some poor American families are. And remember, they are losing them for the sake of a few sentences on a piece of paper that should now be incompatible with the modern age.

With respect, my question wasn't stupid. It only seems stupid because you have never been personally affected by such a tragedy. That's the biggest issue with gun control; those who sport the second amendment badge can't see past their own selfishness, but you can bet your bottom dollar their stance would change at the death of a loved one.

Thank you for your respectful, well thought out reply Blue and true.

I don't live in America, but as an outsider, I have little time for the value of the second amendment in the modern world. That doesn't mean I support a ban on gun ownership, but I do support a strong worthwhile regulation, because it works everywhere else.

Perhaps it wouldn't work due to the culture and ethos you mention, but a realistic effort has to be made, starting somewhere.

 

[idahoblues]

I don't even care mate. I don't own a gun and never will.

That's Ok, no one on the pro gun side is trying to sell anyone on it, Slippy has been a trooper for not getting trolled into the absolute nonsense being directed at him

 

[Constantine]

That's Ok, no one on the pro gun side is trying to sell anyone on it, Slippy has been a trooper for not getting trolled into the absolute nonsense being directed at him

Absolute nonsense when people care about other people's lives? Goodness me.