 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 01 Oct 15 - 03:28 PM It's people that are the problem remember, not the guns. Some guy in Umpqua was quoted saying "We never expected something like this to happen here," and while that complacency remains the norm in the thousands of US communities yet to be touched by these occasional cullings, the gun lovers need not feel threatened. But by all means let's have the usual hand-wringing for a couple of days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 01 Oct 15 - 03:35 PM It's the 142nd school shooting since Sandy Hook. That's about one school shooting per week. Problem? What problem? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 01 Oct 15 - 05:45 PM I wonder when we'll get a statement from these guys? http://www.surgc.org/ http://www.rrgclub.org/ The first one looks particularly sinister. The second one's website is so crap I can't get it to load far enough to tell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST Date: 01 Oct 15 - 07:05 PM "As the sheriff in Douglas County, Oregon, John Hanlin was front and center following Thursday's shooting at Umpqua Community College, which left at least 13 dead and 20 wounded. Two years ago, Hanlin was one of hundreds of sheriffs around the country to vow to stand against new gun control legislation. In a January 15, 2013, letter to Vice President Joe Biden, he wrote, "Gun control is NOT the answer to preventing heinous crimes like school shootings." Read his letter to vice president Biden. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 01 Oct 15 - 07:22 PM You might want to reconsider calling yourself "GUEST", given what "Anonymous" was responsible for here: http://www.candidslice.com/killer-posted-warning-on-4chan-hours-before-umpqua-community-college-massacre/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 01 Oct 15 - 07:26 PM Problem? What problem? No problem at all - what we need in the U.S. is MORE guns in the hands of idiots so we can resolve everyting a la OK Corral. Cest fini. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 01 Oct 15 - 07:50 PM The answer is rocket launchers for all school students. No one would dare attack them then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 01 Oct 15 - 08:11 PM http://www.nrtoday.com/news/4397135-113/hanlin-gun-letter-sheriff Note that letter was sent to the VP back in January 2013. The same sheriff was 'in charge' after today's shooting in Oregon. I wonder if his views have changed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Oct 15 - 08:23 PM Nothing will change, it seems pretty certain. It's not the gun laws really, is it? It's the gun culture you are stuck with. The best gun laws in the world won't change that for the better. Can anything? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 01 Oct 15 - 08:31 PM i suppose Americans can't really be bothered - otherwise they would do something about it. they can't really say its totally unexpected after all these different incidents. is the root cause american society driving people nuts, or is it the prevalence of guns. after all there are a lot of losers in American society. no real health service. no tradition of 'safety nets', and all the culture is about high achievers, big earners, etc. i suppose the fear of falling down one of the fissures and never getting back on your feet - plus the guns - well its a heady mix! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,🔫 Date: 01 Oct 15 - 08:53 PM What's the greatest, most lethal threat to America, ISIS or Americans ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Rapparee Date: 01 Oct 15 - 09:37 PM Latest from CNN: the gunman was Chris Harper Mercer, age 26. Ten dead, seven hurt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Ebbie Date: 01 Oct 15 - 09:40 PM Maybe it would help if we could get across the idea to our people that there is nothing exciting or laudable or heroic about shooting the innocent and defenseless. But until our "hunters" understand that shooting for sport the innocent and defenseless is also not exciting or laudable or heroic we're probably not going to change. Or maybe it would help if we got the message across to them by calling them 'creeps' and 'losers' instead of shooters and gunmen. It's gone beyond sad to infuriating. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 01 Oct 15 - 09:46 PM Tell that to your legislators. And deny the NRA lobbying time in your nation's capital. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 01 Oct 15 - 10:52 PM Guest, sorry I duplicated your link re the letter to Biden. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Stu Date: 02 Oct 15 - 03:09 AM The whole situation is pathetic in so many ways. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: SPB-Cooperator Date: 02 Oct 15 - 03:42 AM If you are happy having your students murdered, good luck to you. If your government isn't bothered - there have been enough incidents like this is the last few years, so it's nothing new - why should we care less here? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 02 Oct 15 - 04:51 AM why should we care less here? out of humanity, maybe.....its very sad when you see the weeping parents who have sent their kids to school, or the cinema. places that should be safe. i feel very sorry for them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: SPB-Cooperator Date: 02 Oct 15 - 05:21 AM I have debated gun law and felt compassion over and over again, what has America done about their losses. What comes across to me is that it is far more important for the republicans to block any changes the democrats are trying to bring about than care about human lives. The people of America got what they wanted. And the spokesperson I heard on the news today who spouted on that it was all down to the students who were attacked not carrying guns themselves says it all really. There is only so much compassion in the world to go round, and US is doing little to get their share of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 02 Oct 15 - 05:44 AM that is indeed a very strange view to take |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 02 Oct 15 - 06:59 AM I can understand SPB's point. Viewed from a safe distance these atrocities look like a novel form of population control. Many Americans love it, so what the hell? (How many in Roseberg campaigned against their own sheriff's views on gun control when he wrote to the Vice President?) I'm not sure whether the views ascribed by SPB to some Republivcans is actually party policy. If it is, they might consider providing a gun to every toddler. The cost could be offset by savings on the law-enforcement payroll. It would cerainly push up the body counts, though I would suggest simple six-shooters so that toddlers are limited to six murders without reloading. On the question of law enforcement, the US has an admirable record of murdering perps rather than wasting time and money on bringing them to trial. This is just as the perps would expect. Staying alive to face their own shamed and ruined families and to dwell for a few years on the wider misery they've sown would lack glamour. Ebbie is right that the glorifying terminology is unhelpfu. At the very least let's call them "gunpersons" rather than "gunmen" and have some positive discrimination. That way a few women might be encouraged to get involved. My impression - again from a distance - is that blacks are also under-represented. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 02 Oct 15 - 07:43 AM the Americans you meet are such nice people - it seems a shame they should have to live with that danger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Megan L Date: 02 Oct 15 - 07:56 AM America is a place those killed were people regardless of what the country's laws are when we stop feeling compassion for victims we lose our humanity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 02 Oct 15 - 08:28 AM Roseburg has a population of only 20,000, managed to support TWO gun clubs at least (one of them a hard-line NRA front) and has voted a gun-nut Republican to represent them for years. You have to wonder how many of the "victims" simply got what they'd voted for and played at in their spare time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,🔫 Date: 02 Oct 15 - 08:28 AM Terminology: Gunman ? Gunperson ? Much more appropriate would be Gunmoron, Guncretin, or even better, using colloquial language to appeal to big brave young outlaws at that 4chan forum [link posted by Jack Campin] Guntards. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Megan L Date: 02 Oct 15 - 08:49 AM "You have to wonder how many of the "victims" simply got what they'd voted for and played at in their spare time." That is the same attitude that says a girl deserved to be raped because she wears a short skirt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Donuel Date: 02 Oct 15 - 09:08 AM Are there any women here? (Hi Ebbie) The reason I ask is because 81% of mass shooting victims are women & children. Women shot dead out number men killed by domestic gun violence. It was primarily women who helped the most in the ban the bomb movement in the early days. It was women who led the anti drunk driving movement. There is no political will by 20 year old white males to politicize gun violence. The reason a women's movement about this issue is so sadly deflated is partly due to previous failed attempts for reform like the one presented to Congress after the New Town massacre. How will you die? No doubt in the usual way except there is one new development. Due to safer cars and deadlier guns the odds are now equal that you could die by a car or a gun at the rate of ~ 35,000 each per year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST Date: 02 Oct 15 - 09:15 AM Due to safer cars and deadlier guns the odds are now equal that you could die by a car or a gun What utter fucking drivel. Do you have any reputable research to back that up? Thought not... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 02 Oct 15 - 09:44 AM In 2012, 36,166 died in MVCs according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate "There are roughly 32,000 gun deaths per year in the United States." http://usconservatives.about.com/od/capitalpunishment/a/Putting-Gun-Death-Statistics-In-Perspective.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: akenaton Date: 02 Oct 15 - 10:10 AM Seems to me that psychiatric illness is the cause of many of these deaths.....what are psychiatric services like in the US? I read today that a large percentage of perps are suffering from severe psychiatric illness. Of course, the availability of firearms facilitates the execution of these crimes. Why is it only "Republicans" who wish to obstruct gun legislation? Isn't that a bit like saying only "Tories" oppose homosexual "marriage"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 02 Oct 15 - 10:20 AM "This resulted in national motor vehicle crash death rates of 10.7 deaths per 100,000 people . . .". Support for that may be found at http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview/2012 The Firearms Death Rate is 10.4 deaths per 100,000 people according to http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-per-100000/ _________________________ It ain't quite 50/50 but it's close. Don's observation shocked me, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 02 Oct 15 - 10:26 AM what are psychiatric services like in the US? Insufficient, inadequate, underfunded and quite expensive to access. Damn good thing we ain't got that there Socierlized Med-cin, ain't it? But that's only a small component part of the "gun problem". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 02 Oct 15 - 10:29 AM 'Why is it only "Republicans" who wish to obstruct gun legislation?' The NRA (National Rifle Association) has about 1200 lobbyists in Washington. They spend lots of money supporting various candidates and they expect payback when their candidates win. (The 1200 figure is from something I read a few days back. Lobbyist numbers are a known because by law they have to be registered--at least in the US.) The NRA seems to be in bed with armaments companies and various corporations are literally making a killing. I think one answer is to limit lobbyists to 10 minutes face-time. Anyone caught bribing an elected official gets an automatic 20 years and any politician caught accepting a bribe gets the same. But then I dream lots. And BTW, it is not just Republicans who obstruct legislation. There are Democrats doing it, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 02 Oct 15 - 10:58 AM Greg, the psychiatric services in Canada are not much better, if at all. Various sites give the figure 9 per 100,000 for the US and if we use that as indicative of Canada (where the population is 35,000,000 and there are only about 4500 psychiatrists) the figure is about 8 per 100,000. That said, population distributions and wealth play a part here, also. Our health care system is overloaded. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 02 Oct 15 - 11:01 AM AND the bastard Conservative government under Harper is doing its best to destroy it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Rapparee Date: 02 Oct 15 - 11:23 AM Knife crime is up at least 18% in London. I may call my wife and ask her not to go to go to London today. And it's up all over Britain and Wales! Internet sales of knives are blamed! From an ad on a UK knife-selling website (note that this is a Japanese made knife, 10 cm. blade, lock back, with quick opening thumb stud): The big, wide, flat ground blade is styled like a classic Texas pocket knife and offers plenty of belly for cutting, slicing and skinning yet enough "point" for sticking as well. It's made from Japanese AUS 8A stainless steel with a beautiful satin polish and a profoundly sharp edge that lasts yet is easy to re-sharpen if necessary. The classically shaped handle also mirrors its Texas heritage, sporting a solid stainless steel frame, handsome faux stag horn scales, and stout bolts and pins. It's outfitted it with our unrivaled Tri-Ad® lock. Proven again and again to be the strongest, most reliable lock on the market, which is an enormous benefit if your life (or fingers) are on the line. For carrying comfort, convenience and quick access, the Lone Star Hunter comes with ambidextrous pocket clips and a thumb stud* so it can always travel with you and be ready to spring into action at will. (Emphasis mine.) The US needs, desperately, a vast improvement in its mental health care. Among others, a lot of our politicians badly need it if for no other reason than they seem to need help listening to something other than the rustle of dollar bills. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Backwoodsman Date: 02 Oct 15 - 11:32 AM And anyone caught with one in their possession is guilty of a criminal offence and will get jail time. We have laws against the ownership of guns and offensive weapons. The difference between the UK and the US is that our government deals with issues like guns and other offensive weapons, whilst yours sits with its fingers up its arse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Allan Conn Date: 02 Oct 15 - 11:48 AM According to wiki the homicide rate per 100,000 people is 1 in the UK and a massive 4.7 in the USA. If these stats are correct you are almost 5 times as likely to be killed in the US than you are in the UK. Both developed western economies. It is clear that if these figures are anywhere near correct the US gvt has badly failed to protect its citizens. Scotland's stats are generally worse than the UK as a whole with knife crime being a particular long standing problem in parts of Scotland but it looks like heaven on earth compared with the US stats. A story last week in the press stated that 2014 saw the lowest number of murders in 40 years with 61 over the year. So that works out at 1.15 per 100,000. It just seems plain nuts that the US allows this annual slaughter of its citizens to go on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 02 Oct 15 - 12:16 PM The incidence of knife killings in the US is slightly higher than in the UK. It's a bit worse in Scotland but not by much and the rate is falling. The American gun-nut argument rehashed above, that people will simply kill each other with knives if they can't use guns, isn't supported by the numbers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,leeneia Date: 02 Oct 15 - 12:17 PM Take: street drugs alcohol untreated mental illness guns survivalist culture drug-gang culture permissive, inattentive parenting Internet malice Mix well, and what do you get? Violence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Backwoodsman Date: 02 Oct 15 - 12:25 PM Leeneia, you forgot: Aggressive marketing of firearms Ineffectual gun-control laws |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: akenaton Date: 02 Oct 15 - 12:49 PM Thanks#.....Seemed strange to me that America's "gun problem", was simply an aberration of the Republican party. Psychiatric services in the UK, even with "socialised medicine" are an absolute disgrace....the "poor man" of the medical profession. I know someone who has been waiting over eight months for an assessment for severe OCD. One psychiatrist to serve a population of a hundred thousand. Psychiatric illness is an illness of society, often accepted rather than treated. the US problems certainly stem from a society in decline and the effect of that decline on the psychologically vulnerable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 02 Oct 15 - 12:49 PM And violence does not necessarily mean killing. The OECD sponsored a comparative crime survey of the developed world about 20 years ago - collecting people's personal experience of violent crime, unprocessed by the police or the courts. By far the most violent societies, on that measure, were Australia and New Zealand. The US and Canada were a long way behind, and European countries a long way behind them. But as measured by violence with a fatal outcome, then as now the US was far ahead of all other OECD countries, with Australia and NZ near the bottom. (In fact gun ownership in NZ is not all that low; but it doesn't have a gun culture and handguns are all but nonexistent). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 02 Oct 15 - 01:04 PM Our health care system is overloaded. AND the bastard Conservative government under Harper is doing its best to destroy it. At least you HAVE a health care system, Bruce. What we've got are for-profit businesses. AND the bastard Republicans are doing their best to destroy what little real health care we have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST Date: 02 Oct 15 - 01:44 PM leenia you also forgot: Violence involving guns as entertainment on TV and movies and in video games. Cigarettes on TV are no longer acceptable, guns are fine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 02 Oct 15 - 01:50 PM We probably see as many guns on TV as you do. It doesn't make much difference unless you can buy a real one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Bill D Date: 02 Oct 15 - 03:42 PM " If your government isn't bothered -..... why should we care less here?" I presume you didn't see Obama's comments. He was as angry as I've ever seen him. I am weary with having **The USA** condemned by simply posting statistics. We KNOW the statistics. And almost everyone knows that the majority want changes in gun legislation. I have worn my fingers out for years explaining how the Constitution, the NRA, the electoral process, congressional Gerrymandering, and cultural demographics contribute to this stagnant, stupid, awkward situation. It is **NOT** a case of simply being too complacent to do anything.... and there is NOTHING a president can do by issuing a decree. In Great Britain, you have a system to make certain laws apply nationally........ we have "*states rights*". We would need to amend the Constitution to make serious inroads, and that is close to impossible right now. EVEN IF we did, and passed serious laws in every state, there are still 200-300 million guns out there, many hidden away "just in case". We do not want to fight another war over whether to crack down on guns! Yes, it's frustrating, and yes, there are good, intelligent people working in all the legal channels possible to do what can be done... given the overall situation. Give it a rest, won't you... unless you have clear, specific suggestions to make in a positive way! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Megan L Date: 02 Oct 15 - 04:06 PM Now Bill you are being a silly boy you know very well that several of the people turning red in the face with anger aren't actually interested in what is happening they just like to see their own typing. They no longer see people only placards they can wave. The last I heard there were one or two folks in your fine country so implying everyone is of the same opinion is as stupid as if you asked someone who lived in Shetland if they knew someone in London just because they both lived in Britain,something I am sure you would have the intelligence not to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Bill D Date: 02 Oct 15 - 06:20 PM To be clear.... This 'silly boy' is speaking ONLY to those on this thread and other threads who have accused the US in general of ignoring the problem. I make NO assumptions about how many Brits do so. I reply this way now & then because I see the same finger-pointing generalizations every time there's a serious shooting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 02 Oct 15 - 07:46 PM 200-300 million guns out there, many hidden away "just in case". "Just in case" of WHAT??? Here we enter into the psychotic lunatic fringe - which tail has been wagging the dog for far too long. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST Date: 03 Oct 15 - 02:50 AM "Just in case" the tanks come rumbling down our streets, the helicopters swoop over our hills and soldiers fan out into our residential areas. Multiply that scenario over 50 states, a million cities and towns and rural areas and one must be aware that they can't possibly cover us all. And so, you see, 12 handguns and 10 rifles can hold off all the government's men. They surely won't use tanks against us! Right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 03 Oct 15 - 04:31 AM It looks to me that the high school massacre has become a 'meme' (I think that's what its called) - an idea which is out there and with a life of its own. Now any disaffected, mentally disturbed youth has the 'option' of murdering his class mates and teachers. Tighter gun control is an obvious answer to this problem but the admirable American founding principle of 'freedom' has become confounded with greed and selfishness - including the selfish 'right' to carry a gun. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 03 Oct 15 - 07:53 AM probably looks an easier option than settling down to maths homework... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 03 Oct 15 - 07:55 AM if i could have got my hands on a gun - it might have been me. i hated maths homework. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 03 Oct 15 - 08:32 AM Now any disaffected, mentally disturbed youth has the 'option' of murdering his class mates and teachers This one is a bit different from that, and very similar to the Sandy Hook one - autistic thug brought up to believe the sun shines out of his arse and given enough weapons for a small army by a far-right NRA fanatic mother. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 03 Oct 15 - 09:57 AM Keeping score: http://www.shootingtracker.com/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,leeneia Date: 03 Oct 15 - 11:15 AM What do you mean, aggressive marketing of guns? I don't see guns advertised in magazines I read, I don't see them on TV (tho I don't watch much), I don't see them on billboards. Sometimes I see an ad for a gun show in the newspaper. But I fear that in a society dominated by fear, guns pretty well sell themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 03 Oct 15 - 11:31 AM This time it was Christians singled out for death. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 03 Oct 15 - 11:40 AM I don't see guns advertised in magazines I read, You're just not reading the right magazines. Or looking at the right billboards. Aggresive marketing is out there, sure enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 03 Oct 15 - 11:43 AM Bill, you make light of a few points, not least that all the members of Congress who vex Obama so much were elected. Maybe after a few dozen more Sandy Hooks, and when America's infants are going to school in body armour (which won't be long in coming if you accept Shimrod's analysis), some of the NRA stooges might be voted out. In the meantime, what about your cops (and Navy Seals for that matter) taking priosners alive occasionally? And just generally shooting a few less people? Hysterical episodes like the Boston marathon aftermath, and the rate at which innocent civilians are shot dead by trigger-happy police, can only fuel the each-man-for-himself mentality that seems to prevail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Penny S. Date: 03 Oct 15 - 12:05 PM Hospitals in Afghanistan, as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 03 Oct 15 - 02:03 PM I think I may have the solution, one that makes America much safer and still obeys the Second Amendment to the letter. Let people have all the guns they want for whatever reason(s) they give. Simply make it impossible to have ammunition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Backwoodsman Date: 03 Oct 15 - 02:39 PM "What do you mean, aggressive marketing of guns?" How about gun-shows, where firearms are sold to anyone who wants one, with no questions asked? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 03 Oct 15 - 03:07 PM How did we ever get by without 4chan? From one of my local papers (sorry their website is such a pile of dogshit): http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/online-troll-threat-of-gun-massacre-at-edinburgh-uni-1-3905277 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 03 Oct 15 - 03:07 PM How did we ever get by without 4chan? From one of my local papers (sorry their website is such a pile of dogshit): http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/online-troll-threat-of-gun-massacre-at-edinburgh-uni-1-3905277 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 03 Oct 15 - 04:42 PM This time it was Christians singled out for death. Eyewitnesses in newspaper report contradict this. "The shooter would call a person: 'You, stand up,'" Salas said. "And then he would ask them if they were a Christian, knew God, or had religion. And it wasn't like it was stated on TV. It wasn't about that he was just trying to pinpoint Christians, no." See here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 03 Oct 15 - 06:32 PM This time it was Christians singled out for death. Ah, gee - "Christian Persecution?" - - looks like the Profesor is wrong. Again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 03 Oct 15 - 07:13 PM http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34424713 That BBC news article is where the Christian angle comes from I guess. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 03 Oct 15 - 07:40 PM the trouble is i suppose that some americans really love guns. i have a good friend who loves guns. he goes to gun fairs. deals in them. loves their beauty, in much the same way that i love guitars. i am not sure you will ever dispel that passion. the guy in question is a sincere and devoted Christian - a wonderful chap, who when he lived in England was loved, and is remembered by everybody with great affection. a sensitive and caring loving human being. i don't think you will change people by just abusing them. perhaps the sort of re-education that made the big change in attitudes to smoking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 03 Oct 15 - 08:16 PM http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/deaths-from-gun-violence-vs-terrorism-in-one-chart-20151002 That's the last I'll post about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Oct 15 - 08:21 PM What puzzles me is there seems to be no effort to test out what the Second Amendment actually means. The interpretation that means it guarantees the individual right to have all kinds of weapons in their homes and about their persons seems to be accepted, even by those who wish it didn't. Hence an assumption that really nothing can be done, even if most people would want it. But the actual amendment with its talk about "a well regulated militia" is in fact open to very different interpretatations. So why isn't the Supreme Court backed into a corner and required to explore all those interpretations, and make a ruling? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Backwoodsman Date: 04 Oct 15 - 12:03 AM Because money talks. The NRA and the arms manufacturers/traders have lots of money, so they talk very loudly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: MGM·Lion Date: 04 Oct 15 - 12:21 AM Precisely, BWM. But surely that means that, for all the well-meaning but helpless-sounding saying of such as Bill that it is a hopeless situation and nothing can be done about it, with sufficient goodwill and enough people bold and dedicated and determined enough to speak out against such as the unspeakable NRA, something could be done about it. Someone, somewhere over there, please, initiate some action that will get the Supreme Court on to the case in a meaningful way, before another uncountable # gets added to that depressing statistic we had a couple of posts back. And I only take the trouble to post yet another such desperate plea because I love the USA, have passed many happy times there, have much family and many dear friends living there; and really do have its interests at ❤! ≈Michael≈≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: MGM·Lion Date: 04 Oct 15 - 12:32 AM And an amendment to the Constitution can be amended, as we know from what happened after the failure of Prohibition. Why should not that bloody Second Amendment be likewise nullified by another Amendment? ≈M≈≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Ebbie Date: 04 Oct 15 - 03:38 AM My post didn't take so here it is again: The Supreme Court did rule on the 2nd Amendment deciding in a 5 to 4 vote that Americans have the right to have guns to protect themselves. They didn't address the fact that the 2nd Amendment specifically says that the right to bear arms is in behalf of the community, not to individuals. They didn't mention the discrepancy. This was in 2008, which is recent history. Unless and until there is a preponderance of liberal versus conservative members on the Court it is not likely to be brought up again any time soon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Backwoodsman Date: 04 Oct 15 - 03:45 AM Yep, I repeat - money talks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 04 Oct 15 - 04:06 AM Washington Post, 2 days ago, "Witnesses (Anastasia Boyla and Autumn Vicari,) also said he seemed to seek specific revenge against Christians," http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/02/oregon-shooter-said-to-have-singled-out-christians-for-killing-in-horrific-act-of-cowardice/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 04 Oct 15 - 04:14 AM yes but what i was trying to explain was - the reason why it attracts all this money is that people , quite civilised intelligent people, love guns. its going to be a bit like legislating against The Beatles. Guns are genuinely popular over there. people have a real enthusiasm for them. i don't think its just an evil citadel of capitalism you are fighting. its people. people see a good gun a bit like we see a Tag Heuer watch. its like personal jewelry. its not really just money - its a whole mindset. perhaps American mudcatters can correct me if i am misunderstanding the situation - but that's how it seems to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 04 Oct 15 - 07:42 AM "The Supreme Court did rule on the 2nd Amendment deciding in a 5 to 4 vote that Americans have the right to have guns to protect themselves." Note that the rights of individuals to have guns was clarified by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Second Amendment was addressed to states, not individuals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: BanjoRay Date: 04 Oct 15 - 07:50 AM Jim Jeffries sums it up beautifully Ray |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Oct 15 - 01:59 PM I can't see how the 14th amendment has any relevance to the meaning of the 2nd amendment, or to what the right to bear arms actually means. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Ebbie Date: 04 Oct 15 - 05:01 PM Guest #, I agree with McGrath. I don't find anything applicable to gun rights in the Fourteenth Amendment. What am I missing? 14th Amendment deals with: 1."anchor babies" and due process of law 2. How Representatives are to be apportioned. 3. Rules on Representatives 4. Public debt Text 2 is interesting. It asserts that a population of citizens shall consist of "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. " That qualifier is certainly as much to the point as the 2nd Amendment's "well-regulated militia being necessary to the state". Indians (Native Americans) do vote today presumably because they are taxed. It goes on to mention that voters shall be 21 years of age. And yet, no one insists upon that today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Oct 15 - 05:18 PM 26th amendment changed the voting age limit, making votes at 18 legal. Whatever the 2nd amendment means, if Americans wanted to change it, they could. And if they wanted, no matter how rich the NRA is, they could make it as toxic an organisation as the Klan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 04 Oct 15 - 05:51 PM "Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation." from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Oct 15 - 06:33 PM Can't see it myself, nameless Guest. Deciding that the Second Amendment applies to states doesn't in any way address what it actually is that the Second Amendment means. It is pretty clear the Supreme Court often decides stuff according to the political balance of the members at any time, with only the most tenuous connection with the text of he Constitution. And of course it can then go on to find ways to reverse what it previously determined, when that balance has changed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 04 Oct 15 - 06:37 PM While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation." Unfortunately, Justice Alito is an idiot, whilst Justice [sic] Thomas is arguably the LEAST qualified justice ever to sit on the Supreme Court. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Ebbie Date: 04 Oct 15 - 06:56 PM Thanks, Bruce. The problem with bias in the USA Supreme Court is that they tend to be human. Maybe in the future we'll have a robotic Court which will go by logical interpretations of the USA Constitution. And then - finally - we'll all take a logical view of the Second Amendment. But can we wait another 100 years? Not likely. If we go on killing the young, the helpless and the innocent we'll have a bloody revolution on our shores. I realize that could apply to capital punishment as well as to legal abortion. This is a complicated world. And frankly, I am not just concerned with the "young, helpless and innocent". We need to protect and isolate the criminal elements within us, as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 04 Oct 15 - 08:18 PM The problem with bias in the USA Supreme Court is that they tend to be human. Human? No, the problem is that against all reason, precedent, and law, they tend to be partisan. Particularly the Republican idiot justices who piss and moan about "activist" justices and then proceed to be just that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 04 Oct 15 - 09:14 PM Hi, Ebbie. I have no problem with the Second as written; the problem comes from interpretations of that amendment (such as the Fourteenth for example). A well-regulated militia may or may not be necessary these days, but there's nothing well-defined about militia if people on the street take that to mean them personally. And when the SCOTUS extends the meaning of militia to also mean the individual, the door sure opens wide to all kinds of people who want to keep up with the Joneses. The NRA is a private interest and it is running a political agenda and spending big money to coerce politicians across the board. It has 1200 lobbyists in Washington. There must be lotsa money to be made convincing folks they need a weapon. Sooner or later there will be a confluence of fear, need and exasperation resulting in a reinterpretation of the Second, but until that time whatcha see is whatcha get. I don't envy you folks in the present situation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 05 Oct 15 - 06:24 AM it all comes down to the same thing. in a democracy - the law is not set in stone - it reflects the will of the people as much as is possible. would you be having these debates about the niceties of constitutional law, if the people WANTED gun control. if you WANTED it, you would have it. however a lot of people love their guns. when we wanted to get rid of smoking, we showed people what a forty a day habit did to peoples lungs. maybe you need to do some videos showing what a bullet does to human body. i think n Europe we had a generation that saw up close what weapons of war did. they couldn't really avoid it, when bombs fell from the sky on them. it was a severe education, but at least we learned that guns and bombs were to be avoided. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: wysiwyg Date: 05 Oct 15 - 08:21 AM A major motivation behind the adoption of the second amendment was white landowners' fears of insurrection by enslaved Africans, and of a Federal government action to end slavery altogether. Educate yourselves on this point of history: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 05 Oct 15 - 08:55 AM That was certainly part of it, W y s i w y G !. However, slavery today in North America and elsewhere is economic. That is enforced by police and well-regulated militias. And I'd guess that is part of the reason people are so reluctant to give up their guns. I wish y'all luck with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,BrendanB Date: 05 Oct 15 - 09:40 AM Might it be that, in a country where gun ownership is allowed it is only a small step from the right to own a gun to the right to use a gun. From there how great a step is it to the right to shoot someone? The USA has made its position clear. People have the right to own guns. The direct result of that is the death of tens of thousands of people every year. Americans are not stupid, they know what the price of gun ownership is and are prepared to pay it. People from other countries may deplore that state of affairs but it's not really their business. Just be grateful that the likelihood of a mass shooting is much reduced in your nation because of your national gun control laws and stop preaching to the USA, it just gets on their tits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 05 Oct 15 - 10:32 AM I've said this before on earlier threads, but for the sake of adding broader perspective, objectivity, and honest disclosure. I'm a Brit, a lefty liberal progressive regarding politics & social issues.. I despair of the extent of gun killings afflicting the USA. I even lost a close relative to suicide by legally owned shotgun.. Yet... I would own and collect guns if I was allowed to. For reasons Big Al has already described... To enjoy & appreciate guns as objects of fine engineering and design, like classic cameras and guitars. To enjoy firing them at safe and secure target shooting ranges a few times a year. Would I trust myself as a responsible intelligent gun owner - yes. Would I need to keep bullets at home - no, that's not very sensible. Would my wife be happy If I owned guns - certainly not. I already squander too much money on guitars, fuzz boxes and amps. Ok.. so Brit Law does not allow me to own guns - too bad.. no big deal.. not a problem.. I can get over it. There's plenty of entertainingly idiotic gun worship culture TV series on Discovery / History Channel etc... The folks making these documentary reality shows may be hilarious redneck stereotypes, but at least we get to see a few minutes of interesting factual expert workshop material of guns being engineered & repaired. Plus regular thrilling big bangs and exploding water melons..... 😐 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Howard Jones Date: 05 Oct 15 - 11:20 AM What I find a bit baffling is that one of the reasons Americans put forward for owning guns is to defend themselves against their own government. This is a country which loudly proclaims that its version of democracy is the best in the world, to the extent of trying to impose it on other countries at gunpoint, and yet it apparently results in governments which are so distrusted that people feel the need to arm themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 05 Oct 15 - 01:46 PM I despair of the extent of gun killings afflicting the USA. What, a mere 35K per annum? Small potatoes. Nothing to concern yourself about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Backwoodsman Date: 05 Oct 15 - 01:59 PM "People from other countries may deplore that state of affairs but it's not really their business. Just be grateful that the likelihood of a mass shooting is much reduced in your nation because of your national gun control laws and stop preaching to the USA, it just gets on their tits. Yes, I bet it gets on citizens tits in other countries when the US not only preaches to them, but marches into their countries, guns blazing, brings about 'regime-change' on a pretext built on lies and fabrication, and causes a million of those foreign citizens to be killed. People in glass-houses....... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 05 Oct 15 - 02:26 PM "I despair of the extent of gun killings afflicting the USA. What, a mere 35K per annum? Small potatoes. Nothing to concern yourself about." Yeah but more than half are suicides.. so that's kinda alright... No half arsed attempts with paracetamol or bleach, no repeated distressing attention seeking cries for help.. .. leaving families in fear of the next botched attempt. No just a decisive bullet, and bang.. job done.... My relative carefully planned sawing off a shotgun to enable taking out the heart rather than the face and head.. that was considerate. Another relative kept the family in anxiety and emotional blackmail for years with minor paracetomol overdoses... Just saying.. another element of gun misuse to throw up for consideration...??? 😢 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: akenaton Date: 05 Oct 15 - 04:32 PM " However, slavery today in North America and elsewhere is economic. That is enforced by police and well-regulated militias. And I'd guess that is part of the reason people are so reluctant to give up their guns. I wish y'all luck with it." One of the best lines on this thread # |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Ebbie Date: 05 Oct 15 - 08:25 PM On Facebook today I watched Jim Jeffries, (I think) an Australian (? I no longer remember) comedian do a show asking questions of Americans who have guns and "need" them for the protection of themselves and their family. He said (paraphrased) So you have your gun in your bedside table? So your kid is going to take it out, thinking it's a toy, and shoot his brother or sister! Gun Owner: No. I am a responsible gun owner. I keep my guns locked in a safe. Jeffries (paraphrased): Then you don't have them available for protection! Are you going to tell the intruder to wait a minute while "I get my gun. You chose the wrong house, mister- you'll see... Just a minute here." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 05 Oct 15 - 10:35 PM Guns in the house, this is what you'll end up with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Allan Conn Date: 06 Oct 15 - 03:10 AM The idea that no-one should have an opinion about what goes on in another country is ludicrous. We all do that all the time including Americans. Likewise the idea that it is people knocking Americans and is a case of us and them is also ludicrous. I don't know that many Americans but the ones I do know well are very anti guns and despair at the continuing gun culture. In fact there may now be a majority against stricter gun control laws (ie the url below 50% are against and 47% for stricter laws) but it is still a divide where almost half say there should be stricter laws. So it isn't an American v the rest situation when it comes to how people think. Though saying that I imagine for the vast bulk of Brits the idea that the way to protect society is to flood it with even more guns, which some seem to be advocating, looks nothing less than crazy! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-weldon/shootings-guns-and-public_b_8065682.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Howard Jones Date: 06 Oct 15 - 04:18 AM Removing guns from a society cannot be done overnight. However the UK and other European countries have managed it, over time, and on the whole have broad public support for doing so. This does not mean that guns are not permitted for vermin control, hunting or target shooting, but ownership and storage are very closely controlled. Neither does it mean that we are immune from shootings, including mass shootings, but compared with the US these are incredibly rare events. One of the arguments put forward is that only the criminals will have guns. This is true here. However if I am mugged or burgled, it is unlikely that the criminal will have a gun, because the penalties for having a gun will far exceed the other crime. The maximum sentence for burglary is 14 years, but it is reported that many first-time burglars don't even go to prison but get a community sentence, however for aggravated burglary, which includes carrying a weapon of any sort, it could be life imprisonment. Armed robbery is fairly unusual and usually aimed at high-value targets such as security trucks. I don't feel the need to arm myself to protect my home, and if I were to do so I would be at considerable risk of falling foul of the law myself. Neither do I feel threatened by my government, but if they did decide to oppress me by force I doubt I would last long against our highly professional and well trained armed forces. I think I'd choose to submit and survive rather than try to shoot it out. Provided I keep away from airports and other high-security locations where the police are routinely and visibly armed, I can go for months without ever seeing a gun. I don't feel threatened by criminals with guns and have never felt the need to arm myself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Oct 15 - 04:25 AM Removing guns from a society cannot be done overnight. However the UK and other European countries have managed it, There has never been comparable gun ownership in UK and Europe. US is unique in that, and should be judged differently. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Richard Bridge Date: 06 Oct 15 - 04:42 AM I'd like to reinforce what Peter Laban said: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/05/tennessee-boy-kills-girl-puppies-sheriff A 12 year old boy shot and killed an 8 year old girl using his father's shotgun, because she would not show him her puppies (the dog sort). On a trailer park. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 06 Oct 15 - 05:47 AM Howard's latest post neatly expresses what my 2 sarcastic but muddled posts probably failed to do.. Re. this point "I don't feel the need to arm myself to protect my home, and if I were to do so I would be at considerable risk of falling foul of the law myself. Neither do I feel threatened by my government, but if they did decide to oppress me by force I doubt I would last long against our highly professional and well trained armed forces. I think I'd choose to submit and survive rather than try to shoot it out." The 2011 movie "Red State" is a cruel dark satire on armed to the teeth religious cult stand offs with the Govt. The resulting siege is at the same time condemning of mass gun ownership, and a terrific wet dream for movie shoot out action fans... Artistic ambiguity... bloody annoying innit,..!!!??? 😜 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: akenaton Date: 06 Oct 15 - 05:49 AM "The idea that no-one should have an opinion about what goes on in another country is ludicrous. We all do that all the time including Americans" :0) There are people in the UK who think that other people have no right to an opinion on what happens in this country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Bill D Date: 06 Oct 15 - 11:15 AM I was away for the weekend: Peter K.."..., what about your cops (and Navy Seals for that matter) taking priosners alive occasionally? And just generally shooting a few less people? Of course.... we ALL want that. That is just a matter of math. As long as cops have guns, some will be careless and/or stupid. Hiring cops is a delicate matter..... you need people who are brave and willing enough to do the job, but you want to avoid those who just like carrying a gun and harassing people.... and even then, seemingly good cops who deal with the worst parts of society every day can 'lose it' under stress and make more headlines. The slightly encouraging news is that recently, various cops at various levels have been fired, indicted and/or prosecuted for giving in to their baser feelings. And politically, several Democratic candidates have done the unthinkable in the last few days and challenged the NRA mentality directly, offering plans to control gun sales and establish better databases of guns and offenders. (yes, I can hear you thinking.."so what? Isn't that pretty weak as a response?"..... but it's a start, and more & more respected pundits are making strong responses along those lines. We are in a bad place, but there's no choice but to start from where we are and chip away at the edges of the insanity until we weaken the whole flawed system. If *I* had a magic button, 87.318% of all guns might just melt into plowshares one night... but lacking that, honest, clever folk are working at it every day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Bill D Date: 06 Oct 15 - 11:45 AM Howard Jones said "Removing guns from a society cannot be done overnight. However the UK and other European countries have managed it, over time, and on the whole have broad public support for doing so. " Of course! But other countries didn't have nearly the amount.. either totals or % that we do. They also didn't have paranoid militia groups swearing to fight to the death for the 'right' to ummmm... fight to the death. WE have a majority who favor serious controls and changes, but there is NO....I repeat ...NO way to have a simple national referendum to make overall changes. The process of amending the Constitution, great as it is for some issues, remains the stumbling block for issues where the process in Congress and ratification by the states is not subject to simple majority vote. It's going to be a long, awkward fight. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Donuel Date: 06 Oct 15 - 10:12 PM The fight to establish law to merely insist on the safety of seat belts (still not established for school buses) took 20 YEARS. That fight was not complicated by Constitutional issues. The cultural argument will eventually be won by saner attitudes. The language arguments will be corralled and won ( for example the title of this thread will one day be identified as the evil sardonic descriptor that it is). The number game will be understood to be enough is enough when death by guns equal one in one hundred (one million 300,000) per lifetime of 70 years. The sane law will come to pass as the feelings of futility becomes one of utility and life giving truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST Date: 07 Oct 15 - 07:23 AM Would the emergence of a well-armed indigenous terrorist group focus minds ? Possibly one intepreting itself as a local militia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 07 Oct 15 - 08:19 AM Would you let your kids play with your friends' guns? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34384757 The upshot of that is no, you'd get a different set of friends. Gun owners are a minority. The smaller and more marginalized a minority they get to be, the sooner the law will follow. Shun them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 07 Oct 15 - 09:27 AM "There are roughly 300 million guns in the United States—nearly enough for each citizen to own one. But those guns are concentrated in the hands of a minority of Americans. Nearly a third of adults owns a gun, according to a new study in the journal Injury Prevention. And gun ownership rates vary widely by state: Alaska tops the list with 62 percent of adults saying they own a firearm; Delaware is at the bottom with just 5 percent." That is the lead paragraph for a good article at http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/gun-owners-study-one-in-three |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 07 Oct 15 - 12:46 PM Would the emergence of a well-armed indigenous terrorist group focus minds ? Emergence? Plenty of those around already - have been for many years. Check the Southern Poverty Law Center website. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 07 Oct 15 - 06:45 PM " Michigan woman with concealed carry permit opens fire at alleged Home Depot shoplifters " A new headline today. But the headline is a bit over the top. She fired at the shoplifters while they were making tracks in an SUV. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Backwoodsman Date: 08 Oct 15 - 01:52 AM Does the crime of shoplifting carry the death-penalty in the US? I don't think so? And, even if it did, shouldn't a judge, jury and due process of law be involved in the passing and carrying out of the sentence? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Ebbie Date: 08 Oct 15 - 02:28 AM Yeh. Shop lifting has been upgraded to qualify for capital punishment. I also like the story of the hero who tried to stop two men from making off with another man's vehicle. He fires multiple times, hits car owner in the head (he survives), gathers empty shells and flees. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Backwoodsman Date: 08 Oct 15 - 02:45 AM LOL! (Although, in truth, it's not funny, is it?). Although I believe that nobody (other than farmers and the armed forces) **needs** a gun, I do understand that, in a country where they are freely available and have been so since time immemorial, it might be considered acceptable to use a gun on someone who is physically attacking you. But to attempt to shoot someone who nicks your car? FFS! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 08 Oct 15 - 08:55 AM nicking your car... no.. that's well over the top.. But carrying a gun to folk club sessions in case someone get's too close to your guitar...???? ..or insists on singing the 27th verse of a turgidly long ballad...?????? 😈 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 08 Oct 15 - 09:06 AM Dr. Ben Carson, Presidential Aspirant: "There is no doubt that this senseless violence is breathtaking — but I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away." Asshole. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Richard Bridge Date: 08 Oct 15 - 09:08 AM Is he mad? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 08 Oct 15 - 09:21 AM ..as a Doctor.. perhaps Ben Carson sees sterilized guns as a valuable tool in surgery...? .. Waging a war on cancer.. precision strikes.. shooting out invasive tumours...????? 😕 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 08 Oct 15 - 09:28 AM Rupert Murdoch approves of him. Which probably means he's the next US President. Though it appears Donald Trump is the discerning psycho's choice: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/mother-of-oregon-gunman-wrote-of-keeping-firearms.html Given the virtually identical scenario at Sandy Hook, maybe America needs some emergency legislation to stop Aspies owning guns. And stop them voting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST Date: 08 Oct 15 - 09:38 AM "This time it was Christians singled out for death." --Keith A of Hertford.... Yes, and in the twisted logic so prevalent today, that spin will be interpreted as an "attack on religious liberty" and a renewed call for opposition to ...gay marriages. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 08 Oct 15 - 10:02 AM someone (an Englishman) said to me last night:- they want to disarm the people so they can do what they like. and if it kicks off, the people will be unarmed... a point of view i had not thought of. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Bill D Date: 08 Oct 15 - 10:25 AM "They" are NOT seeking to "disarm the people". That is a paranoid view of the far right militias. The Democrats are quietly, but fervently, hoping for a Trump or Carson opponent. If the Repubs would listen they'd hear the ghost of Barry Goldwater warning them how it all works. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 08 Oct 15 - 10:37 AM To today's lunatic Republicans, Barry Goldwater was a Commie; Better brain-dead than Red. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Ebbie Date: 08 Oct 15 - 06:51 PM Bringing the conversation 'round to Trump (doesn't it always?) I like Jay Leno's comment: Some are saying that the GOP candidates will end up being Jeb Bush and Donald Trump, kind of like the Tortoise and the Bad Hair. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 08 Oct 15 - 07:55 PM The quotes from Harper-Mercer's mother are pretty gross: http://heavy.com/news/2015/10/chris-harper-mercer-mother-mom-laurel-harper-facebook-guns-yahoo-father-torrance-california-oregon You have to wonder what their dinner table conversations were like. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 08 Oct 15 - 08:02 PM That link might fail (the blickifier has a length limit and the end of the URL got cut off). http://heavy.com/news/2015/10/chris-harper-mercer-mother-mom-laurel-harper-facebook-guns-yahoo-father-torrance-california-oregon-guns-stockpile-nurse-mental-illness/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 08 Oct 15 - 08:21 PM And more lunacy from Ben Carson, Clown Prince of the Republican moronocracy: "I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed," Carson said. "I'm telling you there is a reason these dictatorial people take guns first." The comments drew a swift response from the Anti-Defamation League. "Ben Carson has a right to his views on gun control, but the notion that Hitler's gun-control policy contributed to the Holocaust is historically inaccurate," said Jonathan Greenblatt, National Director of the organization". [NOTE: Hitler actually relaxed controls on firearms.] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 08 Oct 15 - 08:31 PM this letter was at the foot of that page. Drolka Gamenovichy says: October 6, 2015 at 1:53 am If you believe this shooting actually occurred, you are blind in one eye and can't see out of the other. Take a look at all of these "shootings" over the past several years. Come on, people. Snap out of your dream state and THINK! For God's sake, how many times will you allow this government to pull off the same, sloppy false flag M.O. before it dawns on you that they're now even recycling details from previous false flags. Get out from in front of the boob tube, read from MANY sources, (this is a tough one) research, go for a walk and get some fresh air to start those synapses firing. If nothing else, LOOK (read from various sources and perspectives) at what event(s) immediately precede or occur simultaneously that our "leaders" might not want you to focus on, because surrounding EVERY one of these shooting hoaxes lurk, of course a "DRILL", plus a story the government and their sock puppet media want very badly to deflect your attention away from. OH, and if you still haven't figured it out, the PTB (powers that be) WANT TO DISARM AMERICANS. PERIOD. That's the bottom line, and they have so many of these events prepped and ready to go when a story pops up that embarrasses them. Ever see the Help Wanted ads for "crises actors"? There are likely even some YouTube videos out there of crises actor training for some of these acts of THEATER. Here's another idea…since these idiots are sloppy seconds the govt uses to plan and carry out these debacles, research the victims and shooter. Sandy Hook was the ultimate in loose ends and holes through which a Boeing 747 could fly. The "victims" were part of Hollywood assembled families to whom the govt gave homes to in the area a year or two in advance, they've all mysteriously vanished from the area…ok there's so many problems with this story and I don't have all night. Go look it up. I DO want to sorrowfully inform you that one of the Sandy Hook victims was later murdered a second time in a similar hoax staged in the Middle East. You can look that one up as well. Ever notice that the "victim's" "loved ones" are immediately available and anxious to get in front of a TV camera? Like within minutes! They always speak of "forgiving" the shooter, are smiling and inappropriately happy and at least mention gun control at some point. Who does that? I don't know about you, but I would be inconsolable…a raging mess and in NO mood to forgive ANYONE, least of all the one who just murdered my loved one! What unfeeling robots write these crappy plays? Washington and Hollywood, the people that write the scripts for the crises actors AND FOR THE TV NEWS PEOPLE! The PWB use the "Higalean Dialect", which is: PROBLEM REACTION SOLUTION. Hence the stories are pre-written for the actors, but also for the media. Ask yourself: "What do the PTB wish me to believe is the solution, and how are they manipulating me to come to the same, or agree with their solution?" What is their solution? It's their ultimate goal…GUN CONTROL. Actually, their ultimate goal is total domination, but we are their stumbling block. Now you may think that's an awful lot of trouble to go to in terms of the years and money spent (and actual murdering of participants that started asking questions). But is it too much trouble? NO! Not if the PTB want to run everything. The biggest obstacle for them is actually GOD almighty. Nonetheless, they believe their biggest obstacle is you and me. All armed Americans, not to mention the dreaded trained former military that live among us…folks they know we outnumber them…by a long shot. (Pun intended.) I beseech you to WAKE UP! We need your help to take back our country from the treasonous, lying, murderous, pedophile, evil heathens trying to run the real USA into the ground. I say "real", because on Feb 21, 1871 those traitors that comprised congress illegally voted to start up the UNITED STATES (all caps), which is a corporation that took over and has done extreme damage to all, especially our brave mitary who have fought and died for this corporation in wars used as a front for their multi-trillion drug importation and sales. Any of these things I've mentioned one can find legitimate data to back up these truths. to which one can only say wow! how many Americans believe this stuff!!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 09 Oct 15 - 08:15 AM "One dead, three injured after shooting at university in Arizona" Today's headline from Reuters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 09 Oct 15 - 10:38 AM Q: How many Americans believe this stuff? A: Too fucking many. Wasn't there some discussion a while back about the accessibility of mental health services in the "Best Country In Yhe World"..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 09 Oct 15 - 12:59 PM How can any mental health service even begin to address a problem, if a mass of the population are experiencing the same delusional condition, share the same paranoid fantasy, and their society, including many politicians, accept it as their norm of reality...??? USA [and by extension.. the rest of the world] is f@cked !!!! 😨 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 09 Oct 15 - 06:04 PM Beats the hell outa me, rocker- but there you have it! Say it loud! We're dumb, delusional and proud! USA! USA! USA! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 09 Oct 15 - 06:17 PM Two shot, one dead at Texas Southern University today. I wouldn't have expected Texas to be left out. C'mon Florida, you can do it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 09 Oct 15 - 06:40 PM This is a kinda entertaining read (for the sort of person whose normal reading matter is Byzantine history and biographies of the Borgias): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States Satire just can't keep up, can it? http://htmlgiant.com/word-spaces/the-generations-of-america/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 09 Oct 15 - 07:54 PM And from NBC's report on the Texas shooting: Friday's shooting was the TSU's third this week. On Tuesday, a man was shot in the abdomen on a roadway that leads through the university. He was hospitalized in serious but stable condition. I suggest reading that article about Harper-Mercer's mother. She seems to have known everything there is to know about what it's like be shot in the guts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 10 Oct 15 - 03:30 PM youre really just going to have to live with it. so theres no point in discussing it. not if what guy says is right about there being 300 million guns in the USA. you could not possibly confiscate all those guns. and anyway, what about people who hid them and didn't give them up. its an impossible situation. lets face it. you're stuck with it. even if they brought in gun control at midnight tonight. you've got to be practical. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Bill D Date: 11 Oct 15 - 03:33 PM Practical means making a start somewhere........ if no more 'legal' fast-firing, large magazine weapons were available, and it was illegal to carry the ones that are already out there, that would be one step. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 11 Oct 15 - 03:44 PM well good luck with that! i reckon collecting up the first seven hundred thousand might be the toughest... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Ebbie Date: 11 Oct 15 - 06:21 PM Hmmmm An interesting experiment comes to mind: How about if furriners assure us USAians - repeatedly and loudly - that there is nothing we can do about our culture's fixation on guns. Would we then look about for ways that we *can* do it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 11 Oct 15 - 06:48 PM 300 million...its imponderable! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 11 Oct 15 - 07:50 PM How about if furriners assure us USAians - repeatedly and loudly - that there is nothing we can do about our culture's fixation on guns. Would we then look about for ways that we *can* do it? No. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Ebbie Date: 11 Oct 15 - 09:34 PM Ya sure? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 11 Oct 15 - 09:41 PM you collect the first 150 million i'll collect the other 150 million you first... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: MGM·Lion Date: 12 Oct 15 - 04:15 AM Not like the notoriously 'can-do' USA-ians to sound so hopeless as to their capabilities of achieving a desired end. Where there's a will there's a way... BUT what is missing is the Will -- the Desire -- for the End. Now stir yourselves and achieve this disarmament of the irresponsible, before yet-another significant %·age of your population gets massacred by yet-another trigger-happy ɷ·hole! Go on. Let's see-ya...! Can't do it? Yah-yah-yah -- how pathetic! ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: MGM·Lion Date: 12 Oct 15 - 04:28 AM It's going to be a long-term thing, to be sure. Just a suggestion:- How about legislating that all firearms must be licensed by a competent body after a rigorous process of application [like here in the UK]; every unlicensed weapon to be handed in within a reasonable period -- say 6 months: after which possession of an unlicensed weapon would become a federal offence punishable by a 10 year sentence? Something along those lines might just work. Why not give it a whirl? ≈M≈ Now come on -- let's hear all the reasons why such a process couldn't possibly work in the freedom-loving USofA... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: MGM·Lion Date: 12 Oct 15 - 07:12 AM ... and, to pre-empt an obvious potential objection, the owner of every weapon thus surrendered to be compensated by refund of its full market value. Would be worth every penny, would it not?, in terms of public safety and lives saved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 12 Oct 15 - 08:31 AM think about it Mike....300 million not 300 thousand.....not 3 million....not 30 million... it would make prohibition or stopping the drug trade be like a logistical doodle.. think of poor Erskine Childers executed for being in possession of a gun. i think you would have many willing martyrs to this cause. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Raggytash Date: 12 Oct 15 - 08:48 AM I know this is a long shot, a very long shot in fact but if a few people voluntarily handed their weapons in, then maybe a few more may be tempted to do the same and it may snowball a little and then it may snowball some more and when enough people have handed their weapons over, perhaps, just perhaps there may be a sufficient number of people against holding weapons that the state could legislate against guns being held by individuals. Like I said a long shot but you have to start somewhere otherwise we will continue to read of these frequent massacres. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: MGM·Lion Date: 12 Oct 15 - 08:57 AM Childers was wilfully & perversely caught up in the Irish troubles which followed the Easter Rising for years. Can't see what possible relevance you imagine, Al, that his fate has to this kingsize rod·for·its·own back which America has permitted itself to become subject to. If the #s involved have evolved to such a level of apparent unmanageability, then it is surely up to those of goodwill to stop throwing up their ☞·☜ in helpless horror and find some way out of this intolerable impasse in which they have become nationally embroiled. Or else they can go on mowing one another down like there's no tomorrow. Won't make the remotest difference to me -- so long as none of my many dear friends and relations over there are among the inevitable rollcall of victims. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 12 Oct 15 - 09:57 AM Ya sure? Absolutely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: MGM·Lion Date: 12 Oct 15 - 10:05 AM Why not, Greg? Honest, now... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 12 Oct 15 - 10:40 AM I am going to repeat this (deleted by some gun-nut mod). Some US states have a law that no convicted sex offender is allowed within a certain distance of a school. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8110356.stm Gun owners are a far worse risk to kids than perverts. So how about proposing a law to restrict their movements in a similar way? It wouldn't get passed, but floating the idea would send the right message: they're ALL creepy weirdos who could kill at any time. And yes, I include all the Mudcatters who've put themselves in that category. I know who a few of you are and I never intend to be in the same room with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 12 Oct 15 - 03:11 PM Why not, Greg? Honest, now... History. And precedent. Look up what Robert Kennedy was proposing a week before he was gunned down. And that was LONG before the NRA went off the reservation .... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Ebbie Date: 12 Oct 15 - 10:01 PM Raggytash's suggestion makes me think of the Ice Bucket fad. ?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 12 Oct 15 - 10:07 PM http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Man-on-far-North-Side-mistakes-wife-for-intruder-6563251.php Yep. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Joe Offer Date: 13 Oct 15 - 06:43 AM I live in an area where I'm surrounded by gun fanatics. A couple years ago, four new cars at the local Chevrolet dealer were damaged by gunshots. In a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, I said it seemed to be a situation of too many people owning too many guns. In letters of response, I was told I ought to move out of the county if I didn't like guns. The language in the letters was more than a little bit scary. I've had guns pointed at me three times in my lifetime - always by so-called "righteous" people, never by "bad guys." We don't need to worry about criminals as much as we think - it's the righteous people we need to look out for. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 13 Oct 15 - 07:09 AM Maybe some more progressive church leaders could start a national "God says no to guns" Campaign... "There are no guns in the bible" "No entry to heaven if you're packing" "The Devil welcomes careless shooters" etc etc etc [more at TeeShirtSlogansRus.com] See if the big beardy old man in the sky's disapproval makes any difference.... 😇 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Wesley S Date: 13 Oct 15 - 08:44 AM And "Heaven is a gun free zone"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 14 Oct 15 - 10:18 AM There was a great suggestion on Facebook about how to get the gun thing in America under control. Require that all gun owners carry liability insurance. The insurance industry would have the gun industry by the short and curlies in less than a year, second amendment notwithstanding. I think it's a brilliant idea and worthy of consideration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Ebbie Date: 14 Oct 15 - 05:27 PM I agree, Guest #. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:27 PM These people shoot an American a week with complete legal impunity: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:37 PM bloody hell !!! where's Mary Poppins when the Yanks really need her...!!!??? 😬 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:41 PM Require that all gun owners carry liability insurance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:20 PM Would also help to require that Republican Senators and Congressmen have an IQ above 12. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: frogprince Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:35 PM Guns don't kill people, Toddlers kill people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 19 Oct 15 - 09:29 AM And again: guns in the house? This is what you will end up with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 21 Oct 15 - 08:11 AM Florida excels itself with two in a couple of days: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/19/florida-shooting-zombie-con-police-suspect I haven't seen any followup to the reports that there was a Christian picket of the event immediately before the shooting. Anybody local know what church was involved and if they have a record of sectarian violence? And Florida extends its open season on blacks: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/20/us/florida-officer-shooting/index.html http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/21/corey-jones-shooting-officer-involved-had-previous-suspension-threat Having a gun did a lot to protect Jones, didn't it? About as useful as it was to this cop in Minnesota: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/18/us/minnesota-deputy-killed/ At least the toddlers aren't getting it all their own way: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/21/us/child-road-rage-death/index.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST, ^*^ Date: 21 Oct 15 - 10:47 AM A Texas woman was just blown away with a shotgun at 4am in her home when her husband heard movement in the living room and fired without saying anything or turning on a light. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Richard Bridge Date: 21 Oct 15 - 10:54 AM Darwin? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,mg Date: 21 Oct 15 - 06:12 PM I was in Oregon when this happened...I live close by...and we can not go into a store in this area without thinking of it because a local brand of ice cream is Umpqua from there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Jack Campin Date: 21 Oct 15 - 06:46 PM I see the gun-nut mod has gone berserk again. I have posted several news links to related manifestations of US gun culture over the last few days - they have been deleted and so have responses by people like "#" and Peter Laban (all agreeing with me as far as I could see). Whoever you are, you gutless anonymous twat, fuck you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Bill D Date: 21 Oct 15 - 07:41 PM Some are trying.... http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/10/15/california-official-to-propose-background-checks-for-ammunition-purchase.html The NRA, of course, claims the "slippery slope" defense It is slow, but wheels ARE turning... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 21 Oct 15 - 09:24 PM Jack, the last post I made to this thread was Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:41 PM so I suspect it was a troll doing an impersonation. I do agree with you btw, but I choose to express my views in a different manner. My thoughts have pretty much been concerned with the Canadian election recently and the few breaks I took from that dealt with other things on Mudcat. I think that the deleted posts were because it was a troll. I know a few of the moderators and truth be told they are not as nefarious as some folks think. In fact, they are really good people and we are fortunate to have them. Best wishes to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 22 Oct 15 - 04:25 AM My few posts to this thread are still there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 28 Oct 15 - 12:40 PM Interesting Article Here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,bitsey Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:25 AM " it's the righteous people we need to look out for." Exactly. Ribhteous people who hate guns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Charlie Date: 14 Nov 15 - 06:41 AM "France outlaws most gun ownership and it's almost impossible to legally acquire a high-powered rifle such as an AK-47, so where did the weapons in the Nov. 13 terror attack—not to mention the bloody January assault by Islamic terrorists on the Paris office of Charlie Hebdo magazine and the 2012 shootings by a militant in Toulouse— come from?" Getting rid of guns does not solve anything. It makes matters worse because people are unable to defend themselves. Killers will get guns no matter what even if they have to make them. Remember zip guns? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 14 Nov 15 - 09:10 AM Last post compliments of Dr. Batshit Crazy, or his campaign organizers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Rapparee Date: 14 Nov 15 - 09:50 AM Guess what? You can get a gun anywhere if you know the right people and are willing to pay enough. Strip a gun and ship the components. Would you know a sear if you saw one? Or a trigger spring from any other spring? Or hide the entire weapon in a cargo of pipes, or inside a bag of cement. Or have a machine shop available and build it -- the plans are available. Or use one left over from one of the many wars. As for self-defense, that's a specious argument. First, the baddies have to fire first (it's just not done to shoot someone because you think he or she might be a bad 'un). Secondly, it you're armed you're the first target. Thirdly, unless you've been in actual, blood-and-brains-on-the-ground combat you have no idea how you will react when someone is shooting at you with the intent to kill. Fourthly, the police or military will be shooting anyone who is "not one of us" who has a gun. And you will get this thread closed if you keep using it as a mouthpiece for your views. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Backwoodsman Date: 14 Nov 15 - 01:36 PM Absolutely spot-on Rap. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Lighter Date: 14 Nov 15 - 04:57 PM Rap is 100% correct. However, Donald Trump insists that with laxer gun laws in Paris, "the situation would have been very different." And Newt Gingrich warns that every American who can get a permit to carry had better start doing so - before it's too late. So who ya gonna believe? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 14 Nov 15 - 06:10 PM Unfortunately, there are millions of idiots who WILL believe Trump & preety soon we'll have the O.K Corral redux all across the U.S. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Batshit Crazy Date: 14 Nov 15 - 10:28 PM "You don't need an AR-15." "Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Charlie Date: 17 Nov 15 - 02:35 PM "Gun owners are a far worse risk to kids than perverts." Howso? Please explain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST Date: 17 Nov 15 - 03:21 PM Shotgun 20 inch police barrel and 00 buck, that's my home security system |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST Date: 17 Nov 15 - 03:30 PM If you want a real saw off shotgun just spend 200 bucks for the tax stamp then you can cut it any size legally |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Backwoodsman Date: 17 Nov 15 - 03:41 PM There's your answer, Charlie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Charlie Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:54 PM I prefer a 50 cal ala rambo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST Date: 17 Nov 15 - 05:25 PM 12. 33 caliber pellets, attacker problem solved |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,raggytash Date: 17 Nov 15 - 06:59 PM You guys are crazy!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 18 Nov 15 - 12:36 AM Wish I still had my Johnny Seven O.M.A ...💥 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Stim Date: 18 Nov 15 - 04:13 PM Guns don't actually protect you-if they did, no one would ever die in combat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 18 Nov 15 - 05:23 PM Guns don't kill people, wars kill people...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Stim Date: 19 Nov 15 - 10:46 AM There are lots of things that people use to kill other people. A lot of people seem to object to the guns, rather than the killing. In the bloodiest battle in history, Hannibal's assault on Canae, something akin to 70,000 lives were lost in a single day. And not a gun in sight. The most murderous single act in history, the destruction of the dikes on the Yellow River on June 5 and June 7 in 1938 is claimed to have resulted in 900,000 deaths. The dikes were destroyed with explosives, and water did the rest. The 1-2 million killed in the Rwandan Genocide were mostly dispatched with machetes. I could go on. That said, I don't think that guns should be left out so that toddlers can kill their family members, that people should be allowed to shoot up Chevy Dealerships, or that, as seems to be happening in Enid, Oklahoma, people should drive around shooting windows out of passing cars There seems to be a sentiment here that "gun control" will solve everything, but the common element in all of these atrocities is not gun ownership, it is a willful, murderous intent, and gun legislation doesn't regulate that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Backwoodsman Date: 19 Nov 15 - 01:54 PM But it makes it far more difficult for those of wilful, murderous intent to have the means to carry out that intent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Stim Date: 20 Nov 15 - 10:01 AM My point above was that it is not that difficult to find other options. I don't have time to pull up and link the sources for this and I probably shouldn't mention it, but... In the US, the majority of shooting deaths are suicides. One sad thing that the US and the UK share is that we have very similar suicide rates. In the UK, perhaps because guns are less available, hanging is the preferred means. Again, I am not a gun rights person, I am just saying that the simple solutions are not going to solve the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Ericka Bernabe Date: 25 Nov 15 - 09:43 PM "More people die from gun violence in America than anything else and that is what we should take more seriously." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,# Date: 26 Nov 15 - 12:23 AM Guest,Ericka Bernabe: "More people die from gun violence in America than anything else and that is what we should take more seriously." Too many people die from gun violence would be a more accurate statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,🔫 Date: 26 Nov 15 - 08:03 AM Too many people die from ignorance and stupidity violence would be a more accurate statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Joe B. Date: 26 Nov 15 - 11:04 AM "The Supreme Court has ruled that it's an individual right. It is not a corporate right. It is not related to a well-established militia, a well-regulated militia. But it also has ruled that it is constitutional to own a gun individually for purposes of sporting, hunting, and/or self-defense... It is an individual right, but it is also clear constitutionally that the government can limit the type of weapon you can own. For example, if the idea was to be able to repel a tyrannical government, then you should be able to own an F-15 if you have the money to buy it, with full ordnance. But you're not allowed to do that, and the court says you can deny certain weapons available for individual ownership. You can't have a nuclear bomb. So it is an individual right. You have a right for self-defense against any intruder or any illegal activity being perpetrated on you, and for your physical self-defense... Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door. Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming. We can argue whether that's true or not, but it is no argument that, for example, a shotgun could do the same job of protecting you. Now, granted, you can come back and say, Well, a machine gun could do a better job of protecting me. No one's arguing we should make machine guns legal." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Greg F. Date: 26 Nov 15 - 12:44 PM No one's arguing we should make machine guns legal. The NRA is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Bill D Date: 26 Nov 15 - 06:52 PM Way back in Oct., McGrath said: "Whatever the 2nd amendment means, if Americans wanted to change it, they could. " I was answering various points back then, somehow I missed a direct reply to that..(although I answered it in other places.) I will state that McGrath's remark is technically true, but trivially so. *IF* enough people in enough states elected enough of the 'right' legislators, we could have either a constitutional convention or have an amendment proposed to change things. from this site:http://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp "How is the Constitution amended?" Article V of the Constitution prescribes how an amendment can become a part of the Constitution. While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment. The other method of passing an amendment requires a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states." Note: This is after and IF we elect the legislators who will introduce the amendment at all! Before that, we have to solve the Gerrymandering of Congressional districts that keep electing Conservatives even when more liberals live in the state. Someone said "money talks", and it talks very loudly when those who already have too many guns are spending more money to make sure they can buy MORE guns. ... and still I can't quite get the idea across that amending a vague 250 year old rule to make sense is very clearly NOT what gun owners and manufacturers want!! (If you are in the gun business, you need a mentality that says "everyone needs more guns!" even when there are already too many guns. Guns don't decay or mold and go bad... so there is no simple, automatic mechanism for a continuing need.) They are using the rules to make sure the rules are not amended! The Supreme Court? 'Maybe' if we get a 7-2 liberal court someday... that is, 7 justices who are willing to risk their own lives and deal with an uprising of today's brand of militias who already have enough guns to start a war....add to this the simplistic idea that recent increases in gun violence means we all 'need' guns for self-defense and.............. gee, I hope I don't have to repeat all this again when someone says "but if you Americans really wanted to change..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Backwoodsman Date: 27 Nov 15 - 07:45 AM But if you Americans really wanted to change...... 😜😄😉 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,American Date: 28 Nov 15 - 06:17 AM "You Americans" What stereotype are you? I dont own a gun. Am i still included? Perhaps you are a stereotypical gun hater that stereotypes others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: Backwoodsman Date: 28 Nov 15 - 06:32 AM For fuck's sake! I was pulling BillD's leg by repeating his last senrence! Back the fuck off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent... From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 02 Dec 15 - 03:04 PM With sincere sympathy to the families involved. But when are you guys going to learn. Please. |
