Blimey it really shows the level of fear in a country if women feel the need to carry around cocked and loaded pistols in their hand bags. Glad I don't live there. As for the below... The levels of nuanced arguments in the US gun lobby nevers ceases to amaze.
Originally Posted by demonloop
When I leave my house in the morning I check I have the following:
Work phone
Personal phone
Keys
Wallet
Work ID
At no point do I check to see if I have a human killing device, or bemoan the fact I can't take one to work. Because that would be mental.
Yes, it does sound harsh, but you're right. Very sad really. Poor kid. Himself, all his siblings and everyone else in the family will always know he killed his mum.
It's a tragic situation, but I have to agree that it would be even worse if it was a bystander.
You'll never get a balanced argument or meeting of minds on gun control, but part of the problem is many Americans feel they need guns to "protect themselves". If you take Michael Moore's perpective (admittedly very biased), this is extremely misguided, and the result of paranoia and "scarediness" - not helped by the media (fact and ficiton). If you take the NRA type of view, it's entirely justified but I think there are much more dangerous places than the US, and people in those places don't feel the need to arm themselves, and probably wouldn't be better off if they did.
The other problem is the "it's my constitutional right" brigade - who aren't really open to reason either.
Yes entirely agree robcat. I have noted that the debate normally kicks off from the 'would you ban bleach/ motor cars after a tragedy' level. But that is framing the debate in the way of a politician, and taking as a 'given immutable truth' that everyone being tooled up is a normal state of things.
And the difference is that bleach and motor cars are necessities whilst guns are not (outside of the military). We get by pretty well without guns here in the UK. If motor cars were banned the effects would be pretty catastrophic.
The whole NRA / gun lobby argument is completely flawed - they say that guns are no more dangerous than everyday objects like knives whilst at the sametime arguing that people need access to guns to protect themselves (well why don't people use knives to protect themselves instead then if they are just as effective??).
Last edited by watchcollector1; 31st December 2014 at 17:19.
Where does it say in the story that the weapon was "cocked"? Given it doesn't say exactly what kind of hand-gun it was it might not even be relevant.
It was ready to fire.
I think, as she's dead, it was fairly relevant
A double action revolver is always ready to fire - cocked or not, and a double action auto will fire even when manually de-cocked. It just struck me as odd that he assumed it would be and that it mattered if it was or not given that so few modern hand-guns (that aren't reproductions of wild west classics!) require it.It was ready to fire.
I think, as she's dead, it was fairly relevant
Surely it matters more why a woman would feel the need to carry a loaded gun in her handbag whilst visiting a store belonging to the worlds biggest retailer in the richest country in the world?
Good point indeed
Perhaps we should just agree on it being a gun that only required pressure on the trigger to make it discharge.
Might not be a bad idea on Black Friday, though.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Banning hand guns / guns in the US is never going to happen, I think that needs to be accepted, what could happen is more control, mandatory cabinets
for the home, no concealed carry licences , gun free malls etc.
One thing occurs to me whenever I hear the constitutional right argument... The US constitution can be amended and has been 27 times already. If the constitution were ever to be amended to preclude the ownership of guns, I wonder what percentage of people would accept it. I rather suspect that a large percentage would refuse to give up their weapons.
Rob
There can't be an amendment based complaint as the right to bear arms was enshrined in an amendment itself.
Yeah, but there is another amendment which recognises and incorporates the Bill of Rights which makes repealing the second amendment all but impossible.
Wasn't prohibition introduced and eventually banned through amendments to the constitution? Can't see why firearms control legislation couldn't be similarly introduced if there was the political will. I doubt this is likely, of course; I rather suspect that the only thing that could make the U S politicians take serious action would be a gun outrage in the Senate or the House.
Gun law is generally a rather sterile debate as people have pretty settled views one way or the other, and no amount of argument is likely to change their minds.
The more interesting question to me is, given that you live somewhere you can legally carry a concealed weapon, and that for personal defence it is most effective to carry a pistol at Condition One (ie, if you squeeze the trigger, it fires), what is the safest way to carry it? Safest meaning, nobody but you is likely to get control of the gun, and you won't fire the gun unless you mean to.
I think the answer is: in a moulded (Kydex) holster on the body, under clothing. There is no way to have control over the gun unless it's on your person. In a bag, even a specialised concealed-carry bag as this was, is not good enough, as we can see from the news. There was a similar case a few years back in the USA where a police officer was shot by his young son with his own duty weapon, having stored it under the seat of his car.
The only other possible answer I can think of is a gun which is coded to its owner in some way (a 'Skyfall' gun, if you like). Some prototypes have been made, but nothing commercially available yet, I don't think.
Of course decisions taken by men in the 1780s are entirely relevant at the beginnning of the 21st century and do not even merit questioning.
Lateral thinking time: guns aren’t the problem, bullets are: so control the supply of them.
Constitutional issues avoided and problem solved.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
I thought guns dont kill people; people do. They could just as well control the people rather than the guns...
You don’t have kids I’m guessing: a two year-old is uncontrollable...
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Are Americans more or less controllable than a two year old?
It would be sensible to ban easy to fire weapons, and make manufacturers build better safety features into their guns.
I could give my 4 year old a bottle of Bleach and she couldn't remove the cap, she can't get open my iPhone yet could probably shoot a gun if left with one to play with.
Totally agree.
Guns are tools to make killing easier. So easy a two year old can do it.
I think it is New Jersey that has a law requiring that all guns sold in the state must have biometric safety devices within 2 years of the first such gun being sold anywhere in the country.
They also limit the capacity of automatic firearms to 15 rounds... which forces spree killers to spend an extra $12 on another magazine.
Coding wouldn't have helped here since the owner accidently shot his wife and a he was a police chief as well.
http://news.yahoo.com/georgia-police...opstories.html
As others have mentioned guns are a part of the landscape here and it will never change even those with supposed titles aren't immune from accidents.
Right, but that's a very different problem. It's difficult to imagine a way to modify guns so that they only shoot bad people.
I wish it could happen as well.
Strange thread, and while its normal and perfectly reasonable to debate, some comments come off as "pff americans".
Now.. i agree with many sentiments here on this being a result of the prevalence of arms (the bullet chucking kind) in the states, but at the end of the day, we have our status quo and they have theirs, we have our societal problems and they have theirs, and criticising it rather than analysing it remotely just inflames things. I don't think we're really in a position to say anything about it other than it shouldn't have happened..
of course this is just my POV and YMMV
It's true.
Guns are part of the landscape in many parts of the US (especially rural areas) and no amount of tutting from outside will change that. I'm not keen on it but I don't live there.
My daughter in law has a concealed carry permit. Up in Washington state all her family have guns and think nothing of it.
She was telling me the other day about how many guns her granny has!
It's a completely different culture in the US. It's not the UK and that's the end of it.
Cheers,
Neil.
I agree Neil ,considering how prevalent guns are maybe , as terrible as it sounds, accidents are relatively few and far between taking account how many opportunitys there must be for such accidents?
Cheers..
Jase
Well put.
The only thing gun curtailing does is make citizens toothless; which is the dream of every State system -> man as a domesticated species.
And if the citizenry own guns?
I've heard this paranoia from many gun loving/NRA type people who think the state is going to somehow attack them. Although of course their semi auto's wouldn't be a lot of use against an Apache attack helicopter would it?
Just as many unpopular laws etc are passed in the US that has access to firearms as anywhere else.
Nobody starts an armed insurrection do they?
Cheers,
Neil.
When the lions disarm the sheeple, the jackals have free play, whether those are legal or illegal criminals.
I would rather be depending on my possibility to defend my hearth than a on telephone call which is relayed to a downsized/privatized lot having fun crashing cars at high speed on public roads.
Oh and the Parisian citizens had cutlery, clubs and pitchforks against canon. Not the same as a 2" non folding nail picker.
As to the topic, there are a lot of accidents involving toddlers but when one pulls over the household steps with mum on it breaking her neck it does not reach the nationals.
With anything gun or knife it will. Rara...
Was it an accident? Terrible twos?
Quite good against black SUVs, though.
One interesting aspect of the USA/UK cultural divide over guns is this: when a mass shooting incident happens, the typical British person's response is "If we banned guns, that wouldn't happen". The American response is "If we all carried guns, that wouldn't happen". Gun sales actually go up after such incidents. People feel concerned for their safety, because there are gun-wielding maniacs on the loose, and the natural response is to want to get a gun to protect yourself.
I'm not saying either point of view is self-evidently right or wrong; just that our cultural reflexes are different.
In fact, the links between gun crime and easy access to guns are dubious and don't always prove the case you want to make. If guns are heavily restricted and figures show that gun crime is rising, the pro-gun person says "Aha! That proves gun controls don't achieve anything." The anti-gun person says "Well, clearly guns are still too easy to obtain. We need more gun controls!" If the figures go the other way, of course, the arguments are reversed. Either way, that discussion gets you nowhere.
I don't have a weak bladder but I almost PMSL reading this,
Last edited by number2; 5th January 2015 at 07:22.
The paranoia of the gun loving brigade seems to have no boundaries. Hopefully these twitchy, paraniod types, who think that taking up arms against the government in a stable democracy is an appropriate and realistic possibility, would be the first to be denied a licence if the US sees sense and brings in tighter gun controls.
Personally I'm glad to live in a country where having an arms race between the public, criminals, the police and the government is not considered to be a good idea. There's no benefit to allowing easy access to guns, only negatives.
Last edited by watchcollector1; 4th January 2015 at 21:14.
I have to agree. I'm also glad that in the UK, only highly trained specialists within the Police Force get to carry firearms.
Thank God for the highly trained specialists better read here:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-29943441
Thank "god" she wasn't hurt in any way. Much like these kids: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehzq9OdE2w0
If this had happened in the good 'ol US of States these kids would most likely have been Swiss cheese.
You seem defensive since your last post wasn't quite accurate. I would suggest you try and use factual info to back up your statements. I am not here to try and change your mind on good, bad or what's right nor do I wish to live in your society where liberties are taken away either.
BTW I don't fear hoodies breaking down my door, beating my wife, stealing my things knowing they have little resistance to contend with. Nor do I need a security alarm. The world is a large country with different people and things to contend with in different ways what works for you won't for others.
Checking history you will find the large British Empire tried and failed to do it just like my current government is being assailed for doing.
Have the NRA suggested this wouldn't have happened if the two year old had been carrying yet?
If ordinary people need, or feel they need, to carry guns to protect themselves, there's something wrong with your society.
Well, “... the girl was injured by the empty cartridge when it ejected from a gun fired into the ground...” is not quite in the same league as "Two bystanders shot and wounded by NYPD officers who opened fire on mentally disturbed suspect in crowded Times Square."
But both incidents raise the point that accidents with guns can happen to trained professionals, so allowing untrained amateurs to carry firearms is not going to end well at times.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
That's your perception of security but you're surrounded by other gun owners, good and bad and are much more likely to be a hommacide victim. You're effectively in an arms race with criminals.
It's easy to armchair quarterback without experience. BTW I don't carry a gun nor do I feel the need. I also don't need a security system that over 50% of the UK posters here feel they need for protection. I suggest you move to Chicago for a year and then provide the details of living in the USA within a city where until recently only criminals had guns and has the highest gun crime/deaths in the US.
Never once has the thought of hoodies doing this crossed my mind but the lesson in paranoia is very interesting.
I don't really see how high gun deaths in Chicago is a good argument for weak gun control laws. Where are criminals getting all these guns? Surrounding areas still had weak gun control laws and It's no real surprise that Chicago gangs have more access to guns in a country that's awash with them.
That’s a good example of why guns should be controlled.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote