Connecticut School Shooting

[Robert]

I read that this firemen murder business has started a "national debate" about gun ownership. Two points :

1. "National debates" aren't national at all - at least, not over here. They're confined to the chattering classes.
2. OK, have a "national debate" about gun ownership, but why not also have a "national debate" about whether it's really wise to release a man who killed his grandmother with a hammer?

[Limehouse]

Which comes right round to my point about political acumen.

In Europe, individual rights mean nothing and in this situation they would have been obliterated on the back of an emotional, reactionary cause. And, people would have followed along merrily not realising the ramifications of giving away control.

In the United States, people are still in there fighting for their rights as law abiding citizens, because they know that today it's guns and tomorrow it's something else.

Hats off to 'em.

Absolute tosh! Where on earth have you been??

In Europe, for months and months, people have been getting out on to the streets and fighting for their rights to keep the pensions they have paid for. They have been expressing their freedom of speech to protest at the austerity measures being imposed on them.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It's a fairly famous commentary on the inherit perils of democracy. As in you can't have two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Pretty much anyone who has studied government or politics has heard of it.

Which comes right round to my point about political acumen.

In Europe, individual rights mean nothing and in this situation they would have been obliterated on the back of an emotional, reactionary cause. And, people would have followed along merrily not realising the ramifications of giving away control.

In the United States, people are still in there fighting for their rights as law abiding citizens, because they know that today it's guns and tomorrow it's something else.

Hats off to 'em.

[Ally]

It's a fairly famous commentary on the inherit perils of democracy. As in you can't have two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Pretty much anyone who has studied government or politics has heard of it.

[Stephen Thomas]

Either way, democracy: two wolves; 1 sheep.

What the effing hell is that supposed to mean?

[jason_c]

Just on a side note, it did seem strange to me that the BBC and Sky News both lead with the shooting of these two firefighters. They also openly linked it to the school shootings last week (as in the wider gun culture debate in the US). Im not sure if there is some agenda going on here. Would two firefighters being shot in Australia, Germany or South Korea have made headline news in the UK? I doubt it.

There are some very dodgy editing decisions going on in news organizations over here. I still contend that news organizations who publicise these shootings are simply encouraging other nutases. Yet I barely detect one iota of self criticism within the media class.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If you are saying you don't care whether the gun nuts shoot each other, I don't particularly, either. I do wish they'd quit shooting children, though. Or leaving loaded guns where children can find them.

I think the point has already been made that guns don't kill: people kill.

With a gun at your disposal, then it makes a killing spree easier, granted.

I'm surprised that the individual rights advocates are calling for a ban on the majority due to the actions of a tiny minority.

It doesn't sound overly concerned with the law abiding individual.

Unless, of course, we're really talking about people who have no wish to own guns and just plain dislike them, and as a result want to tell others not to have a gun out of personal taste.

Either way, democracy: two wolves; 1 sheep.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Just for the record, there are plenty of Americans who do not believe in the death penalty.

Never doubted it.

I'm not particularly switched on with modern US politics, but I do know that the democratic states tend to exist in the North and on the two coasts; and that like any other Western nation there are liberal and conservative elements within US society.

Personally, I don't hold a strong opinion on the matter - I can see strengths and weaknesses in both options. My only point was to say that polls in England suggest the majority would like to see hanging re-instated.

[Limehouse]

Excellent and wise posts from Monty, Dave and Rivkah.

Let's hope and pray that at this special family time, peace and grace will be with those affected by this terrible tragedy.

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love. Where there is injury, pardon. Where there is doubt, faith. Where there is despair, hope. Where there is darkness, light. Where there is sadness, joy. The prayer of St Francis

[RivkahChaya]

All this coinflict is bloody stupid...

Personally I'm perfectly happy if North Americans continue to carry arms...it doesn't bother me at all...Happy Christmas one and all...

Every good wish

Dave

If you are saying you don't care whether the gun nuts shoot each other, I don't particularly, either. I do wish they'd quit shooting children, though. Or leaving loaded guns where children can find them.

[Cogidubnus]

All this coinflict is bloody stupid...

Personally I'm perfectly happy if North Americans continue to carry arms...it doesn't bother me at all...Happy Christmas one and all...

Every good wish

Dave

[RivkahChaya]

Believe it or not, most people in this country want to see criminals hanged for murder; we want to see justice metered out in proportion to the crime; we want more civic duty and moral responsibility.

Just for the record, there are plenty of Americans who do not believe in the death penalty, and since the US moratorium was lifted in 1976, 1/3 of all US executions have been in the state of Texas, with over 1/2 of all US executions in just three states alone. 18 states and the District of Columbia have abolished the death penalty, while a few other states have a de facto moratorium, because they have a death row, but no statutory means of execution, or are in a situation like California, which requires the presence of a licensed MD at every execution, but currently the California board of medicine has passed a resolution refusing to participate in executions, and the legislation has not dealt with the issue. FWIW, four states abolished the death penalty in their original constitutions (two in the mid-1800s, two in the mid-1900s), and have never had an execution, and Maine abolished it in 1887, so the US is both very forward, and very backward, depending on where you look.

Also, the "you can have the gun when you peel it from my cold, dead hands" is not universal here. I carried a rifle around in military training, and my husband carried one, along with ammo, the whole year he was deployed, but neither of us ever got comfortable enough to want to carry a weapon all the time. And I have lived in Manhattan, and Washington, DC, particularly when DC was a high crime area, and I lived in New York City, albeit, not in Manhattan, during some of the high crime days, and was never moved to want to carry a gun. My husband had a target pistol, but he got rid of it after we had a child. When he did have it, he never kept it loaded, and kept it in a locked box when it was in the house. He had a greater fear of having it stolen, and used in a crime, that he would then be implicated in, than he did of needing it for self-defense.

[Monty]

Nonsense, Monty.

British manufacturing was being out-performed. Out-performed by the Americans, out-performed by the Germans, and, criminally, out-performed by the French. The figures/stats are out there for your perusal.

The unions in this country were an absolute disgrace.

The founders of the union movement would have been turning in their graves watching their political off-spring make a mockery of sound union principles by basic ally fighting and striking for anything that gave workers an easy ride; which was never the intention of the union founders.

You don't win anything by taking the easy road. That's what the union leaders and associates wanted to do and striked for it. Hard graft is what wins the day.

I'm from a mining village in Durham, Monty, I have first hand experience of what existed, and still does today, in such working class communities. I'm proud of my heritage and my roots, but not proud of some of the idiots who infest these communities because they're continuously told: "it's not your fault; it's Thatcher or someone else". What they should be told is: "shape up and make a life for yourself; take responsibility".

Absolute bollocks,

Tis the season of goodwill, so I'm going to let your right wing hyperbole slide.

Also, this isn't the thread.

Have a good Christmas.

Monty

[Errata]

Well, it seems to me we have four problems here.

1. People kill other people.

2. Certain tools make it easier to kill a lot more people than would otherwise be killed

3. People have a right to protect themselves from people who want to kill them.

4. No two studies have produced remotely the same results, so we as a nation are woefully under knowledgeable on the subject of what the hell is happening.

It strikes me that for the most part, each individual problem can be easily solved. But often not without compromising the other issues. But there is a logical order to these problems.

First: We need to know what the hell we are dealing with. How can we decide that guns are or are not a problem if we don't even know how many guns are out there, and in whose hands? The typical response when surveyed says that 41% of Americans have guns. The one thing every study has agreed on is that this is a lie. It is projecting that as many as 70% of Americans own guns. And these surveys are only targeting registered gun owners, so about 30 % of people who have guns legally lie about having them. So maybe the solution here is to just suck it up and not be a part of the problem. I mean, I get privacy, I get that it's nobodies business, etc. I don't get the "I don't want the government to now I am armed" bit, because, you know, too late. But whatever. Objections both valid and not. But 30% percent of legal gun owners unwilling to admit thy own a gun is not going to be seen a anything other than part of the problem. So the should do themselves a favor, do us a favor, and just answer the damn surveys honestly. I mean, these are sociologists asking questions, you are nowhere near the weirdest thing he has every seen. We need to know whats going on. No prevaricating, no chest thumping, just the truth.

Protection is really the next imperative. Getting the truth about guns in this country will help a lot in this category. But there have been a lot of other studies about crime prevention, and maybe putting those to use can prevent problems down the road. A Harvard sociologist wrapped up this big long research project into crime. He noted that making crime slightly harder to commit was as effective as making crime excruciatingly harder to commit. Ease dictates targets. It's a little like Hadrian's wall. It's mostly like, three feet tall, which does nothing to keep out cattle raiders from the North. But three feet of wall was plenty to make it very difficult and very annoying to get cattle OUT of England. Kind of brilliant. Statistically an ADT alarm sticker is as effective as deterring theft as an ADT alarm system. I mean, we're not going to take anyone's guns away anytime soon, so let's try better defensive measures and see how it works. It's possible some people may discover they no longer feel the need to own a gun.

And then there is the efficiency of guns. If a guy wants to kill a guy, he'll do it with a roll of toilet paper if he has to. I'm not questioning that. But on the same day a kid in the US killed 20 kids and three adults with guns. In China a man wounded the same number of people with a knife, but last I checked, no one died. Guns are designed to kill. It's what they do. They are very good at their job. Knives and bats can kill as well. But they aren't nearly as good at that job as guns are. Perhaps making guns less good at their job isn't a terrible idea. You have to ask yourself, how many bullets does a person really need. Assuming you are a decent shot, I can't think you'd need more than three to kill a man. And if it's you vs. six other guys also with guns... well, it doesn't matter what size your clip is. Bullets that don't go through people wouldn't be a bad idea either. I mean, if it lodges in there, it doesn't make him less dead than one that goes through. There's lot of ideas in this area that don't take away guns. Just dumbs them down some.

And then we have to address the fact that people kill people. Which yes, they have been doing since the dawn of time. And sure, some of these guys are psychopaths, and there's not much to be done. But most of these people are born with the same abilities, the same brains, the same needs and wants as the rest of us. We have gotten pretty good about meeting people's physical needs. Not perfect by any means. We have ways to meet peoples psychological needs, but we aren't deploying them really at all. And there is no organization that focuses on people's social needs, which are just as important as the other two. People are obviously responsible for their own actions. And nothing justifies murder like this. But if we could have stopped them, but didn't, aren't we a little culpable as well? Isn't it our job in part of keeping ourselves safe to pay attention to the people around us? Isn't it in our best interest for these guys to get spotted and helped BEFORE they do this? It's not impossible. It's just counter to our national identity. But I don't think our national identity is worth more dead kids.

Just ideas.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleetwood,

Before you lay the blame of the downfall of Britain on the left, recall the destruction of the manufactoring industry by the right.

If you are going to lay blame, lay blame equally.

Monty

Nonsense, Monty.

British manufacturing was being out-performed. Out-performed by the Americans, out-performed by the Germans, and, criminally, out-performed by the French. The figures/stats are out there for your perusal.

The unions in this country were an absolute disgrace.

The founders of the union movement would have been turning in their graves watching their political off-spring make a mockery of sound union principles by basic ally fighting and striking for anything that gave workers an easy ride; which was never the intention of the union founders.

You don't win anything by taking the easy road. That's what the union leaders and associates wanted to do and striked for it. Hard graft is what wins the day.

I'm from a mining village in Durham, Monty, I have first hand experience of what existed, and still does today, in such working class communities. I'm proud of my heritage and my roots, but not proud of some of the idiots who infest these communities because they're continuously told: "it's not your fault; it's Thatcher or someone else". What they should be told is: "shape up and make a life for yourself; take responsibility".