Jump to content

What is wrong with America

Red Alert

By Red Alert,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)
Of course the kids don't deserve it, that's obvious. But the Yanks are getting exactly what they vote for, they choose to sell guns to idiots, they know the consequences. They are free to change their laws if they care enough.

 

Oh the irony bottlejob :lol:

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ohio Saint

Ohio Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
So innocent kids getting shot at school dead deserved it?

 

Dear god.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I used to think about this gun problem a LOT. This latest shooting came just two days after I made the conscious decision to simply not care any more about who, or how many get shot. Then this crap happened again, and it confirmed my decision. I just don't care any more. I don't care if it's a bunch of adults, a bunch of babies or a 5 year old accidentally shooting his brother.

 

Why should I give a crap when the very people that are so upset are the exact same people that consistently vote to continue the problem. They offer their prayers and feelings in support of the victims, then vote against any actual real life solution.

 

It seems to be that we are in a sweet spot at the moment where lives lost is in equilibrium to the presumed freedom to bear arms. Nothing will change for the better in this situation, and it will certainly not change for the better if there is a lull in these shootings.

 

Yes....If gun control is the answer, then the problem in the US is not that we have too many shootings, it is that there are not enough of them in order for reason to win over.

 

And this is from the peace loving guy with occasional access to the gun store.

Edited by Ohio Saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ohio Saint

Ohio Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
Well it seems The Donald has decided what to do - he is advocating addressing the 'difficult problems of mental health'.

 

And this is what they always say. Address the problems of all those crazies out there.....Bull crap. We are ALL potential mass murderers. From the people with genuine problems to those that have depression or paranoia to those that simply really hate Mondays.

 

The gun lobbies love to say that guns don't kill people, people kill people.....The problem is that people with guns are extraordinarily efficient at killing people.

 

Anyway, I'll just add my prayers to all those others. I'm sure that a fake prayer from an atheist will be equally effective.

Edited by Ohio Saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites
scotty

scotty

Posted
Posted

ONCE AND FOR ALL, MY AMERICAN FRIENDS....

 

It's Mum, not Mom.

 

It's crisps, not chips.

 

It's chips, not fries.

 

It's football, not soccer.

 

It's rugby, not football.

 

It's school, not shooting range.

 

 

 

(from the sicki front page yesterday.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
van Hanegem

van Hanegem

Posted
Posted
Means of Killing - Netherlands

"Men were mostly shot or stabbed to death and mostly in their own home or on the street. Among female murder victims, 75 percent of the killings happened in their own home. Women were most often stabbed or strangulated to death"

https://nltimes.nl/2016/07/29/netherlands-murder-rate-20-year-low

 

That article say the Dutch murder rate is at a 20 year low so currently it is lower the the UK. But the UK is safe. Murder rates are very comparable with Germany and Denmark and lower than France or Belgium.

 

The murder rate in the Netherlands is on the rise again in 2017 but I'm more interested in why the number of stabbing incidents in the UK is rapidly growing: from 14,000 in 2008 to 37,000 in 2017, that's an exceptional increase. In the Netherlands and Germany there are also more incidents due to immigration and budget cuts on healthcare for the mentally ill and I guess this will be the same in the UK. But it can't be the sole reason for an increase with 164% in 10 years time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LVSaint

LVSaint

Posted
Posted
Nothing at all they can do. (If they want the continued support of the NRA and it's supporters.) A really, really ****ed up society.

 

All part of draining the swamp and giving the country back to the people. No more pandering to lobbyists, etc, eh?

No problems here! Move along. He's doing a schhhhhhhwell job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted (edited)
He's doing what Clinton & Obama did in their two terms. **** all.

 

Not really the same as they both wanted to do things to improve the situation, but were thwarted politically. Where as Trump is in the pocket of the NRA and blames mental health rather than the availability of guns. Every society has citizens with mental health issues, the US is one of the rare countries that allows such people to have relatively easy access to firearms.

 

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted (edited)
Not really the same as they both wanted to do things to improve the situation, but were thwarted politically. Where as Trump is in the pocket of the NRA and blames mental health rather than the availability of guns. Every society has citizens with mental health issues, the US is one of the rare countries that allows such people to have relatively easy access to firearms.

 

 

 

He didn't try very hard. This is what he said when campaigning and attracting criticism for being "soft " on the right to own guns. “I believe in the Second Amendment, It’s there written on the paper. It guarantees a right to bear arms. No matter how many times people try to twist my words around — I taught constitutional law, I know a little about this. I get it.” He's actually complaining that his opponents are trying to twist his words and portray him as anti gun.

 

Until somebody has the balls to do what neither Clinton or Obama did and directly contradict and argue against the constitution, can they even begin to address this. It's going to be long generational battle, but the first tiny step is somebody standing up and telling their citizens that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Has no place in the modern world.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LVSaint

LVSaint

Posted
Posted

If Trump wanted to get one over on the Democrats (that's his favourite thing), he can push hard to repeal the legality of the bump stock, the device that turns semi automatic rifles into machine guns (like the Mandalay Bay murderer used).

The ATF (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms) under the jurisdiction of the Dems were naively duped into ratifying the bump stock as the manufacturer sold the design that it was intended to aid disabled shooters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
I'd be interested to know what people on here think the solution to school shootings should be? Bearing in mind that Obama did precisely nothing and the fact that America won't be banning guns any time soon.

 

There isn't one.

 

When every angry nutcase in the country has access to high caliber assault weapons, you've just got to sit there and watch your kids die every week. So long as they keep their right to bear arms and protect themselves from those pesky redskins, that's all that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)
I'd be interested to know what people on here think the solution to school shootings should be? Bearing in mind that Obama did precisely nothing and the fact that America won't be banning guns any time soon.

 

Congress blocked everything Obama proposed. Given the Republicans now control the House and Senate, it would be a perfect oppprtunity for a Republican President to show some leadership, however incremental. How about mandatory background checks on all gun-buyers, including from unlicensed sellers and stricter age requirements for starters?

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
Congress blocked everything Obama proposed. Given the Republicans now control the House and Senate, it would be a perfect oppprtunity for a Republican President to show some leadership, however incremental. How about mandatory background checks on all gun-buyers, including from unlicensed sellers and stricter age requirements for starters?
I think they've been proposed haven't they? Did Obama not have the opportunity during his first two years in office then?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
I think they've been proposed haven't they? Did Obama not have the opportunity during his first two years in office then?

 

Does it matter when he proposed legislation? Obama entered office at the height of the global financial crisis and had a full legislative plate with tackling that and trying to pass Obamacare. The point is when he did turn his attention to gun control -and the Sandy Hook shooting really focussed peoples minds- he was blocked by Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jonnyboy

Jonnyboy

Posted
Posted
I'd be interested to know what people on here think the solution to school shootings should be? Bearing in mind that Obama did precisely nothing and the fact that America won't be banning guns any time soon.

 

A friend of a friend in America posted this, which I think is good:

 

My brother’s response to my mom’s email about the recent shooting. I want to share, particularly because of the way he explains things. As a veteran and a gun owner, he knows much more about guns than I do. Hopefully his arguments and information can help any of my friends trying to sway people on gun control laws.

 

“Completely agree with the sentiment here, Mom. However, in order to make educated arguments for gun control, it's important to actually know what you're proposing and use the right language. Otherwise, you'll just get completely shut down as "not knowing anything about guns" to people you're trying to convince. And if you don't know anything about guns, you can't really advocate for responsible gun policy.

 

AR15s are not the problem alone. Yes, it's the most popular military-style rifle, and it is designed to kill people effectively. But banning one model of weapon will just make people switch to other, equally effective killing machines. If you banned the Toyota Camry, would people stop buying midsize sedans? No, you'd just end up with more Honda Accords on the road. If you want to fix the problem, you have to ban all semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic means the weapon is loaded with a magazine (or belt in some cases) with multiple rounds; and for every trigger squeeze, one bullet is discharged. There is no real need for these weapons in civilian use. They aren't necessary for hunting, where the point is to kill the animal with one shot. It is only useful for killing a lot of things in a short amount of time or having fun at a gun range. I think our children's lives are more important than a fraction of the population's fun shooting a bunch of rounds quickly at a range. They'll cope.

 

Handguns are far more responsible for gun deaths in America than semi-auto rifles. You mentioned the kid who brought a gun to school as only having a "handgun, not a semi-automatic." Well, almost all handguns are semi-automatic. They have magazines and one bullet per trigger squeeze. Though most handgun rounds aren't as deadly as rifle rounds, it's inconsequential at short range. And handguns are far easier to conceal than a rifle. With the exception of maybe revolvers (which have 5-6 round max before reloading), I believe handguns should be outlawed. The Virginia Tech massacre, the most deadly school shooting in American history, was accomplished with handguns only. Don't underestimate their lethality. I think military style rifles only account for about 2% of gun deaths each year. If you want to solve the problem, semi-auto handguns have to go, as well.

 

If we really want to make a difference in gun deaths, we need to do WAY more than universal background checks and better mental health screening. Banning all semi-automatic weapons would make that difference. Keeping shotguns, revolvers, and bolt-action rifles legal accomplish all the typical, common uses of guns. (Bolt-action rifles are typical hunting rifles that you have to reload between shots.) With these types of firearms legal, you can still hunt, defend your home, and compete in sport shooting.

 

Combine the following with the semi-auto ban.

Government buy-back program of all semi-automatic weapons. Once a grace period for turn-ins ends, possession will be a felony without a special (and rare) license for Federally approved dealers and collectors.

Gun licenses for all who want to continue to own approved firearms. Licenses will be granted by completing a comprehensive background check, psych evaluation, safety training, marksmanship training, and meeting strict storage requirements. Storage requirements would include safes, weapons unloaded, with ammo stored separately. Licenses expire after a certain number of years and all the requirements must be completed again for license renewal.

Registration of all firearms.

Insurance for all firearms. If your gun is used in a crime or if there's a accident with your gun, your insurance company is liable for damages. Let the insurance market set rates based on their analysis of risk. Then, people can decide if it's financially worth it to own a gun.

Finally, here's your counterarguments for the most common pro-gun arguments:

Pro-gun argument - assault weapons aren't an actual thing. Banning them won't make a difference.

Counterargument - none. This is true. Classifying a gun as an "assault weapon" is something people who know nothing about guns do. Having a bayonet stud (a place to mount a bayonet) used to be one way to classify a gun as an assault weapon. Last I checked, we don't have a bayonet problem in this country. Talk about banning semi-auto guns instead of made-up things like "assault weapons."

Pro-gun argument - 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to bear arms!

Counterargument - sure, it does, but there can be limitations. And in case anyone needs a history lesson, the individual right to bear arms has only existed since 2008. From the adoption of the Constitution until the DC v. Heller decision in 2008, the 2nd Amendment had never been interpreted to mean private citizens have a right to own guns. (Thanks, Scalia.) But that decision is now the law of the land and precedent for future court decisions. Nevertheless, even in Scalia's majority opinion, he asserts that there are limitations to the 2nd Amendment. Weapons allowed should be those in common use at the time. And limitations should be made on "dangerous and unusual" weapons, per previous precedent in United States v. Miller. I argue that semi-auto firearms should now be considered "dangerous and unusual," given their lethality.

Pro-gun argument - if law-abiding citizens get rid of their guns, criminals won't follow the law, and we'll be in more danger.

Counterargument - this is an argument against having laws. Since criminals don't follow the law, there should be no limits on anything. Also, when we do outlaw things, it can work. Purchases of large quantities of ammonium nitrate fertilizer was restricted after the Oklahoma City bombing, and there hasn't been a similar bombing since. We outlawed fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. in the 20th century, and what has happened? We don't see violence with those types of weapons. Most weapons used to commit crimes are purchased lawfully. If we change the laws, it will work to reduce gun deaths.

Pro-gun argument - if we ban guns, people will just use knives or baseball bats

Counterargument - there are plenty of incidents around the world of mass stabbings or clubbings, etc. Show me one that is as lethal as a mass shooting.

Pro-gun argument - we need armed security guards in every school

Counterargument - do you trust the security guard won't become a mass shooter? The Texas church shooter was an Air Force veteran. The Pulse nightclub shooter was a security guard. Further, it's relatively easy to get the drop on a security guard. Shoot him first when he's not expecting, then keep going. That's what the Pulse nightclub shooter did. It's not difficult if you draw first. Columbine had armed security, too. Adding more guns to schools adds more risk, it doesn't reduce it.

Pro-gun argument - it's a mental health issue, not a gun issue *or* guns don't kill people, people kill people

Counterargument - The United States has the same rates of mental illness as other developed Western countries, but we're the only ones with this type of violence. The mentally ill are actually less likely to commit crime than those who aren't mentally ill, which many find surprising. Also, those who are mentally ill are more likely to become the victim of a crime than those who don't have mental illness. It's a common refrain to hear "anyone who would do that must be crazy." That's not true. Being a murderer doesn't actually mean you are mentally ill, which is why you hardly ever see successful insanity defenses in trials. And if "people kill people," then we really should stop giving all these people guns, right? We don't allow private F-22s or nuclear weapons, do we? Why? Because people would use them to kill other people. People use people-killing machines to kill people. Go figure.

Pro-gun argument - We, as a society, have turned our backs on God. This is why crime is getting worse. We need God/Jesus to heal people's hearts, not get rid of law-abiding citizens' guns.

Counterargument - Crime has actually decreased overall in recent decades. Things are getting better, not worse. Murder rates and violent crime overall have trended down as we've advanced as a society. Mass shootings have remained steady, though, because angry people have easy access to guns.

Pro-gun argument - we need guns to fight against the government in case it becomes tyrannical.

Counterargument - I doubt semi-automatic weapons will defeat a tyrannical government with fighter jets, bombers, tanks, artillery, drones, advanced cyber capabilities, and nuclear weapons.

Pro-gun argument - gun registrations will make it easier for the government to disarm us

Counterargument - The registration is necessary to keep track of deadly weapons in case they are used in a crime, or in case a law-abiding citizen commits a crime that revokes their right to guns. There's over 300 million privately owned guns in America. If the government wanted to take everyone's guns, they'd do it the same way they would if there wasn't a registry: by going door to door and searching everyone.

I truly believe we need to do far more than anything advocated by most mainstream gun control organizations like Everytown and Moms Demand Action. We need to follow the lead of countries like the UK, Australia, and Canada. They've figured it out. Why can't we?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
Does it matter when he proposed legislation? Obama entered office at the height of the global financial crisis and had a full legislative plate with tackling that and trying to pass Obamacare. The point is when he did turn his attention to gun control -and the Sandy Hook shooting really focussed peoples minds- he was blocked by Congress.
And do you not think that after the mid term elections Congress will be blocking everything that trump proposes? The whole system is crazy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...
Ohio Saint

Ohio Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)

Another 10 dead in yet another school shooting and it gets little coverage due to a 24 hour blanket media frenzy over a foreign wedding. Unbelevable!....sad...no collusion

MAGA!

 

Sorry, I went of on a tangent there. I follow that winker on twitter.

Edited by Ohio Saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Batman

Batman

Posted
Posted
Another 10 dead in yet another school shooting and it gets little coverage due to a 24 hour blanket media frenzy over a foreign wedding. Unbelevable!....sad...no collusion

MAGA!

 

Sorry, I went of on a tangent there. I follow that winker on twitter.

 

Blanket coverage in the states?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ohio Saint

Ohio Saint

Posted
Posted
Blanket coverage in the states?

 

Every news channel all day long. It was sickening. Strange thing was though that they were so obsessed about the royals being supposedly dragged kicking and screaming into a more modern version that I actually felt defensive to that shower!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
Every news channel all day long. It was sickening. Strange thing was though that they were so obsessed about the royals being supposedly dragged kicking and screaming into a more modern version that I actually felt defensive to that shower!

 

Light in a dark world. Cracking reverend too

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mystic Force

Mystic Force

Posted
Posted

We had a shooting at a mall here in Iowa a few years back. There was only one dead so it was only "local" news. But the shooter was a security guard who had been harassing a girl who worked at the mall. He walked up behind her and shot her in the back. Now tell me where are the good guys with the guns to defend against a sneak attack?

 

It was funny (ignoring the terrible tragedy of the situation for a sec) watching the mall people talk about how to protect people on their property when the simple answer "have more security guards" was not a viable response.

 

It gives me chills every time I walk past the spot it happened.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
We had a shooting at a mall here in Iowa a few years back. There was only one dead so it was only "local" news. But the shooter was a security guard who had been harassing a girl who worked at the mall. He walked up behind her and shot her in the back. Now tell me where are the good guys with the guns to defend against a sneak attack?

 

It was funny (ignoring the terrible tragedy of the situation for a sec) watching the mall people talk about how to protect people on their property when the simple answer "have more security guards" was not a viable response.

 

It gives me chills every time I walk past the spot it happened.....

 

What you need is everyone having an AI enabled auto-trigger gun strapped to their back. Or no doors in the malls. Or no malls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
Maybe this is why I shop on Amazon?

Cant be long before the first courier mass shooting because he didn't like your signature

 

What sort of weaponry might they fit on their drones when they start using them for deliveries ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted

Police officer comes home after her shift, walks into the wrong flat, and shoots the owner dead because she thought he was a burgler, ( coincidentally he was black ). So what do the Police do to investigate ? They issue post-mortem search warrants and start spreading the information that a small amount of marijuana had been found in his flat, as if that is some sort of vindication.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45468083

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45525275

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
Police officer comes home after her shift, walks into the wrong flat, and shoots the owner dead because she thought he was a burgler, ( coincidentally he was black ). So what do the Police do to investigate ? They issue post-mortem search warrants and start spreading the information that a small amount of marijuana had been found in his flat, as if that is some sort of vindication.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45468083

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45525275

 

I've followed a little about this story. What amazes me is how a trained police officer can enter someone else's apartment without immediately recognising it was not her own, and then indiscriminately shoot the occupant. How stupid do they think the public are if they think they can get away with such a crap story as that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...