Gun control

The developed world: "gun laws in America are so dumb, it really couldn't get any worse".

America: "hold my beer".
 
SteveJ said:
House passes 'unthinkable' NRA-backed bill lifting local gun restrictions
Ex-congresswoman Gabby Giffords attacks the bill, which passed by 231 to 197 and removes states’ power to control who can carry concealed, loaded handguns:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-backed-bill-to-remove-local-gun-restrictions
Click to expand...
1) 6 House Democrats voted for this :confused:

2) It most likely will die in the Senate.
Despite an easy victory in the House, the bill faces a much more uphill battle in the Senate, where it would need 60 votes to pass. “Right now, there’s no indication that the Senate Republicans want to take this legislation up. In fact, the opposite,” Murphy said. “My suspicion is there are not 60 votes for a national concealed weapons bill [in the Senate],” he said.
Click to expand...
 
5 Years today since Sandy Hook, the lack of any change in the law is an insult to their memories.



What a sickening statistic. It's completely indefensible.
 
Damien said:
and millions of Americans probably agree with her.
Click to expand...

Not probably, they do. Even more depressing. Many actually think they could defend themselves or fight the government. Yeah, cos guns would do well against drones and missiles. It's so sad it's not even funny.
 
langster said:


.........
Click to expand...


They are absolutely insane. It’s like they somehow prefer thousands of their countrymen killed every year just so that they can scream freedom while they hear about it. If they had their way, every citizen in the US would be armed and that would somehow result in fewer deaths.

I feel the same about health care and Trump, but for a country that sees itself as the leader of the world, they are incredibly backwords on a lot of issues.
 
Rob said:
I feel the same about health care and Trump, but for a country that sees itself as the leader of the world, they are incredibly backwords on a lot of issues.
Click to expand...

They are indeed, but remember they are (compared to the rest of the world) a relatively new country. They are not that old to be fair and need time to evolve like the rest of the world. However, that argument doesn't really add up when you consider the Middle East. Also, it doesn't explain why they continue to be one of the most selfish and uncaring societies on the planet. If ever there was a model for survival of the fittest, (I'm alright Jack, feck everyone else) then the USA would win hands down every single time.
 
langster said:
They are indeed, but remember they are (compared to the rest of the world) a relatively new country. They are not that old to be fair and need time to evolve like the rest of the world. However, that argument doesn't really add up when you consider the Middle East. Also, it doesn't explain why they continue to be one of the most selfish and uncaring societies on the planet. If ever there was a model for survival of the fittest, (I'm alright Jack, feck everyone else) then the USA would win hands down every single time.
Click to expand...

It's a lack of national maturity I think. For full disclosure, I have Canadian and American citizenship. Born and raised in Canada, but moved to the US 12, almost 13 years ago. I also have a high education in history, so that tends to slant my take on things, or how I analyse them.

First, comparing Canada and say Australia to the US, both Canada and Australia have a closer, more direct link to their European parentage, so the sensibilities/experiences from the UK are much closer, and more closely shared. The horrors of WW1, of which Canada and Australia participated in from the beginning of the conflict, and of WW2 drastically changed the national identities of virtually all of central and western Europe. This, I think, is where the US is lacking maturity. The US has never faced the full ravages of a modern, mechanized war. The closest it came was the Civil War, but the Civil War, while called one of the first truly modern wars by some, really wasn't. It sits in a strange sort of middle ground, not quite modern, not quite pre-modern. As such, the US still has the jingoistic, nationalistic rah rah let's go get em mentality that went largely extinct in Europe following WW2. The reason is from my perspective, pretty simple. The US has avoided facing the full ravages of these modern wars. The US saw no fighting on home soil. Millions of soldiers didn't die. Millions of civilians were not killed, displaced, or threatened with death. The US only got involved in WW1 at the very end of the conflict when the German home front was in a state of collapse, and in WW2, the US barely even switched over to a total wartime economy, and the degree to which it did shift to a wartime economy, caused massive domestic unrest, that by the time Japan surrendered, there was very serious concern in the US government about national support to continue the war.

In short, the US has not seen the horrors of a modern war in a full spectrum way the way Europeans have, or Africans, or Asians. We can look again to the comparison to Canada and the US, as Canada sheltered by the fact it shares the security the US provides with its navy. How can we explain the differences between the outlook of Canada and the US? I think we have to look at the connection Canada has to the UK. Many of the soldiers who volunteered to fight in WW1 for Canada were first and second generation immigrants. Canada has a shared experience with the UK that the US does not. Not only from the first hand experience of WW1, but the familial ties. Canada might not have been bombed in WW2, but large numbers of Canadians would have had British relatives who died in the Blitz. So in much of the Commonwealth and Europe, you have this general acceptance of restricting gun access, that stems I think from the general rejection of the jingoistic behavior that led the world to near ruin in two world wars.

There is also a bizarre distrust/hate of the government in the US, that combined with a fundamental misunderstanding of what the 2nd amendment and the well regulated militia meant, fosters this odd militia culture mentality.

In the most basic generalization, there is a significant portion of the population that love guns, love war, and hate their own government and are strict constitutionalists. Seemingly completely obvious to the contradictions that come from those positions.
 
Nucks said:
It's a lack of national maturity I think. For full disclosure, I have Canadian and American citizenship. Born and raised in Canada, but moved to the US 12, almost 13 years ago. I also have a high education in history, so that tends to slant my take on things, or how I analyse them.

First, comparing Canada and say Australia to the US, both Canada and Australia have a closer, more direct link to their European parentage, so the sensibilities/experiences from the UK are much closer, and more closely shared. The horrors of WW1, of which Canada and Australia participated in from the beginning of the conflict, and of WW2 drastically changed the national identities of virtually all of central and western Europe. This, I think, is where the US is lacking maturity. The US has never faced the full ravages of a modern, mechanized war. The closest it came was the Civil War, but the Civil War, while called one of the first truly modern wars by some, really wasn't. It sits in a strange sort of middle ground, not quite modern, not quite pre-modern. As such, the US still has the jingoistic, nationalistic rah rah let's go get em mentality that went largely extinct in Europe following WW2. The reason is from my perspective, pretty simple. The US has avoided facing the full ravages of these modern wars. The US saw no fighting on home soil. Millions of soldiers didn't die. Millions of civilians were not killed, displaced, or threatened with death. The US only got involved in WW1 at the very end of the conflict when the German home front was in a state of collapse, and in WW2, the US barely even switched over to a total wartime economy, and the degree to which it did shift to a wartime economy, caused massive domestic unrest, that by the time Japan surrendered, there was very serious concern in the US government about national support to continue the war.

In short, the US has not seen the horrors of a modern war in a full spectrum way the way Europeans have, or Africans, or Asians. We can look again to the comparison to Canada and the US, as Canada sheltered by the fact it shares the security the US provides with its navy. How can we explain the differences between the outlook of Canada and the US? I think we have to look at the connection Canada has to the UK. Many of the soldiers who volunteered to fight in WW1 for Canada were first and second generation immigrants. Canada has a shared experience with the UK that the US does not. Not only from the first hand experience of WW1, but the familial ties. Canada might not have been bombed in WW2, but large numbers of Canadians would have had British relatives who died in the Blitz. So in much of the Commonwealth and Europe, you have this general acceptance of restricting gun access, that stems I think from the general rejection of the jingoistic behavior that led the world to near ruin in two world wars.

There is also a bizarre distrust/hate of the government in the US, that combined with a fundamental misunderstanding of what the 2nd amendment and the well regulated militia meant, fosters this odd militia culture mentality.

In the most basic generalization, there is a significant portion of the population that love guns, love war, and hate their own government and are strict constitutionalists. Seemingly completely obvious to the contradictions that come from those positions.
Click to expand...

Interesting post. Enjoyed reading that. Makes a lot of sense too.
 
Nucks said:
It's a lack of national maturity I think. For full disclosure, I have Canadian and American citizenship. Born and raised in Canada, but moved to the US 12, almost 13 years ago. I also have a high education in history, so that tends to slant my take on things, or how I analyse them.

First, comparing Canada and say Australia to the US, both Canada and Australia have a closer, more direct link to their European parentage, so the sensibilities/experiences from the UK are much closer, and more closely shared. The horrors of WW1, of which Canada and Australia participated in from the beginning of the conflict, and of WW2 drastically changed the national identities of virtually all of central and western Europe. This, I think, is where the US is lacking maturity. The US has never faced the full ravages of a modern, mechanized war. The closest it came was the Civil War, but the Civil War, while called one of the first truly modern wars by some, really wasn't. It sits in a strange sort of middle ground, not quite modern, not quite pre-modern. As such, the US still has the jingoistic, nationalistic rah rah let's go get em mentality that went largely extinct in Europe following WW2. The reason is from my perspective, pretty simple. The US has avoided facing the full ravages of these modern wars. The US saw no fighting on home soil. Millions of soldiers didn't die. Millions of civilians were not killed, displaced, or threatened with death. The US only got involved in WW1 at the very end of the conflict when the German home front was in a state of collapse, and in WW2, the US barely even switched over to a total wartime economy, and the degree to which it did shift to a wartime economy, caused massive domestic unrest, that by the time Japan surrendered, there was very serious concern in the US government about national support to continue the war.

In short, the US has not seen the horrors of a modern war in a full spectrum way the way Europeans have, or Africans, or Asians. We can look again to the comparison to Canada and the US, as Canada sheltered by the fact it shares the security the US provides with its navy. How can we explain the differences between the outlook of Canada and the US? I think we have to look at the connection Canada has to the UK. Many of the soldiers who volunteered to fight in WW1 for Canada were first and second generation immigrants. Canada has a shared experience with the UK that the US does not. Not only from the first hand experience of WW1, but the familial ties. Canada might not have been bombed in WW2, but large numbers of Canadians would have had British relatives who died in the Blitz. So in much of the Commonwealth and Europe, you have this general acceptance of restricting gun access, that stems I think from the general rejection of the jingoistic behavior that led the world to near ruin in two world wars.

There is also a bizarre distrust/hate of the government in the US, that combined with a fundamental misunderstanding of what the 2nd amendment and the well regulated militia meant, fosters this odd militia culture mentality.

In the most basic generalization, there is a significant portion of the population that love guns, love war, and hate their own government and are strict constitutionalists. Seemingly completely obvious to the contradictions that come from those positions.
Click to expand...
This is an excellent post, fwiw.
 
Nucks said:
It's a lack of national maturity I think. For full disclosure, I have Canadian and American citizenship. Born and raised in Canada, but moved to the US 12, almost 13 years ago. I also have a high education in history, so that tends to slant my take on things, or how I analyse them.

First, comparing Canada and say Australia to the US, both Canada and Australia have a closer, more direct link to their European parentage, so the sensibilities/experiences from the UK are much closer, and more closely shared. The horrors of WW1, of which Canada and Australia participated in from the beginning of the conflict, and of WW2 drastically changed the national identities of virtually all of central and western Europe. This, I think, is where the US is lacking maturity. The US has never faced the full ravages of a modern, mechanized war. The closest it came was the Civil War, but the Civil War, while called one of the first truly modern wars by some, really wasn't. It sits in a strange sort of middle ground, not quite modern, not quite pre-modern. As such, the US still has the jingoistic, nationalistic rah rah let's go get em mentality that went largely extinct in Europe following WW2. The reason is from my perspective, pretty simple. The US has avoided facing the full ravages of these modern wars. The US saw no fighting on home soil. Millions of soldiers didn't die. Millions of civilians were not killed, displaced, or threatened with death. The US only got involved in WW1 at the very end of the conflict when the German home front was in a state of collapse, and in WW2, the US barely even switched over to a total wartime economy, and the degree to which it did shift to a wartime economy, caused massive domestic unrest, that by the time Japan surrendered, there was very serious concern in the US government about national support to continue the war.

In short, the US has not seen the horrors of a modern war in a full spectrum way the way Europeans have, or Africans, or Asians. We can look again to the comparison to Canada and the US, as Canada sheltered by the fact it shares the security the US provides with its navy. How can we explain the differences between the outlook of Canada and the US? I think we have to look at the connection Canada has to the UK. Many of the soldiers who volunteered to fight in WW1 for Canada were first and second generation immigrants. Canada has a shared experience with the UK that the US does not. Not only from the first hand experience of WW1, but the familial ties. Canada might not have been bombed in WW2, but large numbers of Canadians would have had British relatives who died in the Blitz. So in much of the Commonwealth and Europe, you have this general acceptance of restricting gun access, that stems I think from the general rejection of the jingoistic behavior that led the world to near ruin in two world wars.

There is also a bizarre distrust/hate of the government in the US, that combined with a fundamental misunderstanding of what the 2nd amendment and the well regulated militia meant, fosters this odd militia culture mentality.

In the most basic generalization, there is a significant portion of the population that love guns, love war, and hate their own government and are strict constitutionalists. Seemingly completely obvious to the contradictions that come from those positions.
Click to expand...

Fantastic post.
 
New Mexico School Shooter Had Secret Life on Pro-Trump White-Supremacy Sites
For years before William Edward Atchison killed two students and himself, he lived a shadow life online—one full of crude alt-right memes and praise for school shooters.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-m...ecret-life-on-pro-trump-white-supremacy-sites

So, I saw this headline about a school shooter who was a Trump meme guy, which made me think...I don't remember a school shooting in the last year. Amazingly the shooting happened last week, and doesn't seem to have made the news (Guardian/NYT headlines) at all!
I don't know if it's a reflection of the routine nature of shootings in the US or the media doing a bad job prioritising, but, wow!
 
Not sure if true but would any of us be shocked if it was?

UOKCoRs.png
 
Carolina Red said:
I shit you not, a local car dealership was giving away rifles with new car purchases a couple years ago.
Click to expand...

The free gun when you open a bank account that was shown at the start of Bowling for Columbine is still the winner of the dumbest fee gun award.
 
So many people in a dark theatre shooting. How do you tell the good from bad?
Definitely a bloodbath.
 
American citizens have zero influence on their government. We can state that it's idiotic and crazy but unlike lobbying companies who have around a 35% chance of changing the law against the zero percent of the American citizens then nothing is going to change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.