joannainthemiddle wrote:
what is AR?
School and Mass Shooting Incidents
-
A/R stands for Armalite rifle. This company produced the first semi-automatic rifle. It does not stand for assault rifle which is what most people believe.
-
That's the problem though. In a free society that has rights, A single person or even a group of people can't dictate that farmers can own guns but urban commandos can't. That would be a dictatorship. We can however make laws that say certain people (felons, people with mental illnessness, and those red flagged as potential threats) can't own guns however. And we do. But unfortunately those people steal or buy guns illegally.
Aspen wrote:
DefinitelyFarmers alone need them, a necessary tool for the trade
BlackParadePixie wrote:
I can think of quite a few...
maseb wrote:
there is just no need to own one.
it’s more the urban commandos that are the concern I guess
-
I mustn't live in a free society then
Gabraham247 wrote:
That's the problem though. In a free society that has rights, A single person or even a group of people can't dictate that farmers can own guns but urban commandos can't. That would be a dictatorship. We can however make laws that say certain people (felons, people with mental illnessness, and those red flagged as potential threats) can't own guns however. And we do. But unfortunately those people steal or buy guns illegally.Aspen wrote:
DefinitelyFarmers alone need them, a necessary tool for the tradeBlackParadePixie wrote:
I can think of quite a few...maseb wrote:
there is just no need to own one.
it’s more the urban commandos that are the concern I guess
as to get a permit to own a gun you have to prove to the police "they require their firearm on a regular, legitimate basis for work, sport or leisure (including collections or research)". That would alow farmers (and others who need one) and stop 'urban commandos'. Also in most circumstances it would be illegal to be in possession of a fire arm in a public place
I'm not sure getting guns illegal is the problem. How many mass shooters, had a flag (or were being watched) but could still legally buy a gun? The checks just aren't that thorough in those unfortunate cases
Good Friend
Kinda Romantic 
Ready to Rock 
"If you try to follow fashion you'll always be chasing, and probably never catch it. If you be yourself and make your own style, fashion might just bump into you one day." -
My comment was directed mostly for US citizens. I have a basic understanding of gun ownership in other countries but I'm definitely not an expert. I'm not even an expert on US gun ownership but I think most people know the basics of who's allowed to buy a gun and who can't.
BJade wrote:
I mustn't live in a free society thenGabraham247 wrote:
That's the problem though. In a free society that has rights, A single person or even a group of people can't dictate that farmers can own guns but urban commandos can't. That would be a dictatorship. We can however make laws that say certain people (felons, people with mental illnessness, and those red flagged as potential threats) can't own guns however. And we do. But unfortunately those people steal or buy guns illegally.Aspen wrote:
DefinitelyFarmers alone need them, a necessary tool for the tradeit’s more the urban commandos that are the concern I guessBlackParadePixie wrote:
I can think of quite a few...maseb wrote:
there is just no need to own one.
as to get a permit to own a gun you have to prove to the police "they require their firearm on a regular, legitimate basis for work, sport or leisure (including collections or research)". That would alow farmers (and others who need one) and stop 'urban commandos'. Also in most circumstances it would be illegal to be in possession of a fire arm in a public place
I'm not sure getting guns illegal is the problem. How many mass shooters, had a flag (or were being watched) but could still legally buy a gun? The checks just aren't that thorough in those unfortunate cases
I think gun theft is a HUGE issue! At least in America. Definitely where I live! I know this thread is about " school shootings " and "mass shootings" but tbh random shootings are a bigger issue where I live. Where I live we have had maybe 2 school shootings in 5ish years (which is actually really bad and really high compared to other areas) but we have like 2-3 domestic violence, drive by, gang and bar fight shootings a day on many days. Most of those guns are owned by felons and people who shouldn't own guns who buy them on the black market or steal them from car and home break ins. -
Gabraham247 wrote:
My comment was directed mostly for US citizens. I have a basic understanding of gun ownership in other countries but I'm definitely not an expert. I'm not even an expert on US gun ownership but I think most people know the basics of who's allowed to buy a gun and who can't.
I think gun theft is a HUGE issue! At least in America. Definitely where I live! I know this thread is about " school shootings " and "mass shootings" but tbh random shootings are a bigger issue where I live. Where I live we have had maybe 2 school shootings in 5ish years (which is actually really bad and really high compared to other areas) but we have like 2-3 domestic violence, drive by, gang and bar fight shootings a day on many days. Most of those guns are owned by felons and people who shouldn't own guns who buy them on the black market or steal them from car and home break ins.
why should America be different than any other country in the world though? Why would it be a dictatorship in America, but acceptable everywhere else. Most started with similar rules on guns, but over time (because of shootings and other factors) have reduced who can own them.
In every country you can illegally buy a gun. There's drive bys and gang violence in major UK cities, and been raides where I live on people with fire arms (and drug gangs who are using them) but gun violence still isn't as big a problem.
Yes illegal guns are a problem, but so many times I've read news saying someone SHOULD have been flag, but were still given a gun legally because the checks weren't made correctly or thoroughly. So i meant the problem is that people with mental health problems, or criminal records can legally get guns. So they could have been stopped but weren't.
The difference is America has way more shootings than anywhere in the world, and that appears to be acceptable?
Good Friend Kinda Romantic Ready to Rock
"If you try to follow fashion you'll always be chasing, and probably never catch it. If you be yourself and make your own style, fashion might just bump into you one day." -
There is something I don't get about how people in the US seem to see the problem and its possible solutions in a very polarized way.
I mean, it is not a question of "let's make guns illegal !" vs "Let's make guns freely available !". In most countries, it is actually perfectly legal to buy and own a gun, as long as you follow strictly defined conditions and rules.I often read such arguments as "we can't ban guns in the US, people living closer to wilderness need them for protection against dangerous animals !", "People need guns for hunting !", and so on.
But, there are many countries where hunting with firearms is allowed, and many where people can own and use such weapons to protect themselves against animals. The big difference is that outside of the US, there are rules and controls to reduce the threat to a minimum.
And how requiring a license, pass exams, or store guns into specially secured places (for example) would be an inacceptable loss of freedom? Most (sane) people agree that a driver's license is a good idea, because a car can be very dangerous when used badly. Most (sane) people agree that dangerous chemicals must be stored in well-protected, specially designed storage places, because well, they can kill a lot of people. Most (sane) people agree that to become surgeon, one needs to pass strict exams with a high level if skills and knowledge required.
Why can't you accept for guns what you consider as normal for cars, chemicals or medical practice? -
Two words: Second amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is in our constitution. People may want to think that every country should be the same, but it's a fact that they aren't. And they aren't for many reasons and in many different ways. Heck each country even has different taste in simple things such as music, clothing and foods. But when it comes to something as important as a country's constitution and how it was founded, that's something much more immovable.
BJade wrote:
Gabraham247 wrote:
My comment was directed mostly for US citizens. I have a basic understanding of gun ownership in other countries but I'm definitely not an expert. I'm not even an expert on US gun ownership but I think most people know the basics of who's allowed to buy a gun and who can't.
I think gun theft is a HUGE issue! At least in America. Definitely where I live! I know this thread is about " school shootings " and "mass shootings" but tbh random shootings are a bigger issue where I live. Where I live we have had maybe 2 school shootings in 5ish years (which is actually really bad and really high compared to other areas) but we have like 2-3 domestic violence, drive by, gang and bar fight shootings a day on many days. Most of those guns are owned by felons and people who shouldn't own guns who buy them on the black market or steal them from car and home break ins.
why should America be different than any other country in the world though? Why would it be a dictatorship in America, but acceptable everywhere else. Most started with similar rules on guns, but over time (because of shootings and other factors) have reduced who can own them.
In every country you can illegally buy a gun. There's drive bys and gang violence in major UK cities, and been raides where I live on people with fire arms (and drug gangs who are using them) but gun violence still isn't as big a problem.
Yes illegal guns are a problem, but so many times I've read news saying someone SHOULD have been flag, but were still given a gun legally because the checks weren't made correctly or thoroughly. So i meant the problem is that people with mental health problems, or criminal records can legally get guns. So they could have been stopped but weren't.
The difference is America has way more shootings than anywhere in the world, and that appears to be acceptable?
-
Oh please. Just because some people wrote a sentence more than two centuries ago doesn't mean that (1) it was a good idea and (2) that it is still a good idea 250 years later. Do tell, how is the 2nd Amendment relevant nowadays? What is it supposed to accomplish today?
Gabraham247 wrote:
Two words: Second amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is in our constitution. People may want to think that every country should be the same, but it's a fact that they aren't. And they aren't for many reasons and in many different ways. Heck each country even has different taste in simple things such as music, clothing and foods. But when it comes to something as important as a country's constitution and how it was founded, that's something much more immovable.BJade wrote:
Gabraham247 wrote:
My comment was directed mostly for US citizens. I have a basic understanding of gun ownership in other countries but I'm definitely not an expert. I'm not even an expert on US gun ownership but I think most people know the basics of who's allowed to buy a gun and who can't.
I think gun theft is a HUGE issue! At least in America. Definitely where I live! I know this thread is about " school shootings " and "mass shootings" but tbh random shootings are a bigger issue where I live. Where I live we have had maybe 2 school shootings in 5ish years (which is actually really bad and really high compared to other areas) but we have like 2-3 domestic violence, drive by, gang and bar fight shootings a day on many days. Most of those guns are owned by felons and people who shouldn't own guns who buy them on the black market or steal them from car and home break ins.
why should America be different than any other country in the world though? Why would it be a dictatorship in America, but acceptable everywhere else. Most started with similar rules on guns, but over time (because of shootings and other factors) have reduced who can own them.In every country you can illegally buy a gun. There's drive bys and gang violence in major UK cities, and been raides where I live on people with fire arms (and drug gangs who are using them) but gun violence still isn't as big a problem.
Yes illegal guns are a problem, but so many times I've read news saying someone SHOULD have been flag, but were still given a gun legally because the checks weren't made correctly or thoroughly. So i meant the problem is that people with mental health problems, or criminal records can legally get guns. So they could have been stopped but weren't.
The difference is America has way more shootings than anywhere in the world, and that appears to be acceptable?
I keep hearing that it "allows citizens to defend themselves against a government that turned into a dictatorship and is abusing power". But who really believes this would allow random citizens to overthrow such an oppressive government? Not to forget the opposite - and Jan 6th events would suggest it could happen - what about a minority of citizens forming a parallel army and establishing a dictatorship? And finally, there were many dictatorships around the world that were overthrown by popular revolution and riots, yet their own laws usually didn't allow complete freedom to buy and own weapons.
So, what is the point of 2nd Amendment in today's world?
And yes, of course each country has different customs and habits; yet it doesn't make those customs and habits any more ethically acceptable. If we started to accept every questionable practice simply because "it is part of their civilization", then we have to accept barbaric treatment of women in Afghanistan by Talibans, religious oppression in Iran or rampant corruption in Russia as normal. Do we? Should we?
So, stop seeing the US Constitution as a sacred document written in stone. It isn't. And stop thinking the 'Founding Fathers' were omniscient flawless beings; they were not. -
I'm sure from some Americans view they wouldn't care
but I'd be ashamed if the first news the world read (over even the British Coronation) was this:
bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65515915
That is the view the world has, that shooting people is acceptable? That a war zone might actually be only slightly more dangerous to live in
In Syria in April The number of civilian casualties reached 541, of whom 255 were killed, including 20 children, 17 women and one activist
In America this year there have been at least 198 mass shootings in which four or more people were killed or wounded, according to the Gun Violence Archive.
So that would give a possible average (in a very vague rounding) of around 200 killed a month (of April) in both America and Syria i know its not accurate but the fact that its even close is sad
Good Friend Kinda Romantic Ready to Rock
"If you try to follow fashion you'll always be chasing, and probably never catch it. If you be yourself and make your own style, fashion might just bump into you one day." -
Thanks for the clarification. Post I read didn't mention that fact and my fault for not researching it further before I posted
pahern0317 wrote:
This is not to take any stand pro or against guns. It is just to correct a previous post.maseb wrote:
The majority of Americans believe in gun reforms but the Republicans in Congress won't do anything. Assault type weapons are owned by a minority of gun owners, there is just no need to own one.
The National Rifle Association, NRA, recently had their yearly convention. Guess what people weren't allowed to bring into the conference......guns. OK to have guns in schools, teachers and resource officers, but not the NRA meetings. We are so messed up
The reason the NRA did not allow guns in this convention was expressly due to Secret Service rules specific to this annual event only. That was because Trump was a scheduled speaker. Normally, guns are allowed in the annual conventions.
-
Then change the constitution...
Gabraham247 wrote:
Two words: Second amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is in our constitution
-
I think what Gabraham247 wrote sums up why that won't happen.
Starlord wrote:
Then change the constitution...Gabraham247 wrote:
Two words: Second amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is in our constitution
Some asshole killed a bunch of people who were at an outlet mall in Texas shopping. Seriously ... what the fuck is wrong with people? As said above, this is a unique problem in the United States. Granted in other regions of the world, you have to be concerned with some yahoo showing up with a bomb, but this is a seemingly daily issue in the US. Not a very good reputation to have on the world stage ... -
People acting like changing the constitution is easy. Seriously people, if you're going to comment on history, government, policy making, or current world affairs, understand the scope. Don't just vent emotionally. Since 1787, of the more than 11,000 changes and amendments proposed over the past 236 years, only 27 have been made to the United States Constitution 27. If people are going to change laws, people should focus on just that. Changing gun laws. And I support that. Not changing the second amendment. More than adding laws however, American people should actually wake up and follow the laws we already have worked so hard to instill to help make the country and world safer.
-
Nobody said it was easy, or acted as such. And that's not 'emotional venting' either. It is a simple, factual question: what purpose serves the 2nd Amendment today?
Gabraham247 wrote:
People acting like changing the constitution is easy. Seriously people, if you're going to comment on history, government, policy making, or current world affairs, understand the scope. Don't just vent emotionally. Since 1787, of the more than 11,000 changes and amendments proposed over the past 236 years, only 27 have been made to the United States Constitution 27. If people are going to change laws, people should focus on just that. Changing gun laws. And I support that. Not changing the second amendment. More than adding laws however, American people should actually wake up and follow the laws we already have worked so hard to instill to help make the country and world safer.
If there is no meaningful answer to that question, then why keep it? By tradition? Because "Founding Fathers said so"? This is the only question American people should ask themselves.
It is that simple. There is no "understand the scope" or "weight of history" or whatever junk around the central issue: Americans enjoy owning guns, plain and simple. If there is any other rational explanation to the idea of supporting unregulated gun ownership, then please explain.
As for expecting Americans to "wake up and follow the law", it should be clear by now that all efforts in that direction were still not sufficient, so that's a moot point. Gun mass shootings have been an issue for decades now - if that was not enough to wake up consciousnesses, then nothing will. -
Why can't you change the constitution or 2nd amendment?
The constitution was based on The (English) Bill of Rights 1689. Which is a basis for the UK and other commonwealth countries. Predating the American constitution by about 100 years. All of which have seen changes since then, including America, hence the amendments (or can amendments not exist?) You don't now have slaves, racial segregation, killing and taking land from natives... all were part of laws, that have now changed, none were easy changes but they happened.
The 2nd amendment is Influence by the English Militia Act of 1757, and was the law in the colony before it got independence. The act was preceded by The Assize of Arms of 1181 (600 years before it was adopted into your constitution)
So I don't get how the UK, a country with a monarchy from 1066, with history through Viking and Roman occupation (and times before) that gave us the right to bear arms as a militia. That your whole country was founded on (forgetting the fact American land actually belonged to native American civilization with there own laws before European settlement) can change the law on guns (like Australia, New Zealand... and other former colonial countries). But America can't? How is 300 years unacceptably, but over 2000 OK?
Is that enough history? Do Americans also think racist, sexism and homophobia, should still exist? They were once part of every day life that has now changed
Good Friend Kinda Romantic Ready to Rock
"If you try to follow fashion you'll always be chasing, and probably never catch it. If you be yourself and make your own style, fashion might just bump into you one day." -
I too think that the main issue is the polarization of the country. I think the only real solution to this would be to rethink the US political system, in particular how elections are done.
But on the other hand, I think it is a bit of a shortcut to think it's all the politicians fault. They may be lazy, corrupt, inefficient, but there's still one truth: they were elected. Citizens voted to support those people and their ideas.
And yes, there are ways to skew vote results, like gerrymandering. But that's only shadowing the real issue: that a lot of Americans are supporting and voting for those people. If millions of Americans keep voting for such people and ideas, how is anything supposed to ever change? -
So I feel that some if my words are being taken out of context. I simply brought up facts (stating how difficult it is to change the constr) and used examples to back it up(stating that there has only been 27 amendments to the constitution with over 11,000 attempts). I also have stated a opinion (that I happen to share, but an opinion made well before I was born) that is widely held, that Americans like guns and there will be resistance to making guns illegal with or without the second amendment. I stated that anyone thinking it's easy to do either change the constitution or end gun ownership in America must not know American history and customs (and I stick to that, even if it hurts feelings). I do well in history class. I've never gotten less than an A in history. But I'm certainly not an expert. And I'm definitely not an expert in the history classes of other countries since I've never studied them in depth. Since race and American racism was brought up since my last comment ... America has a long way to go to end racism and enjoy racial equality (as I assume all or most countries do) but the 14th amendment addressed race and fortunately race relations have gotten marginally better since then. I loathe politicians to the core too (someone was quoted as stating that they hated politicians to the core), but we're stuck with politics and politicians I'm pretty sure. And yes, we voted those politicians in. But we need better candidates. We probably need election reform. But that too is a tough road to change, and I bet it won't happen soon, if at all in our life times.
-
I would argue that the polarization of the country has been caused by the very people that were elected. The problem with some of them is, they get elected and they are controlled by the lobby. Maybe it's the lobby that is the problem? Aside from the fact that the two major parties just bicker and act like idiots toward one another rather than working together. It is entirely laughable how they behave ... and not in a ha ha sort of way.
Ryzen wrote:
I too think that the main issue is the polarization of the country. I think the only real solution to this would be to rethink the US political system, in particular how elections are done.
But on the other hand, I think it is a bit of a shortcut to think it's all the politicians fault. They may be lazy, corrupt, inefficient, but there's still one truth: they were elected. Citizens voted to support those people and their ideas.
And yes, there are ways to skew vote results, like gerrymandering. But that's only shadowing the real issue: that a lot of Americans are supporting and voting for those people. If millions of Americans keep voting for such people and ideas, how is anything supposed to ever change?
Perhaps less blame and acting like morons and working together to achieve something for the greater good should be ALL of their priorities. -
collin13 wrote:
I would argue that the polarization of the country has been caused by the very people that were elected.
I believe that the polarization is caused by the political system as a whole, that by design promotes such a situation. Election rules make next to impossible to have more than two large political tendencies opposing each other; it also appear that "checks and balances" doesn't really work: many politicians realized by now that it was actually not that hard to circumvent most of them. France is facing a very similar issue, and the results are strikingly similar.
The problem with some of them is, they get elected and they are controlled by the lobby. Maybe it's the lobby that is the problem?
I'd say "not quite". Lobbies exist in any democratic state, and can actually be a good thing (they represent major trends in a society, one way or another). The problem in the US is that political parties are supposed to operate like private businesses in an unregulated market. As a result, funding is an key point of any political campaign. Lobbies thus become party sponsors. The point is no longer to gather popular support, it is to gather as many high-funding sponsors as possible.
There is a solution to this: parties should work with public funds, with a regulation on their spendings. This makes them much less dependent on lobbies to succeed, and forces them to rely more on popular support.
Aside from the fact that the two major parties just bicker and act like idiots toward one another rather than working together.
The key point here is: "why would they?" There are, of course, altruistic politicians, who do politics for the greater common good and would sacrifice themselves if it was needed. But most are ordinary people that would, like most of the average population, put their own interests before those of the community when given the choice.
I mean, why do we keep expecting politicians to be morally better than the rest of the population? They usually don't get elected on that critera first in any case. Leaders are chosen because they talk well, because they make promises that we find interesting, because they are strong and can impose their ideas, because they are clever, and so on. Ethics are way down the list, and in a way, it makes sense: people usually prefer a competent unethical leader to a stupid but honest one.
-
Share