A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
jazzcyclist wrote: Also, you only mentioned gun massacres. I know enough about British history to know that you have had many more massacres than two over the last 25 years. Have you forgotten about the 7/7 bombings already?
Geez that is a great point, but if you want to include terrorism, which is not part of this discussion, you forgot 9/11...and Oklahoma City.
And what other massacres are you talking about? Enlighten us with your knowledge of UK history.
No one is advocating banning all guns. The problem are these semi automatic guns that hold 30 or more rounds. Something no one needs.
Even Bill O'Reilly is in agreement.
O’Reilly, who has long been a proponent of gun control, said on Fox that it makes sense for Congress to pass a new law that requires the sale of all heavy weapons to be reported to the FBI. O’Reilly then invited Chaffetz on to dissent.
jazzcyclist wrote: 2) The U.S. is more violent than the U.K. in general, and the fact that the American non-gun murder rate is many times higher than the British non-gun murder rate proves this.
Actually the crime rate and murder rate is down in the US in the last 30 years. However, mass murder still goes on and on...
muckin 4on wrote:The need to possess a gun is, for the most part, an admission of fear. Apparently Americans are very afraid.
There's no doubt about that. I'd like to know how the percentage of home security sytems and gated communties compares to that of other Western nations.
jazzcyclist wrote: 2) The U.S. is more violent than the U.K. in general, and the fact that the American non-gun murder rate is many times higher than the British non-gun murder rate proves this.
Actually the crime rate and murder rate is down in the US in the last 30 years. However, mass murder still goes on and on...
It may have gone down, but it's still much higher than the British crime rate. Here's the link to an interesting read.
That's interesting. I would have thought that most of the killings were done with homemade bombs, since Ireland has strict guns laws too which means guns would have to cross water.
That's interesting. I would have thought that most of the killings were done with homemade bombs, since Ireland has strict guns laws too which means guns would have to cross water.
as does cocaine but it doesn't stop it coming into the country. Of course people have guns in the UK just you have to be pretty determine and criminal to get one. You can't just buy them and shoot people on a whim and you certainly can't get hold of automatics.
One of the local businesses that has been advertising heavily during NBC's Olympic coverage is a firearms dealer. During their commercial, not only do they talk about their large stock of AR-15's in various configurations, but they also brag about their class III license which allows them to sell automatic weapons and silencers, and their experience in helping customers walk through the many steps you have to go through in order to buy one of these weapons. I wonder how much class III business they're getting these days. I personally don't know anyone with an automatic weapon and I work with plenty of gun nuts. The common feeling among them is that once they found out that buying an automatic weapon was more invasive than being audited by the IRS, they decided it wasn't worth it.
Yes, it seems clear that everyone should have been able to unsheath their assault weapons and fire blindly in all directions, until all movement was impossible, due to life having been extinguished. Good plan !!!
Daisy wrote:This would never happen in Wisconsin as we are allowed to carry a concealed weapon.
No? If this had occurred in Wisconsin with 10000 shoppers around, how many guns? About a thousand?
Do you agree with this statement about US school shootings? "The real tragedy is that there are still students going to school unarmed"
A year after a concealed carry in Wisconsin was implemented, early statistics coming in indicate neither reduction in crime, nor an increase in confrontations. Pretty much nothing happened.
The real winners are gun dealers who will reap windfall profits after FOX News and talk radio once again raise fears that Obama is coming after our guns. According to the NRA's Orwellian logic, the fact that Obama did nothing about gun control in his first term is proof that he's coming after our guns in his second term, despite the fact that he actually expanded gun rights in his first term. Obama must be the only politician in American history that's gotten an "F" rating from both the NRA and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Could this all be a racket where the gun lobby pays right-wing pundits to scare people into going out and buying guns?
Here are some facts you probably won't hear from the National Rifle Association: The Second Amendment is fading as a wedge issue in American politics, gun owners are winning, and President Barack Obama is doing little to alter the scales.
Nearly one in two Americans now have a gun in their home and just 26 percent favor an all-out ban on handguns, down from 60 percent in 1959, according to a recent Gallup survey. The number of Americans who support tighter gun laws is at an all-time low.
And Obama?
Gun talk has been almost anathema at the White House. Obama signed a bill in 2009 that allows people to carry loaded guns into most national parks; in 2011, he largely avoided a discussion -- to the anger of many activists -- about strengthening gun laws following the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Obama received a failing grade from the nation’s preeminent gun control group, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
We couldn’t find a word about gun policies on Obama’s re-election website.
"The gun control debate is over," said Rick Wilson, a GOP political consultant. "We live in a country where guns are a fundamental part of mainstream American culture. The moment I saw that Walmart now sells AR-15s (a type of semi-automatic rifle), I knew the debate was over."
Yet, you won’t hear much of that as the NRA campaigns against Obama in 2012.
In a new campaign mailer -- the contents of which we expect to be repeated in emails and at dinner tables -- the gun rights group is casting Obama as a gun control crusader who is "coming for our guns."
Per Andersen wrote:Do you agree with this statement about US school shootings? "The real tragedy is that there are still students going to school unarmed"
That would be a start. Teachers with semi automatics pistols in their desk draw would be an improvement too.
Per Andersen wrote:Do you agree with this statement about US school shootings? "The real tragedy is that there are still students going to school unarmed"
That would be a start. Teachers with semi automatics pistols in their desk draw would be an improvement too.
Best Xmas present for the little rug rat at 5 or 6? Form fitted Kevlar vests.
Daisy wrote:Teachers with semi automatics pistols in their desk draw would be an improvement too.
I recognize the 'jest', but just a quiet reminder: there are those of us for whom this issue has become all too real and have lost a loved one because any coward can walk into a gun store (or Wal-Mart) and buy himself some courage in the form of an instrument that can hurt others from a safe (cowardly) distance away. Take away the ease of murder and you eliminate MANY (not all) murders. The vast majority of gun murders are committed by cowards/pychopaths who would NEVER be able to kill someone any other way. Guns make murder so easy that it only takes 'disgruntlement' to commit it in many (most?!) cases. I don't advocate draconian Gun Control, but we now find ourselves in a state of 'draconian' Gun UNcontrol.
jazzcyclist wrote: Could this all be a racket where the gun lobby pays right-wing pundits to scare people into going out and buying guns?
The MSM play a part in this. A couple of years ago, NPR had segment on All Things Considered talking to people about this very topic, with some saying they had to buy them and....and never once in the whole story did the fact that Obama has zero interest in gun control come up.
Marlow wrote:...because any coward can walk into a gun store (or Wal-Mart) and buy himself some courage in the form of an instrument that can hurt others from a safe (cowardly) distance away. ...
I think it's silly to characterize people who kill as cowards. In a perverse way ... they're brave. Psychotic, in my very unqualified opinion, but definitely brave to challenge the social contract and take out people for reasons of hate, greed or just plain ... they wanted to. There are a whole lot of people who aren't "brave" enough to do that; otherwise, murder would be more prevalent, imo (make murder legal and child rapists would never serve another day in jail). Those killers are "brave" to expect prison or death - something most "sane" people (again, my unqualified definition of "sane") would fight 'til their last breath. Maybe the non-killers are the real "cowards"? Calling the killers cowards (name-calling ) seems like a visceral response to something that is very hard to explain.
Marlow wrote:...because any coward can walk into a gun store (or Wal-Mart) and buy himself some courage in the form of an instrument that can hurt others from a safe (cowardly) distance away. ...
I think it's silly to characterize people who kill as cowards. In a perverse way ... they're brave. . . . Calling the killers cowards (name-calling ) seems like a visceral response to something that is very hard to explain.
I realize that you and I like to spar across a wide spectrum of issues, but on this one we could not be more diametrically opposed. Calling gun-murderers cowards is a very objective assessment of their lack of character. They don't even have the guts to do it 'personally' (mostly because they fear the consequences). In most cases they feel immune to retribution because they can do it from a safe distance.
It is not "name-calling"; it is a simple observation.
Marlow wrote:...because any coward can walk into a gun store (or Wal-Mart) and buy himself some courage in the form of an instrument that can hurt others from a safe (cowardly) distance away. ...
I think it's silly to characterize people who kill as cowards. In a perverse way ... they're brave. . . . Calling the killers cowards (name-calling ) seems like a visceral response to something that is very hard to explain.
I realize that you and I like to spar across a wide spectrum of issues, but on this one we could not be more diametrically opposed. Calling gun-murderers cowards is a very objective assessment of their lack of character. They don't even have the guts to do it 'personally' (mostly because they fear the consequences). In most cases they feel immune to retribution because they can do it from a safe distance.
It is not "name-calling"; it is a simple observation.
Marlow, that's YOUR OPINION of their lack of character - a word for whose definition has been mangled to the point of being lost. If a person does that which a government does, is that person without character and the government with character? If the person uses a gun and the government uses a drone or cruise missile, which is the coward? If a person blows up themselves and a bus and a government uses an assassin's bullet from 500m away, who is the coward? You're being anything but objective, imo.
Per Andersen wrote:Do you agree with this statement about US school shootings? "The real tragedy is that there are still students going to school unarmed"
That would be a start. Teachers with semi automatics pistols in their desk draw would be an improvement too.
Are you suggesting you haven't got one in your desk drawer ? Most disappointing.
preston wrote:Marlow, that's YOUR OPINION. You're being anything but objective, imo [in MY OPINION].
You just 'negated' your own statement. Funny how that works, huh?
Marlow, if you want to continue your simple semantic games, fine; but, I never implied that it was anything other than my opinion (note my liberal use of quotes and MY OPINION). However, you would like us to believe that you're right; that the killers are cowards and it can't be questioned... and I'm just saying that's short-sighted and narrow.
One of my favorite movies was Se7en...
William Somerset: If we catch John Doe and he turns out to be the devil, I mean if he's Satan himself, that might live up to our expectations, but he's not the devil. He's just a man.
William Somerset: It's easier to beat a child than it is to raise it. Hell, love costs, it takes effort and work. David Mills: We're talking about who are mentally ill. We are talking about people who are fucking crazies. William Somerset: No...no...we're not...no David Mills: Yes. Today... William Somerset: We are talking about everyday life here. You...you can't afford to be this naive.
Marlow wrote:...because any coward can walk into a gun store (or Wal-Mart) and buy himself some courage in the form of an instrument that can hurt others from a safe (cowardly) distance away. ...
I think it's silly to characterize people who kill as cowards. In a perverse way ... they're brave. Psychotic, in my very unqualified opinion, but definitely brave to challenge the social contract and take out people for reasons of hate, greed or just plain ... they wanted to. There are a whole lot of people who aren't "brave" enough to do that; otherwise, murder would be more prevalent, imo (make murder legal and child rapists would never serve another day in jail). Those killers are "brave" to expect prison or death - something most "sane" people (again, my unqualified definition of "sane") would fight 'til their last breath. Maybe the non-killers are the real "cowards"? Calling the killers cowards (name-calling ) seems like a visceral response to something that is very hard to explain.
Preston, I couldn't have said it better myself. The whole time I was reading Marlow's post, I kept thinking what a frivilous use of the word "coward". But I also remember that Marlow's considers the 9/11 terrorists cowards too. To me a coward is someone who does something knowing full well that they won't suffer consequences for their actions that they would never consider doing otherwise. IMO, losing one's life is the ultimate cosequence that a person can pay. The SEAL team that conducted the OBL raid possessed a certain level of bravery because they had no idea what consequences awaited them. However, the folks who operate predator drones from thousands of miles away from their victims or who launch missiles from submarines hundreds away against nations without a navy are cowards.
Marlow wrote:I realize that you and I like to spar across a wide spectrum of issues, but on this one we could not be more diametrically opposed. Calling gun-murderers cowards is a very objective assessment of their lack of character. They don't even have the guts to do it 'personally' (mostly because they fear the consequences). In most cases they feel immune to retribution because they can do it from a safe distance.
It is not "name-calling"; it is a simple observation.
But most of these nutjob killers like the one who struck in Oregon last night don't do it from a safe distance. He had to know that the whole thing would end with either him getting killed or spending the rest of his life in jail. However, I will agree with you that snipers, who kill from hidden places or from a half mile away, are cowards. By the way, do you really feel any different about killers who murder their victims at close range by stabbing or bludgeoning them to death?
jazzcyclist wrote:However, the folks who operate predator drones from thousands of miles away from their victims or who launch missiles from submarines hundreds away against nations without a navy are cowards.
They are following orders, I'm not sure that makes them cowards.
I don't know why people do what they do and though I don't see myself as defeatist or cynical, and I really don't try too hard to figure out why? I really don't care. I think anyone who tests positive for anything that they took should be banned. I don't care if it's cold medicine or an unmarked supplement. Rules say, or said, you're responsible for what's in your body...your fault. Now, Pego feels differently and comes at it from a medical and pharmological understanding and wonders whether or not something is aiding or not. To me it doesn't matter. It only matters that a person had the opportunity to follow the rules and didn't.
The same goes with killing. I don't know why people do it and don't spend too much time trying to figure out why. For every person that is killed there is a high likelihood that someone will one day want retribution. It really doesn't much matter why and labeling a "terrorist"/"freedom fighter" a coward is silly and not constructive. In many ways the life of a "terrorist" is actually rational - something Paul Revere, George Washington and a few other dead "Americans" would agree with.
? Most disappointing.
