America`s Gun Culture

[muppet]

On the contrary muppet, I don't believe at any stage that I stated or inferred that I knew better than the police, that was your role.  I'm happy that the police handled the incident in whatever way they saw fit.  I don't pretend to know any better.  You made the initial claim that they handled it wrongly.  You also claimed that they wouldn't have handled it this way if they'd looked at the results of past incidents. All I asked was for you to outline these incidents?  It's certainly not up to me to do so!

Where did I claim this?

As for the initial claim, I disagreed with the way they treated survivors. Now for this I get sarcasm and personal abuse, from yourself.  Only yourself mind.

I don't think that's all you got.  The only thing I said that could possibly be construed as abuse was that I thought your opinions stemmed from you prejudices about the police in America.  That opinion wasn't only raised by me mind.

"Fair enough muppet, you must be right.  As always."
"you seem to be well versed on how to handle these incidents from a policing point of view so why don't you enlighten us?"
"I think this says more about your prejudices than anything else."

I have my opinions, you have yours. You don't argue yours, you simply insult mine and call them prejudices. Anyone else who disagreed with me simply discussed the points. AZ suggested I was merely having a go at the cops. He hasn't mentioned it since. You haven't stopped mentioning it. There is a difference.

You also referred to a claim I am supposed to have made.

Where did I make that claim?

[Franko]

On the contrary muppet, I don't believe at any stage that I stated or inferred that I knew better than the police, that was your role.  I'm happy that the police handled the incident in whatever way they saw fit.  I don't pretend to know any better.  You made the initial claim that they handled it wrongly.  You also claimed that they wouldn't have handled it this way if they'd looked at the results of past incidents. All I asked was for you to outline these incidents?  It's certainly not up to me to do so!

Where did I claim this?

As for the initial claim, I disagreed with the way they treated survivors. Now for this I get sarcasm and personal abuse, from yourself.  Only yourself mind.

I don't think that's all you got.  The only thing I said that could possibly be construed as abuse was that I thought your opinions stemmed from you prejudices about the police in America.  That opinion wasn't only raised by me mind.

"Fair enough muppet, you must be right.  As always."
"you seem to be well versed on how to handle these incidents from a policing point of view so why don't you enlighten us?"
"I think this says more about your prejudices than anything else."

I have my opinions, you have yours. You don't argue yours, you simply insult mine and call them prejudices. Anyone else who disagreed with me simply discussed the points. AZ suggested I was merely having a go at the cops. He hasn't mentioned it since. You haven't stopped mentioning it. There is a difference.

You also referred to a claim I am supposed to have made.

Where did I make that claim?

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that either of those first two lines are 'insults'.

The reason AZ didn't repeat it is because you basically agreed with him a couple of posts later.

I engaged with you initially by countering the three points you made initially (post #311) which you still haven't answered.  I don't understand how that can be seen as me not arguing the case?

As for your claim, you said that it was a completely pointless exercise and had they looked at other such events in the past, they would have realised this.  I took this to mean that if they had looked at past events, they would have seen that it was pointless, and may have handled the situation differently.  Did you mean something else?  I also asked you to point out these events, which you didn't do.

Anyway, this is going nowhere.  I think the police handled the situation fine. A few others pointed out that this is part of their training and part of protocols in the USA in the aftermath of this type of event (crazy that this is necessary).  You disagree.  That's fine.

[stew]

I just watched a youtube clip were a boy was telling us that they USA ranks 111th on gun related deaths per 100,000 people per capita, now this is because the USA has the highest gun ownership in the world with 90 people out of a hundred people having one.

Honduras was numero uno, he further stated that if Detroit was taken out of the equation and was it's own country, at 54 per 1000,000 it would rank second out of 218 nations.

I suppose the so called facts could be wrong but I thought the yanks would be top ten/fifteen.

Maybe 11th

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Maybe 111th, we both used wiki so who knows.

[muppet]

On the contrary muppet, I don't believe at any stage that I stated or inferred that I knew better than the police, that was your role.  I'm happy that the police handled the incident in whatever way they saw fit.  I don't pretend to know any better.  You made the initial claim that they handled it wrongly.  You also claimed that they wouldn't have handled it this way if they'd looked at the results of past incidents. All I asked was for you to outline these incidents?  It's certainly not up to me to do so!

Where did I claim this?

As for the initial claim, I disagreed with the way they treated survivors. Now for this I get sarcasm and personal abuse, from yourself.  Only yourself mind.

I don't think that's all you got.  The only thing I said that could possibly be construed as abuse was that I thought your opinions stemmed from you prejudices about the police in America.  That opinion wasn't only raised by me mind.

"Fair enough muppet, you must be right.  As always."
"you seem to be well versed on how to handle these incidents from a policing point of view so why don't you enlighten us?"
"I think this says more about your prejudices than anything else."

I have my opinions, you have yours. You don't argue yours, you simply insult mine and call them prejudices. Anyone else who disagreed with me simply discussed the points. AZ suggested I was merely having a go at the cops. He hasn't mentioned it since. You haven't stopped mentioning it. There is a difference.

You also referred to a claim I am supposed to have made.

Where did I make that claim?

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that either of those first two lines are 'insults'.

The reason AZ didn't repeat it is because you basically agreed with him a couple of posts later.

I engaged with you initially by countering the three points you made initially (post #311) which you still haven't answered.  I don't understand how that can be seen as me not arguing the case?

As for your claim, you said that it was a completely pointless exercise and had they looked at other such events in the past, they would have realised this.  I took this to mean that if they had looked at past events, they would have seen that it was pointless, and may have handled the situation differently.  Did you mean something else?  I also asked you to point out these events, which you didn't do.

Anyway, this is going nowhere.  I think the police handled the situation fine. A few others pointed out that this is part of their training and part of protocols in the USA in the aftermath of this type of event (crazy that this is necessary).  You disagree.  That's fine.

I can leave it there too.

[J70]

This guy and the Newtown guy (and quite a few of the other shooters) were taking some type of anti psychotic medication-usually Ritalin or some such drug, which gets completely over prescribed over here.

Its the easy way out for the schools and parents who often dont have the resources to work through minor behavioral issues (thats a generalization, but true for the most part)

Many of the shooters were/are also "on the spectrum", ie suffering from some form of Autism.

Why anyone would think giving someone like thata gun, is beyond me.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a32858/drugging-of-the-american-boy-0414/

I didn't realise that about medication and these shooters.

That opens up a few issues, not least the issuing of guns (6!) as you mentioned. I spent a summer in the States in my teens and one of the family I stayed with was (as it was called then) moderately mentally handicapped. I  know we are talking about a different part of the spectrum, and probably a different spectrum, but I was very impressed with the organisation of his life and the routine that his family and wider community had made for him.

My impression of the States, as a result, was that the community offered great support to those in need. But maybe this was not that widespread?

Well the problem is, you cant legislate for stupidity.  Who would give a gun (of any description) to someone suffering from mental problems? 

Theres great support for the disabled in the States.....50 times better than what youd find in Ireland The wealthier the state and the town, the better it gets. ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) provides for all sorts of support that is legally mandated.

The question is....where does someones RIGHT to own a gun end?

It used to end with assault weapons until the NRA-owned congress allowed the ban to lapse.

[The Iceman]

so lads what would really work to fix all this?
My view of Americans across the country having lived on both sides and travelled throughout the place is that there are too many guns out there for any ban to be effective (at least in the short-medium term).

there can be tighter laws on who can own guns, who can buy guns - but those won't be fully supported by local law enforcement from what I can see.  There is a long and slow road to fix this. What are the first steps?


It's sad to see.

I have guns here because I hunt and for home protection. I grew up in Armagh with guns in the house, it was just part of country life.

Stricter controls would go a long way in fixing this problem, but it really is the wild west,some states in america actually permit the carrying of an assault rifle in public.WTF does anyone need an assault rifle for.I own several guns myself,but  to do so  I needed background checks, references, a suitable storage cabinet,proof of gun club membership,and theres rules were and when I can carry and use these weapons. there's absolutely no rules in America. Northern Ireland has over 150,000 legally held weapons which really don't pose the problems we see in America.

In fairness there are rules in America in different states. Out here in WA I just needed a drivers license to get a gun - I had a small bit of paperwork to fill out because I'm not a US Citizen but aside from that it was relatively easy. Back in NJ I had a much longer wait for a permit. But you're right none of the same checks there would be in the North of Ireland.  If they upped the restrictions in all the states it would solve some of the problems in the long term. But any hint of gun reform or gun control coming and everyone and their granny is out stocking up on guns.

[muppet]

so lads what would really work to fix all this?
My view of Americans across the country having lived on both sides and travelled throughout the place is that there are too many guns out there for any ban to be effective (at least in the short-medium term).

there can be tighter laws on who can own guns, who can buy guns - but those won't be fully supported by local law enforcement from what I can see.  There is a long and slow road to fix this. What are the first steps?


It's sad to see.

I have guns here because I hunt and for home protection. I grew up in Armagh with guns in the house, it was just part of country life.

Stricter controls would go a long way in fixing this problem, but it really is the wild west,some states in america actually permit the carrying of an assault rifle in public.WTF does anyone need an assault rifle for.I own several guns myself,but  to do so  I needed background checks, references, a suitable storage cabinet,proof of gun club membership,and theres rules were and when I can carry and use these weapons. there's absolutely no rules in America. Northern Ireland has over 150,000 legally held weapons which really don't pose the problems we see in America.

In fairness there are rules in America in different states. Out here in WA I just needed a drivers license to get a gun - I had a small bit of paperwork to fill out because I'm not a US Citizen but aside from that it was relatively easy. Back in NJ I had a much longer wait for a permit. But you're right none of the same checks there would be in the North of Ireland.  If they upped the restrictions in all the states it would solve some of the problems in the long term. But any hint of gun reform or gun control coming and everyone and their granny is out stocking up on guns.

Why is this? What is the mentality behind that?? If I read you right, you are saying that if gun control is introduced, there will be millions who deliberately and publicly break the law.

In Ireland we introduced the smoking ban in pubs and, despite predictions of widespread disobedience, it worked almost right away.

[The Iceman]

so lads what would really work to fix all this?
My view of Americans across the country having lived on both sides and travelled throughout the place is that there are too many guns out there for any ban to be effective (at least in the short-medium term).

there can be tighter laws on who can own guns, who can buy guns - but those won't be fully supported by local law enforcement from what I can see.  There is a long and slow road to fix this. What are the first steps?


It's sad to see.

I have guns here because I hunt and for home protection. I grew up in Armagh with guns in the house, it was just part of country life.

Stricter controls would go a long way in fixing this problem, but it really is the wild west,some states in america actually permit the carrying of an assault rifle in public.WTF does anyone need an assault rifle for.I own several guns myself,but  to do so  I needed background checks, references, a suitable storage cabinet,proof of gun club membership,and theres rules were and when I can carry and use these weapons. there's absolutely no rules in America. Northern Ireland has over 150,000 legally held weapons which really don't pose the problems we see in America.

In fairness there are rules in America in different states. Out here in WA I just needed a drivers license to get a gun - I had a small bit of paperwork to fill out because I'm not a US Citizen but aside from that it was relatively easy. Back in NJ I had a much longer wait for a permit. But you're right none of the same checks there would be in the North of Ireland.  If they upped the restrictions in all the states it would solve some of the problems in the long term. But any hint of gun reform or gun control coming and everyone and their granny is out stocking up on guns.

Why is this? What is the mentality behind that?? If I read you right, you are saying that if gun control is introduced, there will be millions who deliberately and publicly break the law.

In Ireland we introduced the smoking ban in pubs and, despite predictions of widespread disobedience, it worked almost right away.

No I'm saying that laws take time to be introduced. So in the waiting period, people will rush to buy guns to avoid any impending control laws.  Comparing the smoking ban to gun control shows little to know understanding of the american people. 

[muppet]

so lads what would really work to fix all this?
My view of Americans across the country having lived on both sides and travelled throughout the place is that there are too many guns out there for any ban to be effective (at least in the short-medium term).

there can be tighter laws on who can own guns, who can buy guns - but those won't be fully supported by local law enforcement from what I can see.  There is a long and slow road to fix this. What are the first steps?


It's sad to see.

I have guns here because I hunt and for home protection. I grew up in Armagh with guns in the house, it was just part of country life.

Stricter controls would go a long way in fixing this problem, but it really is the wild west,some states in america actually permit the carrying of an assault rifle in public.WTF does anyone need an assault rifle for.I own several guns myself,but  to do so  I needed background checks, references, a suitable storage cabinet,proof of gun club membership,and theres rules were and when I can carry and use these weapons. there's absolutely no rules in America. Northern Ireland has over 150,000 legally held weapons which really don't pose the problems we see in America.

In fairness there are rules in America in different states. Out here in WA I just needed a drivers license to get a gun - I had a small bit of paperwork to fill out because I'm not a US Citizen but aside from that it was relatively easy. Back in NJ I had a much longer wait for a permit. But you're right none of the same checks there would be in the North of Ireland.  If they upped the restrictions in all the states it would solve some of the problems in the long term. But any hint of gun reform or gun control coming and everyone and their granny is out stocking up on guns.

Why is this? What is the mentality behind that?? If I read you right, you are saying that if gun control is introduced, there will be millions who deliberately and publicly break the law.

In Ireland we introduced the smoking ban in pubs and, despite predictions of widespread disobedience, it worked almost right away.

No I'm saying that laws take time to be introduced. So in the waiting period, people will rush to buy guns to avoid any impending control laws.  Comparing the smoking ban to gun control shows little to know understanding of the american people.

Ah ffs.

I was obviously asking you to clarify what you meant.

I will try again.

Presumably gun controls will limit the ability to buy and own guns?

Are you saying that people will deliberately ignore this?

[The Iceman]

No I am not. I am saying in the event gun control comes into force - people will stock up in advance. Much like if alcohol was going to be banned a month from now you would be stocking up.

There needs to be a smart action plan here that takes into account who you're dealing with.  There is no short term solution. The solution is one where any benefits will not be realized for at least a decade or two I believe

[muppet]

No I am not. I am saying in the event gun control comes into force - people will stock up in advance. Much like if alcohol was going to be banned a month from now you would be stocking up.

There needs to be a smart action plan here that takes into account who you're dealing with.  There is no short term solution. The solution is one where any benefits will not be realized for at least a decade or two I believe

You are going to have to help me out here.

Do you think that gun controls will limit ownership or simply future sales of weapons?

[The Iceman]

No I am not. I am saying in the event gun control comes into force - people will stock up in advance. Much like if alcohol was going to be banned a month from now you would be stocking up.

There needs to be a smart action plan here that takes into account who you're dealing with.  There is no short term solution. The solution is one where any benefits will not be realized for at least a decade or two I believe

You are going to have to help me out here.

Do you think that gun controls will limit ownership or simply future sales of weapons?

Future sale of weapons. Based on the people on the ground, thats all it will do.  The results of which will not be realized for decades.

[muppet]

No I am not. I am saying in the event gun control comes into force - people will stock up in advance. Much like if alcohol was going to be banned a month from now you would be stocking up.

There needs to be a smart action plan here that takes into account who you're dealing with.  There is no short term solution. The solution is one where any benefits will not be realized for at least a decade or two I believe

You are going to have to help me out here.

Do you think that gun controls will limit ownership or simply future sales of weapons?

Future sale of weapons. Based on the people on the ground, thats all it will do.  The results of which will not be realized for decades.

That isn't really gun control at all. Given the amount of guns currently in circulation. It is more like a compromise that gun-owners would agree to. But as you say, it wouldn't be remotely effective for decades.

Gun control, for me, would have to introduce limits on ownership as well. Did Mercer's family need 13 guns? Did Mercer really need 6? Does anyone need 6 guns? What good would gun control be if it doesn't address these questions?

That is why I was asking would people stock up, knowing they were breaking the (hypothetical) new gun control laws?

[The Iceman]

No I am not. I am saying in the event gun control comes into force - people will stock up in advance. Much like if alcohol was going to be banned a month from now you would be stocking up.

There needs to be a smart action plan here that takes into account who you're dealing with.  There is no short term solution. The solution is one where any benefits will not be realized for at least a decade or two I believe

You are going to have to help me out here.

Do you think that gun controls will limit ownership or simply future sales of weapons?

Future sale of weapons. Based on the people on the ground, thats all it will do.  The results of which will not be realized for decades.

That isn't really gun control at all. Given the amount of guns currently in circulation. It is more like a compromise that gun-owners would agree to. But as you say, it wouldn't be remotely effective for decades.

Gun control, for me, would have to introduce limits on ownership as well. Did Mercer's family need 13 guns? Did Mercer really need 6? Does anyone need 6 guns? What good would gun control be if it doesn't address these questions?

That is why I was asking would people stock up, knowing they were breaking the (hypothetical) new gun control laws?

Are you proposing then that people hand over guns in some kind of amnesty? Or that people have to register their guns and have local law enforcement enforce that with home checks etc..? Would either of those really work? Would they take the guns out of the hands of criminals? Crazy people?
I don't believe they would - knowing what it's actually like here.

6 guns in a household of 4 people isn't a lot. Right now I have two rifles a hand gun, a cross bow and a compound bow. My kids are not old enough to hunt yet but when they are I will allow them air rifles to start. How do you put a limit on that?

Like I said early on -we're passed the point of no return with guns in america. there are too many. the people are too far gone. it is what it is unfortunately.

[muppet]

No I am not. I am saying in the event gun control comes into force - people will stock up in advance. Much like if alcohol was going to be banned a month from now you would be stocking up.

There needs to be a smart action plan here that takes into account who you're dealing with.  There is no short term solution. The solution is one where any benefits will not be realized for at least a decade or two I believe

You are going to have to help me out here.

Do you think that gun controls will limit ownership or simply future sales of weapons?

Future sale of weapons. Based on the people on the ground, thats all it will do.  The results of which will not be realized for decades.

That isn't really gun control at all. Given the amount of guns currently in circulation. It is more like a compromise that gun-owners would agree to. But as you say, it wouldn't be remotely effective for decades.

Gun control, for me, would have to introduce limits on ownership as well. Did Mercer's family need 13 guns? Did Mercer really need 6? Does anyone need 6 guns? What good would gun control be if it doesn't address these questions?

That is why I was asking would people stock up, knowing they were breaking the (hypothetical) new gun control laws?

Are you proposing then that people hand over guns in some kind of amnesty? Or that people have to register their guns and have local law enforcement enforce that with home checks etc..? Would either of those really work? Would they take the guns out of the hands of criminals? Crazy people?
I don't believe they would - knowing what it's actually like here.

6 guns in a household of 4 people isn't a lot. Right now I have two rifles a hand gun, a cross bow and a compound bow. My kids are not old enough to hunt yet but when they are I will allow them air rifles to start. How do you put a limit on that?

Like I said early on -we're passed the point of no return with guns in america. there are too many. the people are too far gone. it is what it is unfortunately.

Amnesty yes. That would be the way to go, but I don't see enough Americans going for it.
Local Law Enforcement - Why not? If you don't register your weapons and are found to be in breach then you face prosecution. Shouldn't be a problem for decent citizens - which is the vast, vast majority.

'Would the take guns out of the hands of criminals?' - That isn't the problem though. The easy access to guns is the difference between 'crazy people' in the US and crazy people in many other countries. Remove the easy access to gun and they might simply remain crazy but otherwise harmless people.

Regarding Mercer, it was 13 guns in his house and 6 for himself.

If you think 6 guns in a house isn't a lot, then we are on different planets altogether. Why the arsenal? If every house in your city had that, I would guess that the odds that a 'crazy person' will have easy access shortens considerably.

And btw don't get me wrong about guns. I used to go to a firing range when in the West Coast and thoroughly enjoyed it.