advertisement


Shooting in texas

Shootings and murder are daily occurrences in the U.S., but a good reason for talking about gun control and background checks after a massacre is that for once Republicans might acknowledge the problem. Just a month ago *one* person managed to shoot *500* people at a concert.

If that and Sandy Hook aren’t galvanizing moments then the sensible debate is lost.

Joe
 
But, Paul, a question arises as to how much easier it must be for the shooter to (illegally) acquire a (legal) weapon when such weapons are universally available, surely?
But wishing for the impossible leaves thousands dead annually. You are not going to change the US Constitution without consensus, so the ping-pong approach guarantees no progress.

We know very little about this shooter, but if it had been a little harder for him to buy guns perhaps he would have been discouraged from going after his mother-in-law. That could have been possible without infringing anybody's rights or needing any new Federal regulation or database subject to Congressional whim.

I think the focus of the argument should be on reducing the number of murder victims in the US, and that you start with the most effective and possible measures rather than using tragic instances to throw mud.

But I've said this before, no point repeating endlessly.

Paul
 
Opponents of gun control always "pray for" the victims of gun massacres.
Yes. Handing the responsibility for the victims' welfare to the invisible sky-daddy instead of dealing with the underlying cause of the carnage in the here and now, i.e, they love guns more than people.
 
But I've said this before, no point repeating endlessly.

Especially when endless repetition still doesn't make it correct.

Nibbling away at the margins is better than doing nothing, I accept, but DOTUS put paid to that, and the NRA (see upthread) makes sure any measures are all but impossible to implement, effective or not. So how do you argue that making it slightly harder for him to get weapons would be a solution, which tackling the solution at a fundamental level would not?

In a country where guns are ubiquitous, how hard can it be for somebody who is (theoretically) prevented from lawfully obtaining one to acquire one readily enough anyway? Your approach, which seems to be that because we can't do anything unless we can do everything, we should just do something trivial instead, is defeatist.
 
Good luck with that one. You know that the USA doesn't even have a computerised system for gun ownership and sales, don't you? It really is a paper system, the gun lobby managed to shut down a proposal that all gun sales and ownerships be registered and held on a computer database that regulatory authorities would be able to trace a gun that they were interested in.

You couldn't make it up. The Third World manages to register every car and motorbike, how can the wealthiest nation on earth not manage it for guns?
Simple really. They don't want to. It would upset their gun and violence-loving apple cart.
 
Just watching BBC Breakfast, some expert on America saying there have been 305 mass shooting in the states this year (where 3 or more people died) and over 13100 people shot!
And yet, unbelievably, "terrorism" is the problem that keeps Americans awake at night.
If an alien civilisation turned up and studied at our planet, they'd see signs of intelligence, but not sanity.
 
Shootings and murder are daily occurrences in the U.S., but a good reason for talking about gun control and background checks after a massacre is that for once Republicans might acknowledge the problem. Just a month ago *one* person managed to shoot *500* people at a concert.

If that and Sandy Hook aren’t galvanizing moments then the sensible debate is lost.

Joe

There is no debate about gun control sensible or otherwise and almost certainly never will be. If a mass shooting every day for decades does not change opinion.....
 
OK, guess there's no reason to talk about it then.

Joe
 
Waste as much time talking as you wish. Not sure doing it on pfm will change anything.
 
Good article here https://nyti.ms/2j79rRs

With a disturbing / shameful conclusion:

“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate,” Dan Hodges, a British journalist, wrote in a post on Twitter two years ago, referring to the 2012 attack that killed 20 young students at an elementary school in Connecticut. “Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”
 
Especially when endless repetition still doesn't make it correct.
I'm not wrong. See the NYT article Tones linked for example.

Nibbling away at the margins is better than doing nothing, I accept, but DOTUS put paid to that, and the NRA (see upthread) makes sure any measures are all but impossible to implement, effective or not. So how do you argue that making it slightly harder for him to get weapons would be a solution, which tackling the solution at a fundamental level would not?

In a country where guns are ubiquitous, how hard can it be for somebody who is (theoretically) prevented from lawfully obtaining one to acquire one readily enough anyway? Your approach, which seems to be that because we can't do anything unless we can do everything, we should just do something trivial instead, is defeatist.
This is all nonsense, and you are contradicting yourself. I'm suggesting the USA should take practical action against violence, particularly gun violence, evidence driven action. You are asking for something that can only be achieved with a Constitutional Amendment, yet you are asking for it in a way that makes that amendment impossible.

It's obvious what the motivations of some Democrats are, it's not obvious why you take this stance. Look at Bernie Sanders on gun control and ask yourself why you are in such disagreement with him.

Paul
 
Northern California now...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41991397

...commendment but no condemnation here from Pence...

Vice President Mike Pence wrote on Twitter: "Saddened to hear of the shooting in N. California, the loss of life & injuries, including innocent children. We commend the effort of courageous law enforcement. We'll continue to monitor the situation & provide federal support, as we pray for comfort & healing for all impacted."
 
Instead of mouthing platitudes the question they should be asking is why does this keep happening in the only country in the world where this keeps happening, and what should we do about it?

But they won't.
 


advertisement


Back
Top