Mass shooting Las Vegas, Oct. 2. 2017

[StringJunky]

14 minutes ago, Juno said:

Hang on, so you're saying there are actually places in the US where the police will not actually go?  And you think the UK is the country that's in danger of a breakdown in civil society?  Can you see how bizarre that sounds from a country that doesn't have guns everywhere?

The thing is when one is in the grip of insanity one doesn't know one is insane.

[DrP]

16 minutes ago, Juno said:

Hang on, so you're saying there are actually places in the US where the police will not actually go?  And you think the UK is the country that's in danger of a breakdown in civil society?  Can you see how bizarre that sounds from a country that doesn't have guns everywhere?

lol - It does sound crazy when you put it like that. Maybe someone has given him some fake news and he believed it. 

 

 

[Juno]

Ah, hang on guys, I've just noticed the double negative in his post - he's saying that there are no "no-go zones" in the US.  In which case, it looks like his argument is "if there were places in the US where the police won't go, like you have in the UK, then I'd bloody well want a gun".  Which would make more sense if only he wasn't sadly misinformed about the state of things in the UK.  

[DrP]

18 minutes ago, Juno said:

Ah, hang on guys, I've just noticed the double negative in his post - he's saying that there are no "no-go zones" in the US.  In which case, it looks like his argument is "if there were places in the US where the police won't go, like you have in the UK, then I'd bloody well want a gun".  Which would make more sense if only he wasn't sadly misinformed about the state of things in the UK.  

yea - I've seen this before with people I have spoken to from the USA...  when there was a riot in London a few years back an American girl asked me on a forum if I was alright and safe.....  she said that the government was falling and this was it, the revolution!...    I informed her that a some chavs had stolen a few pairs of Nike trainers from the shop and that was a bout it...  it fizzled out. She wouldn't have and told me that this was it...  the end of society in the UK. lol.

Again - I guess it keeps people docile, like religion, to feed them lies about the state of other similar countries so they do not feel so hard done by putting up with the government they have - who knows how people get such twisted views of far off places they have never been to.

[Juno]

19 minutes ago, DrP said:

Again - I guess it keeps people docile, like religion, to feed them lies about the state of other similar countries so they do not feel so hard done by putting up with the government they have - who knows how people get such twisted views of far off places they have never been to.

Although it does make me wonder whether those very people are sitting on the other side of the pond wondering how we all have such a twisted picture of the gun problem when the large majority of gun owners in the US aren't mass murderers... all a matter of perspective and from their perspective it isn't a problem.

[DrP]

1 minute ago, Juno said:

Although it does make me wonder whether those very people are sitting on the other side of the pond wondering how we all have such a twisted picture of the gun problem when the large majority of gun owners in the US aren't mass murderers... all a matter of perspective and from their perspective it isn't a problem.

Good point - but we believe that because it is on the news all of the time...  (is it fake news?). Every day there is a gun shooting somewhere - thousands per year! Unless I have my 'facts' wrong I was lead to believe that it was a real issue causing many many lives to be lost on a weekly basis. Are you saying the loss of thousands of American lives is not a problem?  ;-)

[Juno]

8 minutes ago, DrP said:

Good point - but we believe that because it is on the news all of the time...  (is it fake news?). Every day there is a gun shooting somewhere - thousands per year! Unless I have my 'facts' wrong I was lead to believe that it was a real issue causing many many lives to be lost on a weekly basis. Are you saying the loss of thousands of American lives is not a problem?  ;-)

It's quite terrifying when you look at the numbers.  US has, broadly speaking, five times the population of the UK.  In 2013, there were 33,636 firearms related deaths in the US, and 144 in the UK.  Taking out the suicides (not that I'm sure that disregarding those is necessarily the right thing to do but for present purposes it seemed to make sense), that leaves 12,302 in the US and 38 in the UK.  (Figures taken from http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region).

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, Juno said:

It's quite terrifying when you look at the numbers.

Disconcerting even when viewed per capita / controlled for population:

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

     

 

[StringJunky]

11 minutes ago, Juno said:

It's quite terrifying when you look at the numbers.  US has, broadly speaking, five times the population of the UK.  In 2013, there were 33,636 firearms related deaths in the US, and 144 in the UK.  Taking out the suicides (not that I'm sure that disregarding those is necessarily the right thing to do but for present purposes it seemed to make sense), that leaves 12,302 in the US and 38 in the UK.  (Figures taken from http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region).

From those numbers: in the US, in 5 hours time, 7 people will be shot dead. We''ll have to wait 9 days before someone is shot dead in the UK.

[Airbrush]

36 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

From those numbers: in the US, in 5 hours time, 7 people will be shot dead. We''ll have to wait 9 days before someone is shot dead in the UK.

That is misleading because the US population (327 million) is much larger than UK (65 million).  Tell us per unit number, like per million.

https://www.census.gov/popclock/country_print.php?FIPS=uk

[iNow]

^hence my post above

[MigL]

Don't get me wrong Swans, I don't think B Obama was a bad president; On the contrary, he was exactly what the US needed at the time.

And obviously you know a lot more about new legislation in the US, but it seems that a moron like D Trump can do the things that are important to him ( or make him look good ) by Executive Order, but B Obama was stifled at every turn by a contrary Congress.
 Why couldn't B Obama issue an EO to the ATF, so that anyone selling firearms, without the required checks, be fined ? Or more strictly enforcing magazine capacities, conversions from semi-auto to automatic fire, ammunition purchases, etc. ?
These and other similar measures would, I believe. keep a deranged person from carrying more than a dozen semi-automatic rifles, and ammunition clips, into the 32nd floor of a busy hotel.

So, either B Obama didn't care enough ( like every other president before him ), after multiple mass-shootings under his watch, or I don't have Executive Orders figured out quite yet

[Ten oz]

38 minutes ago, MigL said:

Don't get me wrong Swans, I don't think B Obama was a bad president; On the contrary, he was exactly what the US needed at the time.

And obviously you know a lot more about new legislation in the US, but it seems that a moron like D Trump can do the things that are important to him ( or make him look good ) by Executive Order, but B Obama was stifled at every turn by a contrary Congress.
 Why couldn't B Obama issue an EO to the ATF, so that anyone selling firearms, without the required checks, be fined ? Or more strictly enforcing magazine capacities, conversions from semi-auto to automatic fire, ammunition purchases, etc. ?
These and other similar measures would, I believe. keep a deranged person from carrying more than a dozen semi-automatic rifles, and ammunition clips, into the 32nd floor of a busy hotel.

So, either B Obama didn't care enough ( like every other president before him ), after multiple mass-shootings under his watch, or I don't have Executive Orders figured out quite yet

What required checks? Which existing laws are you referencing? Via EO POTUS selectively enforce and or alter the enforcement standard for existing laws but a President cannot create new law via EOs. Besides 2nd Amendment is a constitutional matter. Even legislation brought about through the normal Congressional process are challenged in federal court. You are criticizing Obama for not doing something he had no authority to do. Any such attempt would have resulted in impeachment. 

[John Cuthber]

7 hours ago, scherado said:

I will use three words:

No Go Zones.

Do you mean this "story"?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/12/fox-news-expert-ridiculed-over-birmingham-is-totally-muslim-city-claims

 

[scherado]

4 hours ago, Juno said:

Hang on, so you're saying there are actually places in the US where the police will not actually go?  And you think the UK is the country that's in danger of a breakdown in civil society?  Can you see how bizarre that sounds from a country that doesn't have guns everywhere?

No. I apologize for the lack of clarity. The no-go zones to which I refer are in Europe and I first heard the term in reference to a few hundred places in France, but there are, as far as I know, some in Britain and Sweden and, possibly Germany and Belgium. I wrote above that if there are some eventually in the USA, the that would mark the time when those who sit around polishing their bullets--not literally, but you get the idea--that will mark the time when the American patriot might get off his armchair. That, I have decided, will be the time that I will abandon what's left of my "supermarket life" and save the country, seriously.

[John Cuthber]

2 minutes ago, scherado said:

The no-go zones to which I refer are in Europe and I first heard the term in reference to a few hundred places in France, but there are, as far as I know, some in Britain and Sweden and, possibly Germany and Belgium.

https://xkcd.com/285/

Because, if you can't find real evidence of "go go" zones in Europe, but such zones exist in the US, you might wonder why.

 

One possible reason is that  in sensible countries, you don't let all the criminals have guns.
If the police here in the UK want to go somewhere, they do; if they think there's going to be trouble, they go armed.

 

 

[scherado]

Just now, John Cuthber said:

Do you mean this "story"?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/12/fox-news-expert-ridiculed-over-birmingham-is-totally-muslim-city-claims

 

I do not mean that story, though I have not looked at it. How is it I know? The term "no go zones" were first given to the many areas of France that Sharia law supplants French law and law enforcement and fire/rescue might not go. I've never known anyone who has been to one to give an eyewitness account.

The ones that may be in Britain, Sweden Germany or Belgium, on those I have no information and have no interest.

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

but such zones exist in the US, you might wonder why.

I made it clear in the post above yours that I know of NO no-go zones in USA, though there are places where I personally would not go, which is something entirely different.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, scherado said:

I made it clear in the post above yours that I know of NO no-go zones in USA, though there are places where I personally would not go, which is something entirely different.

I am sure that people in the UK, France, Belgium, Sweden, etc would say exactly the same thing about their countries.

[John Cuthber]

1 minute ago, scherado said:

The term "no go zones" were first given to the many areas of France that Sharia law supplants French law and law enforcement and fire/rescue might not go

I think you will find that the French would have used their language, rather than ours. Your claim is just silly.

1 minute ago, scherado said:

The ones that may be in Britain, Sweden Germany or Belgium, on those I have no information and have no interest.

Thank you for clarifying that you have no interest in the truth. 
You have said that because of teh no-go zones in teh UK we will regret our lack of privately owned guns.

But you also say you don't know anything about those zones and can't provide evidence for them.

It may be just me who thinks this, but if that's how helpful you are going to be, why don't you just leave?

[Strange]

Regarding the argument that allowing people to carry guns can reduce the danger when some crazy guy (and/or terrorist) starts shooting people, as there is a mass shooting almost everyday in the USA there should be some good statistical data to support (or otherwise) this argument.

So, of all the cases of mass shootings, how many were much less serious than they would have been because a member of the public was carrying a weapon? 10%? 50%? 90%?

[scherado]

2 hours ago, Airbrush said:

That is misleading because the US population (327 million) is much larger than UK (65 million).  Tell us per unit number, like per million.

Have you ever seen what a woman's face looks like after an acid attack? I have seen pictures. Do you know how many acid attacks have been committed in London since the first one occurred? Some give the number over 1000. The exact number doesn't matter much.

I don't know whether acid attacks are worse than the Muslim child sex grooming/rape gangs in Liverpool, Rochdale and Birmingham, where the number may be as high as 6000 over 5 years.

25 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I think you will find that the French would have used their language, rather than ours. Your claim is just silly.

29 minutes ago, scherado said:

The ones that may be in Britain, Sweden Germany or Belgium, on those I have no information and have no interest.

Thank you for clarifying that you have no interest in the truth. 
You have said that because of teh no-go zones in teh UK we will regret our lack of privately owned guns.

But you also say you don't know anything about those zones and can't provide evidence for them.

It may be just me who thinks this, but if that's how helpful you are going to be, why don't you just leave?

Welcome as the first today to be added to my ignore list. Congratulations! (Well, that didn't work. I was not permitted. Silly me. I'll just have to ignore you the old-fashioned way. Welcome to my personal bleep list.)

Edited October 3, 2017 by scherado

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, scherado said:

Welcome as the first today to be added to my ignore list. Congratulations!

It used to be a rather exclusive club but they let anyone in now.

4 minutes ago, scherado said:

Have you ever seen what a woman's face looks like after an acid attack?

Can you spell "straw man"?

[John Cuthber]

22 minutes ago, scherado said:

Have you ever seen what a woman's face looks like after an acid attack? " Do you know how many acid attacks have been committed in London since the first one occurred? Some give the number over 1000. The exact number doesn't matter much.

"Have you ever seen what a woman's face looks like after an acid attack?"

No, I haven't and neither have you, as you say

"I have seen pictures."

"Do you know how many acid attacks have been committed in London since the first one occurred?"

No, I don't know, and neither do you- as you say "Some give the number over 1000."

"The exact number doesn't matter much."

In a  thread about mass shooting, that's the first bit you have got nearly right.

 

But here's a heartening thought. The government just announced that it plans to do something about it by restricting sales of acid.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/03/18s-will-banned-buying-acid-amber-rudd-announces/

That's because most people don't need access to sulphuric acid very often (and under 18s don't need it at all). Now, just as soon as the people of the US realise that the same applies to guns, these mass shootings might slow down a bit.

Like they did in Australia.

 

BTW, feel free to ignore me. But, if you don't respond to valid points, you are not taking part in a discussion (instead, you are soap-boxing) and you will get banned.

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by John Cuthber

[MigL]

Again, Ten oz , I'm not criticizing B Obama; Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm just exploring possibilities that a sensible president might have enacted ( as opposed to the current ).
Obviously I have EO and the scope of your laws wrong. My apologies.

[CharonY]

50 minutes ago, MigL said:

Again, Ten oz , I'm not criticizing B Obama; Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm just exploring possibilities that a sensible president might have enacted ( as opposed to the current ).
Obviously I have EO and the scope of your laws wrong. My apologies.

Just to give you an idea regarding the scope of potential EOs regarding gun control, Obama has signed an EO to make it mandatory for the Social Security Administration to put information on mentally ill recipients of social security benefits on record. These would then show up on background checks. As you can see, navigating the issue just by affecting how regulations are enforced is quite complicated. However, it is not entirely impossible but requires leveraging existing rules and regulations in potentially creative ways. For example, it is not possible to make regular mental health record accessible for background checks. Rather, the patient has to be in the social security system where SSA rules can be enforced.

Also, that EO was reversed by a House resolution signed by Trump.

Edited October 3, 2017 by CharonY