long live NRA - next convention in Mandalay Bay !

[pegelli]

Interesting. Nobody seems to want to talk about these statistics. All they want to talk about is how few guns there are in places like Norway and Switzerland.

That's because they're crap and lack any reference or credible basis.

And you're not paying attention when it's pointed out to you, see post # 258:

You're doing your best, that's for sure.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/one-mass-shooting-every-day-seven-facts-gun-violence-america/

[RSL]

No, Russ, I didn't - I said I was 'ignoring your disingenuity'.

In other words you don't want to deal with the statistics. Well, that's okay. The fact is that mass shootings take place even in countries where guns are closely controlled and people aren't allowed to defend themselves. I can understand why you don't want to deal with that fact.

[RSL]

And you're not paying attention when it's pointed out to you, see post # 258:

Oh yeah. That one that plucks stuff out of the air and pretends to deal with the U.S. without mentioning mass attacks elsewhere. That the one, Pieter?

[texshooter]

Apparently, homemade bump stocks are easy to make.  What do we ban now?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EFRwxKMWTgQ

[Farmer]

Interesting. Nobody seems to want to talk about these statistics. All they want to talk about is how few guns there are in places like Norway and Switzerland.

Compared to the US, everywhere else has fewer guns per person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

The thing with small populations is that a single incident has a huge impact, but it creates these little meme-worthy pockets of stats for people to try to say "ah ha! gotcha!", but any reasonable analysis of the situation to contextualise the numbers soon puts that to rest.

[RSL]

You can believe that if you want to, Phil. Anyone can believe anything, or, as the Duke said to the lady: "If you believe that, madam, you will believe anything." Proportionality is important, and the most important thing about what happened in Norway was that there was nobody within reach with a gun who might have stopped that massacre.

I'm spending too much time spinning wheels on this idiocy, so I'm gonna quit and leave you guys to Trump howevermany and other similar entertainments here on LuLa. By by. Sawadee.

[Farmer]

You can believe that if you want to, Phil. Anyone can believe anything, or, as the Duke said to the lady: "If you believe that, madam, you will believe anything." Proportionality is important, and the most important thing about what happened in Norway was that there was nobody within reach with a gun who might have stopped that massacre.

I'm spending too much time spinning wheels on this idiocy, so I'm gonna quit and leave you guys to Trump howevermany and other similar entertainments here on LuLa. By by. Sawadee.

Come on, Russ.  This is basic stats.  Small sample groups fail to show long term trends.  It's a demonstrable fact that the US has far more guns per person yet it has about twice the level of violent crime as, say, Australia (around 0.38% per capita compared to 0.20%) but you have a 4:1 (almost 5:1) level of armed citizens compared to us.  No amount of personal weapons would have helped in Vegas unless someone happened to be outside the door and was able to break in, assuming they even knew what was happening.  Most Israeli's do national service and carry weapons regularly, but it doesn't stop attacks or crime.

Instances of armed citizens preventing crimes or actively engaging other criminal shooters is so rare it makes national and international headlines compared to the actual events in the US that are so common they don't always even make the local news.

Also, what happens when someone opens fire and then someone opens fire on them and then someone reacts and opens fire on the person opening fire on the original shooter and so on?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

In the USA, if you're black, unarmed, and not committing a crime, the cops just shoot you dead.

This thread is degenerating from merely stupid to colossally idiotic.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Then why does the NRA fight so hard to keep gun manufacturers exempted from tort liability? 

Beacuse the very idea is idiotic. The only time a gun manufacturer is responsible is if the gun malfunctions due to a production or design defect and explodes in the shooter face.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

That's because they're crap and lack any reference or credible basis...

And you have any reference to disprove that credibility ?

[Farmer]

Beacuse the very idea is idiotic. The only time a gun manufacturer is responsible is if the gun malfunctions due to a production or design defect and explodes in the shooter face.

Or if they do something to otherwise deliberately enable someone to circumvent the law (which they're not).  Manufacturing a legal thing without in any way misleading people shouldn't be any problem.

They shouldn't need tort protection, of course (any attempt should be laughed out of court), but the US tort system is broken.

[John Brawley]

The amendment then requires approval by a three-fourths majority of the states to pass. Ain't gonna happen!

Doesn't something HAVE to change ? 

How can you just let preventable injustice like this stand ?  Do we just keep going with the same mentality ?

Why is it OK to shrug your shoulders and say too hard ? 

Only Americans seem to think their gun culture is normal.  It's only in America you get phrases like "price of freedom" and " to defend my home"

America has an all-pervading gun problem. 

The answer isn't to arm everyone.  It's only in the US where this insane logic pervades.

In London, the vast majority of police aren't even armed !  Imagine that.  A whole police force that has kept the peace, dealt with terrorism attacks and open urban warfare on home soil for decades that largely gets by somehow without guns !? And still be highly respected ? How can it be ?

In 2016 UK police fired 7 bullets (not including those fired accidentally or to put down dangerous or injured animals.)

"The Metropolitan Police carried out some 3,300 deployments involving firearms in 2016. They didn't fire a single shot at a suspect.  It's a world away from the United States, where cops killed 1,092 people in 2016, according to figures compiled by The Guardian."

What I found fascinating in this NBC article was the same idea being kicked around here about preventing a police state by NOT having armed police.

"In a free and democratic society, there is going to be a balance between democracy, freedom and openness, and a police state — and none of us want to live in a police state," said Brian Dillon, former head of the Met's firearms command who now runs the counterterrorism consultancy Rubicon Resilience.

Police don't need to be armed if the very vast majority of those they confront aren't armed.  What a weirdo logic that must be for Americans who prefer to kill their citizens first and then check if they're armed later.

JB

[pegelli]

And you have any reference to disprove that credibility ?

Just look at the post I'm refering to, no timeframe, no source, cherry picking events etc. etc. Too much figuring makes the figures he posted lack credibility.

[pegelli]

I'm spending too much time spinning wheels on this idiocy, so I'm gonna quit and leave you guys to Trump howevermany and other similar entertainments here on LuLa. By by. Sawadee.

You already promised that several days ago in post #21, I wonder when you'll be back 

But I can see that this is thread is going to degenerate into Trump II type mental retardation, so I'm outta here.

[Rob C]

Why do folks still want to establish a precise, understandable motive for the LasV massacre that will fit into terrorism, political or religious boundaries and definitions? Can't anyone accept the concept that a lifetime of being an accountant might be all that it takes to utter that final, devastating scream of explosive emotion, however meticulous or not the planning may have been?

I can understand perfectly that success doing something can become its own prison, and the greater the success the more inescapable the noose. Who knows how many people out there are slowly losing their minds to year upon year of boredom and the treadmill? Give 'em guns and thereby the easy mode to go violently crazy becomes theirs, in a very dramatic way...

Regarding armed police: there, I think the UK has it wrong. The job of the police is to win confrontation, at whatever cost, in defence of the citizen and the laws of the land.

Falling Down with Michael Douglas worked because it had something to say.

Spain has visibly armed police in the streets, and in 36 years I have never seen a policeman draw his gun nor have I felt concerned that he has one. If anything, I believe it will allow him to overcome somebody trying to do me or anyone else harm. Why? Because the public doesn't carry arms under its coat and so a shootout is highly unlikely. The police gun, if anything, should be assurance to the citizen that a big thug won't beat a small cop or force him to look the other way at the wrong time. Of course, all cops should be highly trained marksmen, just in case.

10 cents.

[32BT]

Spain has visibly armed police in the streets, and in 36 years I have never seen a policeman draw his gun nor have I felt concerned that he has one. If anything, I believe it will allow him to overcome somebody trying to do me or anyone else harm. Why? Because the public doesn't carry arms under its coat and so a shootout is highly unlikely. The police gun, if anything, should be assurance to the citizen that a big thug won't beat a small cop or force him to look the other way at the wrong time. Of course, all cops should be highly trained marksmen, just in case.

Yes, but given that the police there has forcibly attempted to block people from entering a referendum, which according to my totally irrelevant personal opinion can never be considered illegal no matter how hard a government is trying to convince us otherwise, it kind of plays into the argument of the proponents that an armed public can stand up to dictatorship.

Again, I am NOT a proponent of armed public, but merely paraphrasing the arguments. I personally do not believe with current state of warfare, that an armed public is in any way a match for a military willing to oppress a people.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Beacuse the very idea is idiotic. The only time a gun manufacturer is responsible is if the gun malfunctions due to a production or design defect and explodes in the shooter face.

Maybe that's an idea, a kind of built-in Russian Roulette.  One in 10.000 guns is guaranteed to explode in your face, as a design feature...

That should have an effect on trigger-happy Americans. And one could exempt guns for export, to not hurt international trade, or not.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Compared to the US, everywhere else has fewer guns per person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

The thing with small populations is that a single incident has a huge impact, but it creates these little meme-worthy pockets of stats for people to try to say "ah ha! gotcha!", but any reasonable analysis of the situation to contextualise the numbers soon puts that to rest.

Yes, one can hope for some sensible logic, but these subjects revolve more around 'feelings' by ordinary people, and a huge lobby by the NRA to influence the minds/feelings of the people and to finance/bribe legislators. The media of course also have an influence as a messenger, and a big factor remains CULTURE.

Since our cultural mindset is formed in the first 10 years of our life, it is amazing that things like education and properly raising kids doesn't get more emphasis. But maybe one needs to become aware first?

They raise the world's happiest children - so is it time you went Dutch?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/family/raise-worlds-happiest-children-time-went-dutch/

Cheers,
Bart

[LesPalenik]

Why do folks still want to establish a precise, understandable motive for the LasV massacre that will fit into terrorism, political or religious boundaries and definitions? Can't anyone accept the concept that a lifetime of being an accountant might be all that it takes to utter that final, devastating scream of explosive emotion, however meticulous or not the planning may have been?

I can understand perfectly that success doing something can become its own prison, and the greater the success the more inescapable the noose. Who knows how many people out there are slowly losing their minds to year upon year of boredom and the treadmill? Give 'em guns and thereby the easy mode to go violently crazy becomes theirs, in a very dramatic way...

Regarding armed police: there, I think the UK has it wrong. The job of the police is to win confrontation, at whatever cost, in defence of the citizen and the laws of the land.

Falling Down with Michael Douglas worked because it had something to say.

Spain has visibly armed police in the streets, and in 36 years I have never seen a policeman draw his gun nor have I felt concerned that he has one. If anything, I believe it will allow him to overcome somebody trying to do me or anyone else harm. Why? Because the public doesn't carry arms under its coat and so a shootout is highly unlikely. The police gun, if anything, should be assurance to the citizen that a big thug won't beat a small cop or force him to look the other way at the wrong time. Of course, all cops should be highly trained marksmen, just in case.

10 cents.

Absolutely correct! Not providing guns to cops might have worked for a long time in UK, but in these times to let them wander the streets without an effective defense is at best shortsighted. It will take a real tragedy before they act.

In eastern Canada, in 2014 Justin Bourque, a 24-year-old from Moncton, dressed in camouflage and carrying a rifle, shotgun, and 3 boxes of ammunition shot five officers from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), killing three and severely injuring two. The officers were on a routine patrol, equipped just with the service pistols that were no match for Bourqe's long rifle and shotgun.

The RCMP was prosecuted on four Labour Code charges stemming from that shooting spree. It was accused of failing to provide officers and supervisors with the appropriate equipment and training in an active-shooter event. Just last month the judge ruled that the national police force failed to provide its members with adequate use-of-force equipment and user training.

There was a similar case in 2009 in Alberta which left four RCMP officers dead; the report recommended officers be immediately given training and equipped with high-powered firearms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Moncton_shootings

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/09/29/rcmp-found-guilty-of-violating-labour-code-in-2014-moncton-shooting.html

[Robert Roaldi]

Earlier in this thread Slobodan asserted that the entire gun discussion was pointless because the basic truth was that Americans love guns, and that was the end of it. Everyone keeps saying that Americans love guns and that guns were present in American culture right from the start. My question is, is this actually true? How do we know this for a fact?

But assuming that it is true, and it could easily be true, why would that preclude controls on gun sales?

It has been asserted that Americans need guns for self-protection. But NRA-backed legislation prevents CDC from studying anything to do with guns. If people truly believed that guns prevent crime and are useful for self-protection, shouldn't they encourage studies by respected research organizations? Wouldn't it be useful to the cause to have some CDC research to back those claims.