Can one good king teach Greyblades some reading comprehension?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
What can a British monarch currently do? Nothing.
Printable View
Can one good king teach Greyblades some reading comprehension?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
What can a British monarch currently do? Nothing.
Beyond triggering a minor civil war? Seriously the queen is so popular among those who identify themselves as royalists that if she told them parliament was corrupt and needed to be overthrown a number of the less than smart ones would probably try. And that's even ignoring the amount of damage she could cause to British relations if she purposely messed up a royal visit. Besides, you didn't say the British monarch you said one good king vs one good gun, and I have yet to hear of a country that exists only due to one good gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
And this is useful how exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
What other king would I be discussing when talking to brits about the usefulness their monarchy? King of Swaziland?Quote:
Besides, you didn't say the British monarch you said one good king vs one good gun, and I have yet to hear of a country that exists only due to one good gun.
Do you know what the Queen and PM discuss at their weekly meetings? I don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Do you think no politician ever listens? I think it highly unlikely.
~:smoking:
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Listen? They might or they might not. Politicians are not required to follow the wishes of the monarch. Their mind might just as well be swayed on an issue by a photo of a crying baby or a particularly sappy movie. Or the sound of a rifle discharge.Quote:
Do you think no politician ever listens? I think it highly unlikely.
How useful something is depends on your point of view, assume the hypothetical situation of a tyrannical government, what's more useful to a rebel? A figurehead who inspires a number of people into resisting, or one good gun? And the inverse, what is more useful to a tyrannical president, a popular figure head who can persuade people to keep calm and carry on, or one good gun? Even to the average person on the street trying to get on with his life, what is more useful to them, a person who matters like a king who at least appears to sympathize with the problems of people like him, or a good gun?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The very concept of a king, which is what I and PVC have been talking about. A good king with absolute power like Alexander the Great can create an empire that is still admired over 2000 years ago. Even without power, a good king with a constitution like George VI can inspire a nation into struggling far past the ordinary breaking point just by showing solidarity by not fleeing in the face of danger.Quote:
What other king would I be discussing when talking to brits about the usefulness their monarchy? King of Swaziland?
I ask again what can a good gun do that can compare?
Good gun of course. Armed populace is a far better safeguard against tyranny than some aristocratic figurehead. And it's useful for hunting and home protection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
And I haven't been talking about that. I've been talking specifically about contemporary British monarchy.Quote:
The very concept of a king, which is what I and PVC have been talking about...
Rather entertainingly this whole discussion is taking place on the day the the Queen went to that cabinet meeting. It's the first time a monarch's done that since George III during the war of Independence.
Presumably she's decided there's so much stupidity being demonstrated over there that it's time that you lot have had your fun, and it's Independence revocation time.
And given that the alternative is President Cameron and VP Clegg, or, God forbid, POTUK Blair, I think the modern monarchy is a very good thing indeed. God bless her and all who sail in her.
Maybe true when the best a government could bring to the table was a Musket and Cannon - I would really love to see a "Militia" take on an Apache Helicopter - would be brilliant, if short, viewingQuote:
Originally Posted by rvg
That said a Monarch isn't exactly a good safeguard either since the Army only technically takes orders from them - the real orders still come from the Government... a figure head is just as useful as a good gun against a Apache...
I am not the author, but this seems like a fine time to reprint this firsthand account of how that went down:Quote:
Originally Posted by Catiline
https://i.imgur.com/wvrde.jpg
The meeting ended. A mere fifteen minutes into the agenda. Elizabeth dropped the pen, it was crimson with the blood of the fallen so called politicians. They had failed her. They had failed the country. The country she held so dear to her heart. For Elizabeth was not merely the queen of this one realm. But the government of this, her home nation had disappointed her so. It was time for a change she thought.
She licked her lips, and took a deep nasal breath, remembering the day when she last smelled the blood of her victims. So long ago in Zimbabwe. Her second breath brought a different memory though. What was that odour? Gunpowder? No, more subtle that that. Liquorice? Nearly... Elizabeth surveyed the room, slowly taking in the mental panoramic of the glorious dead, then there it was. The lone survivor.
"Fear." Elizabeth mouthed. That was the smell. The lone politician cowered. Hiding behind the bodies of so many fallen. he sobbed slightly. Elizabeth was not amused. "Arise, whelp," the monarch said. "Is this how you wish to die? Clutching the bloated corpse of Kenneth Clarke? Arise, and accept your fate."
The politician pushed the body aside and slowly stood up. Still sobbing. She had not seen sobbing like this since Charles announced his divorce. A young, clean faced man stood before her. Awaiting his fate. "What is your name?" Elizabeth hissed.
"Clegg ma'am. Nick Clegg"
"So, Nicholas. Did you really think you could escape? Are you not aware who I am? Are you not aware of my power? I, Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of your God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Queen, Defender of the Faith! Did YOU believe you could escape ME?" Clegg fell to his knees. His fearful sobbing turned to pathetic begging for his life.
"Mercy!" He pleaded
"NO." Stated the monarch. "Your words are nothing to me. I will show you my Mercy." She lifted her sword high. The small square blade slowly extending in the dim Downing Street lights, as if by a darker power. The stub became a blade. The blade became an edge, then she struck the blow.
Cleggs head slumped from his neck. Blood sprayed across the room. Elizabeth could literally taste Cleggs life draining from his useless flesh. She sheathed the Sword of Mercy. Lifted the head of the final politician and headed for the door.
Hordes of people were in Downing Street. Cameras, reporters, from every possible news outlet. The Queen held the head of Clegg aloft, triumphantly.
Ah, if only.
Admittedly in those situations a rifle is the better option, (except for Henry VIII, guy was badass, an avid hunter in his youth, an ideal king before he turned sour and he had a mace with a gun installed in the head. Gaving him in the house when a robber turns up would be 100 times more useful than a 12 gague), though personally some form of legal safeguard, a burglar alarm system and a crossbow are preferable to a gun respectively. When thinking about the big picture, government, diplomacy, society, economics, etc a good, (just, noble, etc) king is infinitely preferable to an armed populous.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Well you kinda have to think about the aspects of king hood when talking about a monarchy.Quote:
And I haven't been talking about that. I've been talking specifically about contemporary British monarchy.
Can you provide a "big picture" example that would support this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
And when talking about British monarchy wouldn't it be better to think its specific aspects?Quote:
Well you kinda have to think about the aspects of king hood when talking about a monarchy.
riiiiight...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
ReeeeealllyQuote:
Originally Posted by rvg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...n_2393743b.jpg
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/to...apache-620.jpg
Well when I think of a good king I think of the actions of George VI, when urged to leave the capital during the London blitz he refused on the grounds that it would be running away when his people were in danger, he even spent several nights sheltering alongside the "commoners" in the london underground, the king and his family going through the same hardships as the common man was a great morale boost and added to the myriad of other equally important factors that kept britain from surrendering to the Nazi's.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I honestly haven't seen anything as beneficial come out of having an armed populous when people being gunned down in the streets, their homes, thier schools, all by people I find hard to believe being able to do anywhere near as much damage in the almost gun-less Britain before being stopped by the authorities. We haven't had any school shootings since 1996, america has had 40.
That too, but you need to at least be aware of what it is specifically supposed to do, which is look out for its people, a point of comparison when determining the success of each monarch. Good kings did this, bad kings generally didn't, you think America would have wanted to leave the empire so much if the British monarch wasnt insane and went to the front lines of the revolutonary war, taking part of each negotiation while treating the colonial Americans as if they were his countrymen (which they were at the time)?Quote:
And when talking about British monarchy wouldn't it be better to think its specific aspects?
are you seriously telling me you can buy 50 Cal armor piecing sniper rifles legally in the states?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
wow... well I am sure that will make the militia members feel better as hellfire missiles are raining down on them - they at least can shoot back - assuming the Helicopter comes into range carelessly
It might also be worth asking the Palestinians how guns vs Apaches is going for them.
That was very kind of him, but I do not see any practical benefits of that action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
The gunless mob was able to go on a rampage because shopkeepers had no guns to protect their property. Looters and marauders are very effectively deterred by guns as happened in post-Katrina New Orleans. People organized armed neighborhood watch groups and put up the "You loot, we shoot" signs to ward off opportunists. Worked great for those neighborhoods where enough people were armed.Quote:
I honestly haven't seen anything as beneficial come out of having an armed populous when people being gunned down in the streets, their homes, thier schools, all by people I find hard to believe being able to do anywhere near as much damage in the almost gun-less Britain before being stopped by the authorities.
With guns being outlawed the Dunblane shooting shouldn't have happened at all. Yet it did. Strange, isn't it?Quote:
We haven't had any school shootings since 1996,america has had 40.
Yes sir. You can legally buy a Barrett in all states except the People's Republic of California.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The gun laws were all tightened up after Dunblane. Since then no shootings. Strange, isn't it.
This wasn't a shooting?Quote:
Originally Posted by Catiline
is this in case the transformers invade?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The blitz wast a battle of bombs it was a battle of public tolerance, if that tolerance was stretched too far people would have been refusing to work, pay taxes, go to war and the British would have been forced to withdraw from the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
George's act that set the message of "we're all in this together", if he hadn't done it people would have been resentment about "royals sipping tea in thier palaces while we die". Look at what happened in the French revolution and the french Army mutiny of WW1 for what happens when people become resentful of their higher ups being in relative luxury while they suffer.
Firstly full scale disasters are the exception not the rule, second the mob was able to loot London because the british police proved ineffective and undermanned.Quote:
The gunless mob was able to go on a rampage because shopkeepers had no guns to protect their property. Looters and marauders are very effectively deterred by guns as happened in post-Katrina New Orleans.
Were there any "you loot we chase you down with baseball bats and 2x4s" that we can compare to? because it seems like the threat of guns could have been replaced with the threat of mob beating, like what the minority communities did during the London riots, which were about as successful.Quote:
People organized armed neighborhood watch groups and put up the "You loot, we shoot" signs to ward off opportunists. Worked great for those neighborhoods where enough people were armed.
Dunblane is the reason it is illegal to have personal firearms in the UK, the Firearms Amendment Act was introduced in 1997.Quote:
With guns being outlawed the Dunblane shooting shouldn't have happened at all. Yet it did. Strange, isn't it?
I only stated school shooting numbers, If I had included all shootings it would have been somewhere in the realm of 10000 in the USA and 20 in UKQuote:
Originally Posted by rvg
That's a pure speculation on your part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Indeed. They have no king and are doing just fine.Quote:
Look at what happened in the French revolution...
Which is why the people should be able to protect themselves.Quote:
Firstly full scale disasters are the exception not the rule, second the mob was able to loot London because the british police proved ineffective and undermanned.
2x4 isn't quite as good as a gun. As Al Capone once said: "You can get a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than just with a kind word."Quote:
Were there any "you loot we chase you down with baseball bats and 2x4s" that we can compare to? because it seems like the threat of guns could have been replaced with the threat of mob beating, like what the arab communities did during the London riots.
Still, the point is that Britain has some of the most stringent gun laws and people still get shot. Not only that, but people are also unable to protect themselves from mob violence.Quote:
Dunblane is the reason it is illegal to have personal firearms in the UK, the Firearms Amendment Act was introduced in 1997.
I only stated school shooting numbers, If I had included all shootings it would have been somewhere in the realm of 10000 in the USA and 20 in UK
No shootings since then was wrong. But that Was done with legally held shotguns and .22 rifles, for which there are exceptions in the law. Its also more of a random rampage than a single mass shooting, so a different affair to try and stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The transformers do come from hollywood...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Does it matter? Either way people got shot and killed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catiline
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Yes people still get shot. The point is that it's a gigantic proportion fewer of us.
If the state renders people unable to defend themselves, the state better be damn sure that it can make up for that. But that's the thing, it can't. Unarmed civilians can't protect themselves, their unarmed neighbors can't help them either. Perceived public safety gain at the cost of total individual helplessness in the face of adversity. Hardly a worthwhile exchange.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catiline
Strange, the most serious conflicts I've been in involved non-firearm weapons. Not having a gun does not equal unarmed. People manage to damage and even kill one another without gunpowder, it just requires a little more commitment.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Also note that the vast majority of guns obtained by criminals are purchased, not stolen. So even if the gun becomes "illegal" once a felon possesses it, the act of purchasing is usually done within our legal framework.
Drudge Report is already screaming about how any attempt at any modification of gun law is a "gun grab" by (who else?) Obama. Raise your hand if you didn't see that coming, and then slap yourself for obtuseness.
If I'm understanding the position of the 2A absolutists on this board:
- Mass shootings are rare, inevitable, and (while sad) a price of freedom
- Any attempt at registration, mandated safety measures, or anything, really, will just be a nanny-state infantilization of the citizenry (part of the larger degredation of rights which we will only tolerate when originating with acts committed by people with Muslim names)
- Therefore US citizens should suck it up, arm themselves, and never speak of this again
Only in some Ayn Rand dystopia. It's a real and tangible increase in public safety, and besides its been clearly demonstrated that having a gun makes you less safe. You might be a bit less helpless, but your helping yourself to a greater chance of dead.
In regard to the mob looting thing, we have the right to defend ourselves using reasonable force. IMO shooting people to death, looters or not, to protect property is not reasonable.
Guns are great equalizers though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
As were guns used in preventing/stopping crimes.Quote:
Also note that the vast majority of guns used in crimes in the USA were obtained legally.
Exactly, coming from Drudge it's not really a shocker.Quote:
Drudge Report is already screaming about how any attempt at any modification of gun law is a "gun grab" by ... Obama. Raise your hand if you didn't see that coming, and then slap yourself for obtuseness.
While you were away, the discussion in this thread has veered into "why allow any guns at all" territory along with "guns are only for the militia" line of thought.Quote:
If I'm understanding the position of the 2A absolutists on this board:
- Mass shootings are rare, inevitable, and (while sad) a price of freedom
- Any attempt at registration, mandated safety measures, or anything, really, will just be a nanny-state infantilization of the citizenry (part of the larger degredation of rights which we will only tolerate when originating with acts committed by people with Muslim names)
- Therefore US citizens should suck it up, arm themselves, and never speak of this again
Ha ha ha, you funny man, I kill you last.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-GB/....asp?aid=35657
Quote:
Duty during the war for the King and Queen meant engagements around the country related to the war effort. These included visits to military units, civil defence workers, to factories, to farms and to hospitals. When the Blitz started the King and Queen visited bomb struck cities as soon as possible after the attacks. Very often this was in London especially in the East End. Buckingham Palace itself suffered nine direct hits. But this had the opposite effect to that which the Germans had intended. Britain now felt that their Royal Family shared their suffering and were united with the people.
Many people thought it too dangerous for the King and Queen to remain in London, but Queen Elizabeth said "the Princesses will not leave us, I cannot leave the King and the King will never leave." They worked from Buckingham Palace during the week, visiting Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret at Windsor Castle at the weekends.
Look up Robespierre's reign of terror, france basically went though hell after for years after its revolution and it ultimately failed when napoleon crowned himself emperor, a king by another name, they are doing fine now but it did not become that way because of the revolution.Quote:
Indeed. They have no king and are doing just fine.
Yes and you can defend yourself quite well with mace, baseball bats, tazers, putting intruder alarms on you house and and staying near other members of the public while outside.Quote:
Which is why the people should be able to protect themselves.
He was a mobster who was referring to illegal acts of intimidation. And a gun is generally useless for anything but letting yourself get a chance to drop everything and run when facing more people than you have bullets in the gun.Quote:
2x4 isn't quite as good as a gun. As Al Capone once said: "You can get a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than just with a kind word."
Yes, people get shot, people are always going to get shot, people are always going to rob liquor stores. That's life, nothings perfect, complete success is rare but you have to try because its not going to get better on its own. Gun restriction is the most effective method we have and it works to a point, but it is a higher point than places with personal firearms.Quote:
Still, the point is that Britain has some of the most stringent gun laws and people still get shot. Not only that, but people are also unable to protect themselves from mob violence.
Visiting cities after the bombings? What's so heroic about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Is it in that hell now?Quote:
Look up Robespierre's reign of terror, france basically went though hell after for years after its revolution
Do you genuinely think that a can of mace would stop a looting mob?Quote:
Yes and you can defend yourself quite well with mace, baseball bats, tazers, putting intruder alarms on you house and and staying near other members of the public while outside.
And?Quote:
He was a mobster who was referring to illegal acts of intimidation.
Oh really? Mob is willing to kill, but it's not very willing to die. Before the guy with gun can be overpowered, a few guys with pitchforks will have to die, something that none of them would be willing to do. Which is why guns are effective in pacifying the mob while mace spray is not.Quote:
And a gun is generally useless for anything but letting yourself get a chance to drop everything and run when facing more people than you have bullets in the gun.
Americans in general don't think like that and do not buy this line of thinking.Quote:
Yes, people get shot, people are always going to get shot, people are always going to rob liquor stores. That's life, nothings perfect, complete success is rare but you have to try because its not going to get better on its own. Gun restriction is the most effective method we have and it works to a point, but it is a higher point than places with public guns.
Doesn't matter. Britain was already where they are now and if the royal family hadn't done what they did britain would have gone through a similar hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
No, but it will make them think twice about storming you long enough for the authorities to show up or for you to escape, if it doesn't make them decide to loot somewhere easier. Looters want loot, not blood.Quote:
Do you genuinely think that a can of mace would stop a looting mob?
Neither side in these situations are going to be using kind words, Also Kind words and tazers works just as well if you have a multi-shot stungun.Quote:
And?
If the mob is willing to kill in america they are likely to have guns in this situation too, so one guy with a gun, assuming he's law abiding, is likely to get shot before he has a chance to finish shouting a warning anyway. If niether side has guns the one guy is about as screwed, though he has a better chance to run as he's not going to be shot in the back as he goes.Quote:
Oh really? Mob is willing to kill, but it's not very willing to die. Before the guy with gun can be overpowered, a few guys with pitchforks will have to die, something that none of them would be willing to die. Which is why guns are effective in pacifying the mob while mace spray is not.
Then that makes you avoiding a proven improvement even more depressingly pointless.Quote:
Americans in general don't think like that and do not buy this line of thinking.
What has the royal family done?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Just like they showed up in London and quickly quelled the violence and the looting.Quote:
No, but it will make them think twice about storming you long enough for the authorities to show up or for you to escape, if it doesn't make them decide to loot somewhere easier. Looters want loot, not blood.
No, not really. Tazers rarely maim or kill and the crowd knows that.Quote:
Neither side in these situations are going to be using kind words, Also Kind words and tazers works just as well if you have a multi-shot stungun.
A lynch mob would be armed, unlike a loot mob.Quote:
If the mob is willing to kill in america they are likely to have guns in this situation too, so one guy with a gun, assuming he's law abiding, is likely to get shot before he has a chance to finish shouting a warning anyway. If niether side has guns the one guy is about as screwed, though he has a better chance to run as he's not going to be shot in the back as he goes.
One man's improvement is another man's disaster.Quote:
Then that makes you avoiding a proven improvement even more depressingly pointless.
Merry Christmas, Happy Chaunakah (belatedly), Happy New Year, and all the other raz-mataz. It's been a while since I've posted in the Org, and this thread seems as appropriate a reentry point as any.
I cried several times during the day on Friday. The very night before, I had attended a Christmas concert put on by the Kindergarten through 2nd grades (5-7) at my daughter's school. There were about 20 children on stage at a time, including for various portions, my own divine Miss J. I was heartsick, to the point of nausea, at the idea of each and every one of those lives being snuffed out.
People have made some really good points in this thread (I was careful to read as much of the 10 pages as I could prior to responding). People also posted some rather inane propositions, I think in some misguided effort to be 'clever'. Reminded me of my own antics in posting in the Backroom over the years.
Here's what I know:
-Our government has access to such high forms of technology that a discussion of "protecting our liberties from tyranny" is laughable. A cheaply made AR-15 or AK-47 clone isn't going to do a damn thing against a predator drone. The only thing that can defeat a tyrranical government is human spirit.
-An assault weapons ban will not end these tragedies. It will however make the likelihood of the severity significantly reduced. I own several guns for hunting and personal protection. I am 100% in favor background checks, restrictions placed on the capacity of guns, etc. I do not need an assault weapon, nor can I put forward a good reason why any private citizen would need one.
-Yes, illegal trade in restricted armaments will occur. What people fail to understand is that it is far easier to traffic narcotics than arms. I will no longer let the perfect be the enemy of the good on this issue. I would like to eliminate gun violence. If I cannot, I will settle for reducing it, at the very least, reducing it's severity.
-I also know, courtesy of Timothy McVeigh, that large scale mass murder will still happen. But when you compare the number of fertilizer bombs to the number of mass shootings over the past 30 years or so, I think the data points to restricting firearms before one restricts lawn fertilizer.
-Yes, our country needs desparatetly to address our mental health issues. We have a lot of untreated mental illness. In reading about this tragedy, I uncovered a bone-chillingly disturbing fact: the 3 largest mental health facilities in the US are in Riker's, LA County Jail and Cook County Jail.
-Yet even more than mental illness, our society (and this extends outside the US) suffers from spiritual sickness. We have lost compassion, lost humanity. We do not value life. Regardless of the reasons we attribute, we have failed our young: failed to keep them safe, failed to make them whole, failed to make them see that they are a part of something greater than their finite selves.
I prayed for the shooter in my morning prayers and meditation on Saturday. First, somebody had to. But secondly, HIS story is a tragedy. That a human soul can be so anguished and despondent to resort to this...
I pray for us all. We have now evolved to a point where we are at a crisis point. Our technology and our knowledge have far oustripped our evolution and our wisdom. We MUST change, we MUST find a way to stop destroying each other and everything else upon this Earth, or we will cease to exist.
The current one, or the whole family tree?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Yes and that is a critique of the authorities capacity to respond to mobs. Not lack of guns.Quote:
Just like they showed up in London and quickly quelled the violence and the looting.
But they hurt, sometimes enough to render people unconscious or at least knock them over and their main problem is the same as a gun, fewer ammo than mob members, assuming we have a similar definition of mob.Quote:
No, not really. Tazers rarely maim or kill and the crowd knows that.
Not always, and I already addressed the issues guns would cause in either of them.Quote:
A lynch mob would be armed, unlike a loot mob.
Another shockingly reasonable post from Don C. Thanks, man.
You're quite correct, both the mental health and the deregulation of guns need to be reconsidered.
Deinstitutionalization needs to be re-examined. The extreme difficulty of involuntary commitment, and chronic underfunding of mental health services, are both obvious problems.
The loopholes in background checks for firearm purchases should be closed. Likewise, the extremely limited registration of firearms needs to be expanded.
As I said earlier in the thread, owning a gun should involve about as much safety training and mandatory recordkeeping as owning an automobile.
The current one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
If the government is powerless, the people should be allowed to do what the government can't.Quote:
Yes and that is a critique of the authorities capacity to respond to mobs. Not lack of guns.
Something that "hurts" isn't quite as scary as something that "kills".Quote:
But they hurt, sometimes enough to render people unconscious or at least knock them over and their main problem is the same as a gun, fewer ammo than mob members, assuming we have a similar definition of mob.
Not always, but enough to make a difference.Quote:
Not always, and I already addressed the issues guns would cause in either of them.
Well, he is coming for our guns! ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
In all seriousness, there are several things that need to be done prior to putting the useless "assault weapons" ban back in place. The NRA and GOP only have themselves to blame for the PR disaster they are now in.
Item 1 - The neutering of the BATFE. Since the merry band of jack-booted thugs was moved to the Justice Dept in 2006, Senate confirmation has been required for it's Director. By sheer coincidence, the ATF has not had a director since 2006, with the GOP blocking confirmation of anyone to the left of Heston. Needless to say, the ATF's performance has been subpar, even for the ATF. Funding, training, and enforcement all need improvement, along with a large modernization effort needed for tracking sales. Before any new laws are put in place, is it too much to ask for a less-dysfunctional agency to enforce them?
I don't think any widespread ban is going to happen, the elections just happened and most of the senators and reps funded by the NRA will hold off hoping it all blows over by 2014. They do need to close the gun show gap, and maybe 10-round mag limit, but any law based on cosmetics deserves to fail. Whatever comes out of the "gun grab", I just want the restrictions to apply to the LEOs as well as the general public.
Edit->Welcome back Don! :bow:
We know - that's why your healthcare sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
An example of a Good King: Spain, after Franco'death Juan Carlos steered the country successfully towards democracy and prevented a violent Coup by a junta of Generals. He averted War - by it's very nature a good rifle would have encouraged it.
Define safety?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Longer lifespan? 78.49 years (US), 80.17 years (UK)
Infant Mortality? 6/1000 vs 4.5/1000
HIV/AIDS? 0.6% vs 0.2%
Obesity? 33.9% vs 22.7%
Prisoners? 730 vs 154 per 100,000
Intentional Homicides? 4.2 vs 1.2 per 100,000
Economic Freedom (WSJ)? 76.3 vs 74.1 (higher is better)
Yes, US society suffers from spiritual sickness. I long for the days of old when Americans took the time to help each other
Unless they were black
or Hispanic
or Asian
or gay
or left leaning (which equals communist)
or not christian
or female
All of us white, male Christians have not been successful in preventing white, male Christians from going berserk. Society as a whole is tainted.
I apologize if my post implied that a nostalgia for the days of segregation or other social ills. That wasn't my intent. Perhaps we've always been rotten to the core, and it only appears worse at this period of history because this is the only one I've lived through. My intent was to point to deficient compassion and love of one's fellow man as the primary culprit in many of our current social woes, including school shootings.
No offense intended.
No offense taken. I completely agree we need more compassion and love. I just want to keep things in perspective. In many ways, society is better than it ever has been, not just in material things. But we can and should always strive to be better, no need to compare ourselves to the past to spur that drive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
“Look up Robespierre's reign of terror, france basically went though hell after for years after its revolution and it ultimately failed when napoleon crowned himself emperor, a king by another name, they are doing fine now but it did not become that way because of the revolution.”
You should read a little more about the French Revolution, and not the only the conventional one.:stare:
France was in hell thanks to Kings and consorts who just pillage it. Versailles is beautiful, but it ruined France. And I even don’t want to speak of wars raged by Louis XIV, Louis XV, and XVI. At least, the XIV intended to “unite” France.
The French Revolution created a shock still felt nowadays, in France and in the rest of the World.
In France, it meant abolition of the privileges (August the 4th), Republic with the UNIVERSAL Human Rights, suppression of the Nobility, end of Religious domination, first abolition of Slavery (cancelled by Napoleon), 1st Constitution and new legal system (known under Code Napoleon). We can add the universal measuring system…
The Civil Wars were first due to the “levee en masse”, thanks to the Foreign Invasions from all the European Monarchies. Without these Foreign Interventions (we would call them containment, or pre-emptive) , no repression needed, no Napoleon…
And France became what it is now because the French Revolution. It is too long to develop, but France is France not because a territory (changed during the centuries), language (we had different local ones) or ethnicities. France is a political construction based on a shared idea, roughly Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité.
And to end this paragraph, The English Civil War was as bloody, violent and nasty than the French Revolution.
Individual's ability to protect himself of course. What else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
It's called society were we look out for each other.
By those stats UK is outperforming US
For instance in the US individuals are three times more likely to be murdered or have HIV & four times more likely to die of HIV.
Quality of life is diminished when ones health is negatively impacted. So with 50% more Obesity and a third more infant deaths ones quality of life is suffering. More diabetes, strokes, heart attacks in the older population and more early deaths in the younger. Add to that four times the rate of incarceration which is an intentional diminishing of life quality.
So you have a society with a measurably shorter lifespan and less quality of life per annum.
I prefer measuring outcomes over intentions. UK society outpaces US individualism on virtually every metric.
I'm not sure what your problem is, as I said life was rubbish for the french poor before the revolution it was even worse for every frenchman during and, for a time, after and the main cause was the disparity between the classes, my point was that this was in mind when George 6th decided to risk the blitz and an indication of what might have happened if they had stayed in safety and comfort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I'm glad to hear that Britain is to your liking, because America is to my liking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
You were debating that individual access to firearms in the US makes for a safer society compared with the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
These are mainly stats from the Stalinist group called the CIA Factbook and Wall Street Journal.
In short your statement is long on rhetoric short on facts.
If I tabled the US vs Aus stats you would be even worse off.
I was stating that in America individuals have better ways of protecting themselves due to their access to firearms. Something that your statistics do not dispute in the slightest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
The statistics prove that a stable state is better protection than individual armaments - America needs proper law enforcement, rather than the medieval, litterally, system you have now.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
There's a reason shire reeves only administer Courts in the UK and elsewhere - professional Policemen are better.
Better protection would mean better outcomes.
US citizens are three times more likely to die in a homicide compared with the UK. That is a materially significant difference. If guns provided significant protection you would expect it to be the other way round with less homicides in the US. Self defense isn't included in these stats, homicide is where someone with criminal intent kills someone else.
If you were safer you would suffer less murders. The statistics plainly state you are not.
4.2 vs 1.2. Not just homicides by guns, all homicides. If you were safer you would be less likely to be killed by a criminal.
To put this in perspective 3.5 x 4.2 = 14.7/100,000
Or looking at the table somewhere between Nicaragua and Mexico.
So UK is to US, what US is to Mexico when it comes to being murdered.
In other words you are not better protected. A UK person moving to US for protection is like a US person moving to Mexico for protection.
The statistics you quote do not factor in crime prevention. The number of assaults, burglaries, kidnappings, muggings, robberies that are thwarted because of guns (and violent crime here is at a 40 year low). You want to believe that the state is more competent at protecting you than you yourself are. Keep believing that. I'll stick to my guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
First off, I haven't read beyond the first 2 pages and this last one, so sorry...
I don't think this the primary angle on this tragedy should be with gun access or mental health services. Obviously, these do tie into it on some level, but I think the main issue is something else entirely - the development of mass shootings as a cultural phenomena.
You can compare levels of gun access or mental health care in the US with other developed countries, but those differences will never come close to explaining why such a specific sort of event seems to occur so frequrently in the USA. I think the most useful thing we can do right now is try to understand why this phenomena and from there hopefully find a solution to put and end to it.
What can we understand from it at the minute? Well I'm too ignorant to say give an opinion right now. Although I would be curious to see how many of the shooters fit the profile of a young male, shy, no friends, seen as a 'loser' etc. IIRC the ones at Columbine High and Virginia Tech fitted it anyway.
With the above in mind I'll refrain from commenting on the gun control debate, but for what its worth a similar event in Scotland (although a one-off that didn't fit the above stereotype) with the Dunblane massacre did directly lead to significant restrictions on gun ownership. Of course, I realise that the political culture in the USA is different. Although I will say that I find the idea of arming primary school teachers or staff to be pretty scary. Has it really come to that?
Teachers don't need guns, they need tazers instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr
So you're saying that without guns in private hands even more US citizens would be murdered each year?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
That would mean your violent crime rate is artificially low, compared to the UK - i.e. America is, by your argument, an even more dangerous place than the statistics suggest.
What I'm saying is that without guns more people would get robbed, raped, carjacked, more houses would get broken into.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
While we're on the topic, I present to you Gun Town, USA. The article is a bit old, but the idea stands.
You also have four times as many people in prison so plainly the deterrent factor isn't working. Again rhetoric meets reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Kennesaw, Georgia begs to differ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Except - you already have more of that than any Western country, so maybe the guns aren't helping.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
If it's easy for me to get a gun it's even easier for a car-jacker to get a gun because he can break the law, and he's going to have less compunction about using it and he's going into the situation with it ready, where I have to draw mine. I've lost before I even decided to draw or not.
We're also bigger than any other Western country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Why draw right away? Give him the car keys, then pump him full of lead as soon as he tuns his back. He'll be dead before he realizes what's going on.Quote:
If it's easy for me to get a gun it's even easier for a car-jacker to get a gun because he can break the law, and he's going to have less compunction about using it and he's going into the situation with it ready, where I have to draw mine. I've lost before I even decided to draw or not.
Can we please dispense with this 'absolutist' moniker? I understand that it is always beneficial in debate to frame your opponent as some sort of extremist, but this is nonsense. Guns are one of the most heavily regulated products in the American marketplace. There are limits on functionality, size, ammunition type and many other design elements that essentially neuter these weapons as compared to their military counterparts. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of another product that requires a background check to purchase. Certain types of chemicals, maybe? To the true absolutist, such things would be intolerable. And yet, no one here seems to be seriously arguing against them. In fact, I would wager most here would be supportive of a national registry for the mentally ill that could be crosschecked during the background check process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
But yes, allowing the actions of two mentally disturbed men to curtail the freedoms millions currently enjoy would be an illogical, immature reaction to media sensationalism, a superficial gesture that would do little to prevent such incidents in the future.
The reason our murder rate is so high is because of gangs involved in the drugs. (Yay for the big government paternalism/nanny state behind the war on drugs)Quote:
US citizens are three times more likely to die in a homicide compared with the UK. That is a materially significant difference. If guns provided significant protection you would expect it to be the other way round with less homicides in the US. Self defense isn't included in these stats, homicide is where someone with criminal intent kills someone else.
Take away those killings - or live were they aren't likely to occur - and I believe our murder rate is not much higher than Europe.
In Response -Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
1) They are not inevitable, but they are extremely rare. Not having extreme media coverage would help more than any gun ban. But what all the assault ban proponents want is to ban millions of firearms owned by millions of people because a couple people per year - at most - in a country of over 300 million people abuse them. That is not rational.
2) Registration? That would have no effect at all on shootings - and make it easier for the government to confiscate guns (and yes, some US states have confiscated certain guns after early mandating registration). Mandated safety measures are not appropriate for what is a constitutional right - and again have been abused by governments for the express purpose of denying as many people as possible from owning guns.
If you want to bring up rights lost in the War on Terror - like the Patriot Act - you should certainly realize that these rights are lost when there are knee jerk reactions to very emotional events.
3) This is a bit of a strawman. Yes, I think we Americans need to learn not to demand government "Do Something" or that "There oughta be a law" every time something bad happens, as though every bad thing can be fixed with more government. Attempted mass shootings (At least one off the top of my head - the church in Colorado) have been stopped by armed citizens. I think how society approaches mental health and how the media glamorizes these events are much more important things to discuss.
Again, in response:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don C
1) This is inaccurate, based on Iraq, Afghanistan, the Arab Uprisings, etc.
2) Again I disagree. The Columbine shootings happened after the first ban. The VT shootings (were more people - and college students at that, thus more difficult to kill - were killed) were committed by a madman with pistols. There is no reason to think an assault weapons ban would limit shootings. It's like the moronic TSA banning certain items and thinking potential terrorists won't shift to other weapons. Magazine limits will not work - changing magazines is a matter of seconds, and will limit good people who are not carry around a dozen magazines more than shooters who can prepare as much as they like.
Part two - the fact that you do not need or want a semi-auto rifle, and are therefore okay with banning them for everyone, saddens me. We live in a free country where no one should have to put forth a 'reason' they want to exercise a right. Back to response (1), I do believe access to modern firearms is an essential part of a free country and preventing tyranny. They are not everything, of course, but the human spirit needs teeth.
3) Maybe it easier to traffic drugs. But it's much easier to manufacture guns, of varying quality, anywhere. And handguns are explicitly constitutionally protected. Gun control doesn't work at reducing "handgun violence". We should not sacrifice liberty for safety. The past has shown us we will end up with neither.
4) The data points to the fact that mass murder via firearms is exceedingly rare and it's only an issue because of media sensationalism and human's irrational response to fear and risk. And if all firearms magically disappeared, what would stop some deranged lunatic from attacking a school with huge amounts of gasoline?
Your compassion is inspiring. :bow:Quote:
I prayed for the shooter in my morning prayers and meditation on Saturday. First, somebody had to. But secondly, HIS story is a tragedy. That a human soul can be so anguished and despondent to resort to this...
No, it doesn't. What point would that serve besides suppressing legal gun ownership? You mock the suggestion that 'Obama's coming for your guns' but he wants to reinstate the assault weapons ban, and you want toQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Gun ownership is a right and should not be subject to government demands before you are allowed to exercise it. Safety training and record keeping would do nothing to prevent these sprees.Quote:
As I said earlier in the thread, owning a gun should involve about as much safety training and mandatory recordkeeping as owning an automobile.
I have yet to see any gun control proposal that would actually prevent mass murder and is based on a rational view of the country and not a knee jerk reaction hysteria.
CR
Eleven thousand gun homicides per year.
9/11 every four months
War of Independence every eight months
Civil War every 21 years
World War I every ten years
World War II every 37 years
Holocaust every 60 years
Vietnam War every 5 years
Afghanistan (2001 to now) 2 months. In other words for every American soldier who has died on the battlefield, vehicle crash, IED : sixty Americans have been shot dead by a fellow American.
I'm not so sure it is a knee jerk reaction when you are losing a person every day to gun homicide let alone over one an hour.
Welcome back Don. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I'm curious, in what form do you say this spiritual sickness is?
Been too used to see it as people claiming it as a lack of Christianity, that's why I reacted. Personally, I would blame social structures. If people suffer, they'll spread it, either intentionally or as a side effect. That's a huge issue in the US, agreed (armed guards in US schools isn't that uncommon in some areas).
Yes? It's an extremely rare crime to burn down a school with people still inside it (it happens by evening or night normally). It's also very clumpsy to use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Why do you have more schools shootings than the rest of the west? More gun crimes? More police killings?
Something is simply making US more aggressive than the rest of the west. The gun culture reflects that and influences it.
Statistics take this into account - they are per capita, not raw numbers. The US has by far and away more deaths from firearms, per hundred thousand, than anywhere in Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
And you'll be spending the rest of your life in gaol for murder, and rightly too.Quote:
Why draw right away? Give him the car keys, then pump him full of lead as soon as he tuns his back. He'll be dead before he realizes what's going on.
Yes, arbitrarily cutting out a large number of murders from the total reduces the total. Well done :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
So... compare the killings in Europe with gangs included to those in the USA without...Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Given how restricted guns are in many European countries this will likely make the difference even greater.
~:smoking:
Honestly, keep your guns: knock yourselves out :)
Good question to ask is who exactly shares the top spots in the gun deaths list besides the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_death_rate
Gee, El Salvador, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Panama. In fact, with the exception of swaziland and a few others, the vast majority of the countries at the top are all in the Americas.
Looks to me that we are simply reaping the benefits of our war on drugs. Latin America has become a battle ground over drugs and the blood inevitably spills over to where the selling actually goes on. No wonder out of all the countries in the Americas, Canada which the least involved in the war has the lowest death rate from guns.
http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Su...-Gang-Problems
The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2006 to 2010. During the same time period, the FBI estimated, on average, more than 16,000 homicides across the US.
So the actual homicide rate is closer to 16k not 11k and the rate per 100k people is 4.8 not 4.2
Also the gang murders are 12%.
So 12% off 4.8 goes back to almost 4.2. Wow still 3.5 times that of UK.
If I was told to year a helmet that would make me die 3.5 times more likely then without it, I would be questioning the manufacturers motivation in proclaiming it was for my protection. I would also tell him were to shove said helmet and that I don't care for his scare tactics.
FBI statistics also show a 46.76% drop in the violent crime rate since 1991. What do you make of that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
EDIT: The murder rate decreased even further, by 51% over two decades.
Congratulations! You've shot down to 3.5 times that of the UK - result!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
~:smoking:
What is the population difference of the most at risk groups of perpetration and victimization? If blacks commit 8 times the murders of their white counterparts and Hispanics commit some other multiplier above, what multiplier of blacks and hispanics does the US have over the UK as a percentage of the population? 2x? 3x? 8x? 15x?
White people have a higher statistical success rate at gun related homicide, but black people have more practice. Some discussion of demographics when reviewing the rate out of 100k is in order. More homogeneous societies where the history of poverty from immigration and racism is modern are expected to have lower rates. Prove me wrong. None of this is to say that white people wouldn't have such high homicide rates if they were in similar situations of poverty, but the number must be controlled for this if we are comparing. Apples to apples!
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...55534169,d.dmQ
Prove you wrong? You've not offered anything to prove you right!
Control numbers of what exactly? Unless you can offer some evidence that the mere colour of one's skin makes one shoot others then I'm at a loss to the point of what you're saying.
~:smoking:
I'm on a tablet, but I posted a link to a Rutgers study from 2002
So you are saying that the US has more blacks than the UK, so naturally has more murders? Nice!Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg