Mass Shootings in the US

goodoldboy

MIA
Book Reviewer
You are right. Privately owned news organisations like CNN, Al-Jazeera etc reflect the political views of their owners. State owned outlets, like RT, reflect the views of the government that controls them. The proliferation of news outlets on the internet means that there are as many pro-gun outlets like Breibart or Fox News as there are anti-gun outlets like CNN or the New York Post.

I very much doubt that anything appearing in the news changes the opinions of a significant number of people.



That's not the case. People are not disgusted by school shootings because newspapers stir up hysteria. They are disgusted by children being slaughtered like pigs in an abattoir. We get the same basic argument over here every time one party or another loses an election. "Labour only lost because the Daily Mail made people racist." or "The Tories lost because of Spitting Image." Credit people with some sense. Very few will vote the way a newspaper tells them to vote.



It's not a silent majority. Polls show a clear majority in favour of leaving US gun laws unchanged. Last time I looked, that majority was 7% and it drops every time there is a massacre. Only about one third of Americans own guns. The rest don't care much about other people's gun rights. They certainly don't care enough to see their own lives and the lives of their children endangered by the lunatic wing of the gun lobby.



I think you are probably right about Trump, but it will depend on the candidate selected by the Democrats. If it's a celebrity like Michelle Obama or Oprah Winfrey or, god forbid, more Democrat Royalty like one of the Clintons or Anthony Weiner, Trump will romp home. If it's a half sensible candidate then the Democrats are likely to win, especially if they are from a minority (like the minority of Americans who haven't had sex with Bill Clinton).

I think Trump will continue to veto gun control legislation even if the Democrats have control of the House and Senate. If there is a Democrat president too, the Supreme Court may block changes to legislation as it's likely to be conservative leaning for a generation.

Americans will live in interesting times in the run up to the next presidential election.



Try living in Scotland, which is in the north of England. Here are the flats I used to live in, before they were demolished.

Demolished? Are you sure they didn't just fall over?
 
Demolished? Are you sure they didn't just fall over?
Problem was, they didn't fall over. The demolition went wrong. The first few stories collapsed and the top bit just squatted on top of the rubble.

When I lived there (I really did) they were the highest residential tower blocks in Europe. Designed to sway up to six feet in a strong wind, those flats are responsible for my lifelong embuggerment with sea sickness.

In the current spirit of the thread - Jimmy Savile - he's your mum, isn't he?
 
Why is it that threads like this have to descend into a hand bag swinging contest?
Surely logical argument is not beyond the capabilities of so many arrsers.
Ok, Il take your challenge.

Firearm ownership in the US is a right, codified in the 2nd Ammendment to the US constitution. Doest much matter why, or what or who or if its for hunting or for cool facebook pictures, the right is codified, and aside from some fairly cosmetic clarification the US supreme court has upheld that right repeatedly, by and large as written.

Given that there are 2 main positions, with little to no chance of compromise, the 2nd amendment itself would need to be repealed to provide group 1 (ban guns) with their stated goal, and the position many poster on here have taken. There are a large number of obstacles to that, not least the majorities needed at each stage to get this to happen. So it follows that the codified basis for gun ownership is not changing, and so the most vocal elements have little to no real recourse but media narrative. It as another poster has mentioned, doesnt move the needle on most issues, and this is no different.

The other issue with opening up the constitution for the early amendments at this point in history is that it wont stop there, other inconvenient issues will necessitate further changes, and so the document as intended will end up cut to pieces. This is not in the interests of the US a whole, when large parts are struggling with cohesive identity on a whole range of other issues, and a wholesale collapse of the US is not in the interests of the rest of the world, despite what they may suggest, as it offers a degree of constance (liked or disliked) that others are able to orientate from/around.

So while the murder of children or other innocent parties is emotional to most right minded people, the knee jerk cry to ban guns, or some lesser derivative is not actionable with the construct of the country as it stands, and to do so would potentially create a much deeper issue.

What is both practicable and realistic is sensible debate, and an array of options that have real and practical effects. But that debate doesnt take place for the very same reasons that we are at 335 pages of posts, which often end up in name calling (im just as guilty of this), because the other side doesnt understand or appear to understand the opposing view.

US needs concensus and unity now, more than it ever has at any other time in its short history, and this issue is another weather vane of the wider challenge, populism as a policy. Trouble is, most populism by necessity has to come at the expense of others.

I fall on the pro gun side, i don't think going into why moves the discussion forward, because i have a right to keep and bear arms under the forming document of the country i now live in, that the right remains to this day and no one has changed it within that document is a testimony to its validity for the country it pertains to.

But I am interested in alternative views on regulation and control where that advances a public good or safety, for example i would be happy to support mandated training prior to ownership if it were supported by national reciprocity. I would support research into firearm crime and deaths, to baseline the numbers, providing that had oversight. Both sides would benefit from established facts, not "polls" or made up data, shaded to for a pre determined narrative.

Minimum ages arent that difficult to accept, given cars, cigarettes and alcohol all come with the same.

The trouble is that the pro gun group firmly believe that every compromise on the "shall not be infringed" is a recce element for the main force, which is the repeal of the second amendment by stealth. In the same way as the anti gun group scream that everyone who isnt them is a child killer. Then your back to two entrenched and utterly distrustful groups unable to find any consensus or compromise to live together within the founding document of their nation.

Thats why in short (ish) order I think you dont get logical argument or reasoned debate with any chance of progress.
 
@Papa_Lazarou - Well stated and sensible. Thank you.

I was just checking the news and learned of another mass shooting, This time in Toronto, Canada, a bit to the north of the US and with much more restrictive gun laws. Sunday night around 10:30 a gunman shot 14 people. One victim is dead, several others, including a child, are in critical condition. Toronto police found the shooter and his activity is terminated. The shooting occurred in a busy residential neighborhood. For those who know Toronto it occurred on Danforth Avenue several blocks east of the Don Valley Parkway. No description or name for the shooter in the news yet but for some reason Canadian media do not seem to include those details

Sadly, it is only three weeks since 4 were shot in a mass shooting in Kensington Market in Toronto. That shooting left one dead and three wounded.
 
The other issue with opening up the constitution for the early amendments at this point in history is that it wont stop there, other inconvenient issues will necessitate further changes, and so the document as intended will end up cut to pieces. ...a wholesale collapse of the US
Could you elaborate on that, please?
 
@Papa_Lazarou - Well stated and sensible. Thank you.

I was just checking the news and learned of another mass shooting, This time in Toronto, Canada, a bit to the north of the US and with much more restrictive gun laws. Sunday night around 10:30 a gunman shot 14 people. One victim is dead, several others, including a child, are in critical condition. Toronto police found the shooter and his activity is terminated. The shooting occurred in a busy residential neighborhood. For those who know Toronto it occurred on Danforth Avenue several blocks east of the Don Valley Parkway. No description or name for the shooter in the news yet but for some reason Canadian media do not seem to include those details

Sadly, it is only three weeks since 4 were shot in a mass shooting in Kensington Market in Toronto. That shooting left one dead and three wounded.
Appeared on the morning news here with the same details that you have quoted.
 
Again, not a mass shooting but something which to my mind illustrates the problem the US has with guns.

No arrest in fatal shooting during argument over handicap parking space

I get the cultural and historical differences and the gun rights arguments (though to me it seems the purported right to bear arms has been re-interpreted to mean something different to what was originally intended), but for heavens sake, for it to come to be able to shoot someone just because you've been pushed over is frickin nuts.

The guy who did the shooting shouldn't have been shoved in the first place just because there was an argument, but for it to escalate to a fatal shooting could only come about because of the law allowing carrying of guns.

And I'm not saying the US should have all guns taken away. But as mentioned up thread, it seems there's a lack of reasoned debate over this because the views on this are polarised to too much of an extreme.
 
@Papa_Lazarou - Well stated and sensible. Thank you.

I was just checking the news and learned of another mass shooting, This time in Toronto, Canada, a bit to the north of the US and with much more restrictive gun laws. Sunday night around 10:30 a gunman shot 14 people. One victim is dead, several others, including a child, are in critical condition. Toronto police found the shooter and his activity is terminated. The shooting occurred in a busy residential neighborhood. For those who know Toronto it occurred on Danforth Avenue several blocks east of the Don Valley Parkway. No description or name for the shooter in the news yet but for some reason Canadian media do not seem to include those details

Sadly, it is only three weeks since 4 were shot in a mass shooting in Kensington Market in Toronto. That shooting left one dead and three wounded.
Regarding Sunday’s carnage: I read that the child has since died and the shooter, also dead has been named by the police as Faisal Hussain.
 
Or possibly being thrown out during the Highland Clearances? Deport about half the populace of Scotland so we can have wood for warships and sheep for wool? Not one of UK's better strategies.
And some historians will be quite willing to point out that many Scottish settlers payed their own way or were subsidised by the landowners of the estates they were leaving to go abroad and were not forcibly displaced (though they probably would have been if they stayed). Author: Now I can prove clearances were a myth Revisionist historian compared to Holocaust denier for claiming notorious evictions were 'well-meaning' | HeraldScotland
 
Again, not a mass shooting but something which to my mind illustrates the problem the US has with guns.

No arrest in fatal shooting during argument over handicap parking space

I get the cultural and historical differences and the gun rights arguments (though to me it seems the purported right to bear arms has been re-interpreted to mean something different to what was originally intended), but for heavens sake, for it to come to be able to shoot someone just because you've been pushed over is frickin nuts.

The guy who did the shooting shouldn't have been shoved in the first place just because there was an argument, but for it to escalate to a fatal shooting could only come about because of the law allowing carrying of guns.

And I'm not saying the US should have all guns taken away. But as mentioned up thread, it seems there's a lack of reasoned debate over this because the views on this are polarised to too much of an extreme.
Following on from my post, came across this article which suggests in states with 'stand your ground' laws there's been an increase in gun related deaths:

http://time.com

It seems arguments and disputes which may have been settled at most by fisitcuffs (I know, it's a simplification, but just run with it for the purposes of discussion) are turning fatal.
 
Following on from my post, came across this article which suggests in states with 'stand your ground' laws there's been an increase in gun related deaths:

http://time.com

It seems arguments and disputes which may have been settled at most by fisitcuffs (I know, it's a simplification, but just run with it for the purposes of discussion) are turning fatal.
Stand your ground laws can be quite murky, depending on how they are written. We have one here now that went into effect on 1-7-18. It was not without controversy but was also amended.
 
Stand your ground laws can be quite murky, depending on how they are written. We have one here now that went into effect on 1-7-18. It was not without controversy but was also amended.
Of course, I can guess some laws can be vague until tested and clarified in court (or even a bit like re-interpreting the 2nd ;)). As it's just come into force it would be interesting to see the effect on homicide rates and whether they increase, or whether it brings crime/arguments down.
 
Of course, I can guess some laws can be vague until tested and clarified in court (or even a bit like re-interpreting the 2nd ;)). As it's just come into force it would be interesting to see the effect on homicide rates and whether they increase, or whether it brings crime/arguments down.
Florida is a bit to lenient. When using force the other party on the receiving end has to have the intent to cause you death or grevious bodily harm, and the ability to do so. So pushing me in a parking lot would not be grounds to shoot you. Now If you had a knife in your hands and told me you were going to feck me up you are toast. Or If you were trying to kidnap a child, that would be justifiable.
 
@Papa_Lazarou - Well stated and sensible. Thank you.

I was just checking the news and learned of another mass shooting, This time in Toronto, Canada, a bit to the north of the US and with much more restrictive gun laws. Sunday night around 10:30 a gunman shot 14 people. One victim is dead, several others, including a child, are in critical condition. Toronto police found the shooter and his activity is terminated. The shooting occurred in a busy residential neighborhood. For those who know Toronto it occurred on Danforth Avenue several blocks east of the Don Valley Parkway. No description or name for the shooter in the news yet but for some reason Canadian media do not seem to include those details

Sadly, it is only three weeks since 4 were shot in a mass shooting in Kensington Market in Toronto. That shooting left one dead and three wounded.
Regarding Sunday’s carnage: I read that the child has since died and the shooter, also dead has been named by the police as Faisal Hussain.
Everyone knew within hours what persuasion the killer was due to politicians and police spokesmen telling the public not to jump to any conclusions about motives, the same way they did when another person of the same persuasion drove a vehicle down the sidewalk on Young street. The mayor of Toronto has now turned this into a gun control/ban debate which is totally throwing up a smoke screen trying to coverup the fact that there is no simple answer to the violence in the city. None of the killings in the GTA using handguns in recent times has been carried out using legally obtained guns, none, they have been firearms snuck across the border from the south. Taking guns that are legally owned away from law abiding owners will do absolutely nothing to stop the type of shootings that have occurred lately, but making it an issue takes the heat off harder questions from having to be answered. Faisal’s parents were quick to run to the media to say their son was, well, insane and they couldn’t help him neither could mental health professionals, yet not a peep about why he had a handgun or where it came from. One group bringing firearms into Canada is known to everyone and the gov’t won’t touch them as they know it will open a can of worms that is a no win situation.
 
Could you elaborate on that, please?

7th Amdt - Well Jury trials are expensive, and often don't get the right answer, so I can see a case for changing the 7th amendment.

8th Amdt - What about acts of terror on US soil? surely we should be able to use enhanced interrogation there, lets just repeal that admit.

12th admit - Pretty sure both sides would like to tinker with this, obviously to avoid those annoying terms limits, when there is so much good to be done....

13th - I dont like housework, surely we can go back to good old fashioned values?

1st - There is a great deal here people might argue should change to protect privacy of public figures either one way or the other.

Ive been a bit flippant, but there are 27 to choose from, and i didn't read them all. If you think about special interest, or self interest groups there are all obstacles in the US constitution that impact their ability to create more widespread mayhem. Start the tinkering process and you are off to the races.
 
Everyone knew within hours what persuasion the killer was due to politicians and police spokesmen telling the public not to jump to any conclusions about motives, the same way they did when another person of the same persuasion drove a vehicle down the sidewalk on Young street. The mayor of Toronto has now turned this into a gun control/ban debate which is totally throwing up a smoke screen trying to coverup the fact that there is no simple answer to the violence in the city. None of the killings in the GTA using handguns in recent times has been carried out using legally obtained guns, none, they have been firearms snuck across the border from the south. Taking guns that are legally owned away from law abiding owners will do absolutely nothing to stop the type of shootings that have occurred lately, but making it an issue takes the heat off harder questions from having to be answered. Faisal’s parents were quick to run to the media to say their son was, well, insane and they couldn’t help him neither could mental health professionals, yet not a peep about why he had a handgun or where it came from. One group bringing firearms into Canada is known to everyone and the gov’t won’t touch them as they know it will open a can of worms that is a no win situation.
I assumed the same due to the refusal to identify the shooter as Faisal Hussain. Given that he was dead it cannot have been to preserve his rights to a fair trial. Between the name and the fact that his parents are from Pakistan it is likely he is a follower of Mohammed (pbuh) but I suppose it is possible he is a renegade Anglican or a Methodist/Presbyterian/Baptist outraged at a restaurant that sells alcohol.
Amazing how politicians tiptoe around the elephant in the room.

Your comment about the guns used in Ontario crimes not being legally owned is very much on point. I know that in the US the percentage of murderers who used a legally owned firearm is in the low single digits (between 1% and 2% last I checked).
 

Similar threads

Top