Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

[BirkenheadBlue]

Lets ignore the deaths caused or saved for a moment. Do you think that someone giving up a legally purchased item to the government for disposal is entitled to adequate compensation? There's an estimated 250 million.

Think it's closer to 300 million.

And honestly, in this sort of situation where it's for the demonstrable good of society as a whole? That's literally the last thing id be concerned about.

But if people REALLY needed a financial incentive to make society safer (though I thought right wingers weren't terribly keen on government handouts?) then I'm sure something could be arranged along those lines. Possibly write off the value of the guns against future taxes or something similar.

And you know, let's NOT ignore the deaths caused or saved.

Do you or do you not believe that if a tota ban on private ownership of guns was instigated, that the frankly staggering total of ~30,000 gun deaths per annum would drop? Or that the number of mass shootings/spree killings would drop?

If your answer is yes, that really ought to be the end of the argument.

 

[bring the ghost on]

Lets ignore the deaths caused or saved for a moment. Do you think that someone giving up a legally purchased item to the government for disposal is entitled to adequate compensation? There's an estimated 250 million.

When the US Govt spends billions on defence, 250 mill sounds like a steal, probs the best 250 mill it will ever spend.

 

[neil999]

I'm not opposed to making it harder, nor am I saying there isn't a problem. But a complete ban as proposed by some isn't the answer. What is the right answer? I'm honest enough to say buggered if I know.

Start by banning future sales of assault weapons, agree big problem with people who already legally own them

 

[dandydan]

Think it's closer to 300 million.

And honestly, in this sort of situation where it's for the demonstrable good of society as a whole? That's literally the last thing id be concerned about.

But if people REALLY needed a financial incentive to make society safer (though I thought right wingers weren't terribly keen on government handouts?) then I'm sure something could be arranged along those lines. Possibly write off the value of the guns against future taxes or something similar.

And you know, let's NOT ignore the deaths caused or saved.

Do you or do you not believe that if a tota ban on private ownership of guns was instigated, that the frankly staggering total of ~30,000 gun deaths per annum would drop? Or that the number of mass shootings/spree killings would drop?

If your answer is yes, that really ought to be the end of the argument.

It's not a hand out is a fair payment for their property. Which would cost a lot of money given the price of a cheap pistol being $500 and you would stop most spree killings but the murder rate would still be stupidly high. Again ignoring the the rift in American society such a move would bring.

 

[tsubaki]

If your answer is yes, that really ought to be the end of the argument.

That is the thing though; I am not sure that it is necessarily all about (or even mostly about) the availability of legally held guns.

There are countries that have a high degree of firearms ownership (albeit not as high as the US) but which still don't have the problems that the Yanks have, which would suggest that the causes for the high level of deaths (and especially the high level of spree killings) are rather more complex than just the availability of firearms.

(edit) If you want to look at cost-effective means of bringing the murder rate down, ending the war on drugs would almost certainly be a lot better than banning and then going after assault weapons would.

 

[dandydan]

When the US Govt spends billions on defence, 250 mill sounds like a steal, probs the best 250 mill it will ever spend.

250 million guns. The going rate for a pistol is $500 plus. That's a lot of money that has to come from somewhere.

 

[SNova]

As for people handing their guns over. Criminals would not be the ones handing them in and therefore you would be disarming the law abiding.

When it's something you disagree with, it's Big Government Interference, but when it's compulsory national service, you're happy for the nanny state to exist?

I don't want to do National Service, do you respect my freedom to choose?

It's just a small opinion that I hold, I'm too tired to be arguing over it though mate.

 

[RaleighBlue]

That is the thing though; I am not sure that it is necessarily all about (or even mostly about) the availability of legally held guns.

There are countries that have a high degree of firearms ownership (albeit not as high as the US) but which still don't have the problems that the Yanks have, which would suggest that the causes for the high level of deaths (and especially the high level of spree killings) are rather more complex than just the availability of firearms.

Well yes.

We are a broken society. That's obvious enough. That doesn't mean we should be armed.

Fixing America's social problems is a bit of a Herculean task. Start with wealth disparity, hundreds of years of systemic racism, fundamentally flawed electoral systems, nightmarish education disparity, for-profit post-secondary education, for-profit healthcare, and just about every other way a deck can be stacked to keep the powerful in power...

Gun control is a step on a long, long road to reform. Just because the journey is hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be started (in fact you should start as soon as possible!).

 

[tsubaki]

Well yes.

We are a broken society. That's obvious enough. That doesn't mean we should be armed.

Fixing America's social problems is a bit of a Herculean task. Start with wealth disparity, hundreds of years of systemic racism, fundamentally flawed electoral systems, nightmarish education disparity, for-profit post-secondary education, for-profit healthcare, and just about every other way a deck can be stacked to keep the powerful in power...

Gun control is a step on a long, long road to reform. Just because the journey is hard doesn't mean it should be started (in fact you should start as soon as possible!).

I agree with all the middle paragraph - but surely you should be disarmed after all that has been sorted out, and not before?

 

[dandydan]

Start by banning future sales of assault weapons, agree big problem with people who already legally own them

That would cause uproar but might help, however in a small place like a nightclub a few pistols will still be enough to cause carnage. Smaller capacity magazines? With practice you could change one as quick as it takes to read this post. Like I've been saying there's no easy answer to Americas problem.

 

[RaleighBlue]

I agree with all the middle paragraph - but surely you should be disarmed after all that has been sorted out, and not before?

People are dying today.

And a lot of that middle paragraph will be even harder to move than gun control. Capitalism (unrestricted) is our essence. It will be very hard to move the meter away.

Socialist is considered an epithet.

 

[The Esk]

The idea that because criminals have guns it is a justification for the public to possess guns is completely ludicrous. As I said earlier, the politicians must assist the executive, and not lay down to the demands of the lobbyists.

It requires the same moral fibre and courage that eventually abolished the slave trade. It's an inconvenient truth that the right to possess a weapon is killing hundreds of innocent people year in year out - it's time to abolish that right and accept that the role of law enforcement and public safety lies in the hands of the law enforcement organisations not the individual.

 

[dandydan]

The idea that because criminals have guns it is a justification for the public to possess guns is completely ludicrous. As I said earlier, the politicians must assist the executive, and not lay down to the demands of the lobbyists.

It requires the same moral fibre and courage that eventually abolished the slave trade. It's an inconvenient truth that the right to possess a weapon is killing hundreds of innocent people year in year out - it's time to abolish that right and accept that the role of law enforcement and public safety lies in the hands of the law enforcement organisations not the individual.

In Americas case the criminals are well armed though. Should you ban guns could that lead to a lot of litigation from previous gun owners robbed by armed criminals?

 

[The Esk]

In Americas case the criminals are well armed though. Should you ban guns could that lead to a lot of litigation from previous gun owners robbed by armed criminals?

If you remove the right to hold arms what litigation is then possible?

 

[dandydan]

If you remove the right to hold arms what litigation is then possible?

The government removed my right to defend my property?