Another gun massacre in the US

[jeremyp]

  Pedant alert

I think that should be "pedantry". After all, you are notifying us that there is about to be some pedantry. You are not warning us that a pedant has suddenly appeared.

, prolific is the wrong word there, and is wrong in an ironic way.

I don't get the irony although I agree it is the wrong word. I would have used "ubiquitous".

The thing is those supporting gun ownership see it as a right and then because it has inherent danger, see it as counter acting that danger. The second amendment is seen as being about freedom.

Yes, you are right about 2A symbolising freedom from interference from the government. There's a guy on Youtube called Paul Harrell who posts videos about guns. They're never political and always focus on the technicalities of owning and using guns. However, the one thing he does say is that as an American you have a right to own a gun and a right to vote and you should exercise both. He seems to put them both on the same level of importance. 

[Nearly Sane]

I think that should be "pedantry". After all, you are notifying us that there is about to be some pedantry. You are not warning us that a pedant has suddenly appeared.

I don't get the irony although I agree it is the wrong word. I would have used "ubiquitous".

Yes, you are right about 2A symbolising freedom from interference from the government. There's a guy on Youtube called Paul Harrell who posts videos about guns. They're never political and always focus on the technicalities of owning and using guns. However, the one thing he does say is that as an American you have a right to own a gun and a right to vote and you should exercise both. He seems to put them both on the same level of importance.

Yep, fair point about pedant/pedantry.

Where I saw the irony was in using a word that means amongst other things producing young on a thread discussing killings with guns.

[Roses]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50619957

11 people have been shot in an incident in New Orleans!

[Nearly Sane]

And six more dead - though this seems to have been more of a gunfight

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50737537

[Sassy]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46002549

This time at a synagogue!

Whose fault was it this time?

[Roses]

Whose fault was it this time?

Trump supporting the right to bear arms.

[Sassy]

Trump supporting the right to bear arms.

If there were no guns would the massacre still have happened?

[Roses]

If there were no guns would the massacre still have happened?

Of course not.

[SteveH]

Trump supporting the right to bear arms.

Michelle Obama exercising her right to bare arms.

[ad_orientem]

Just a wholesome family picture! Sick in the head, more like!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59543735

[Aruntraveller]

Powerful stuff:

https://youtu.be/vPvf5RgCU08

The NRA and those senators should hang their heads in shame.

[SusanDoris]

Powerful stuff:

https://youtu.be/vPvf5RgCU08

The NRA and those senators should hang their heads in shame.

Totally agree of course. It is so deeply saddening.

[Harrowby Hall]

The Second Amendment should be annulled. The USA has one of the largest professional armies in the world.

[Outrider]

The Second Amendment should be annulled. The USA has one of the largest professional armies in the world.

Part of the justification for the 2nd amendment is exactly because of that professional army - the capacity for the populace to create a militia to fight back against the government. Absolute nonsense in a practical sense, of course...

The thing is, there are other places with shitloads of guns (even if the US is still an outlier), and this sort of thing just doesn't happen in those places.

The US has 120 guns per 100 people, compared to England and Wales' 5 or Australia's 14. But, Saudi Arabia has in excess of 50, Serbia 40, Montenegro also 40, and these gun death rates aren't even close, whilst El Salvador, Guatemala and Venezuela lead the gun death rates despite ownership rates of 12, 12.1 and 18.5 respectively.

It's also worth noting the US isn't even in the top 10 for gun deaths per capita, but it's #2 for suicides by firearm per capita, and it's the only country in the world with an appreciable rate of deaths in mass shootings.

If the guns weren't there these suicides would likely be lower (there's some evidence that more people survive other suicide attempts more frequently, and fail to complete attempts by other means more often), and the mass attacks would likely be less frequent, less deadly and have fewer victims. However, culturally the US isn't in a position to wholesale ban the sale of guns like the UK and Australia have done.

The culture of gun use, gun ownership and the depiction of firearms in everyday life in the US is the problem - other people have guns and they don't get used like this. It's a culture that has to change, and if that changes then the wholesale control of gun ownership won't be necessary, but if it doesn't change then the wholesale control of guns isn't a possibility anyway.

It seems that Americans are just too invested in their 'rights' and not invested enough in the responsibilities that come along with those rights, and until that changes these deaths are going to continue to happen.

O.

[ad_orientem]

The NRA and those senators should hang their heads in shame.

For them gun massacres are an acceptable sacrifice if it means they keep their guns. Their only solution is more guns. Inbreds, the lot of them! It's the only explanation.

[Spud]

Is it really a person's right to own a firearm? I would say it is a privilege, that should be earned.

[SteveH]

Is it really a person's right to own a firearm? I would say it is a privilege, that should be earned.

It's a right if society decides that it's a right. US society has so decided, with disastrous results.

[jeremyp]

For them gun massacres are an acceptable sacrifice if it means they keep their guns. Their only solution is more guns. Inbreds, the lot of them! It's the only explanation.

75% of Americans think there should be stricter gun controls. The problem is that the 25% have undue influence and the arms industry makes a lot of money.

[jeremyp]

Is it really a person's right to own a firearm? I would say it is a privilege, that should be earned.

What kind of a society would you prefer to live in: one where you can only do things the government says are legal or one where you can do anything except what the government says is illegal.

I would argue that the USA and, indeed, the UK fall into the second category. You have a right to do whatever you like unless the government says you can't and that includes owning guns.

In the UK, the government has said you can't own a gun but we don't regard it as a problem because even two mass shootings were deemed by almost everybody to be an unacceptable price to pay to keep the right. 

In the USA there is a problem because the government can't make laws to ban guns, at least not all of them, because of the US Constitution and there are enough people and enough money to stop that clause from being repealed. What's more, it's been shown that, even if there was the political will to repeal the Second Amendment, the people with guns think it's OK to try to overthrow a democratic decision by force.

[BeRational]

What kind of a society would you prefer to live in: one where you can only do things the government says are legal or one where you can do anything except what the government says is illegal.

I would argue that the USA and, indeed, the UK fall into the second category. You have a right to do whatever you like unless the government says you can't and that includes owning guns.

In the UK, the government has said you can't own a gun but we don't regard it as a problem because even two mass shootings were deemed by almost everybody to be an unacceptable price to pay to keep the right. 

In the USA there is a problem because the government can't make laws to ban guns, at least not all of them, because of the US Constitution and there are enough people and enough money to stop that clause from being repealed. What's more, it's been shown that, even if there was the political will to repeal the Second Amendment, the people with guns think it's OK to try to overthrow a democratic decision by force.

I love guns and would certainly own them if it was legal.

It's not legal, and I totally understand why, so too bad.

[Spud]

What kind of a society would you prefer to live in: one where you can only do things the government says are legal or one where you can do anything except what the government says is illegal.

I don't think the first one is likely. What would be the point in, say, legislating that climbing trees, going for a run or doing a headstand is legal?

I would argue that the USA and, indeed, the UK fall into the second category. You have a right to do whatever you like unless the government says you can't and that includes owning guns.

In the UK, the government has said you can't own a gun but we don't regard it as a problem because even two mass shootings were deemed by almost everybody to be an unacceptable price to pay to keep the right. 

In the USA there is a problem because the government can't make laws to ban guns, at least not all of them, because of the US Constitution and there are enough people and enough money to stop that clause from being repealed. What's more, it's been shown that, even if there was the political will to repeal the Second Amendment, the people with guns think it's OK to try to overthrow a democratic decision by force.

Does it have to be repealed, or just modified? Bring in licensing and allow anyone who gets through a rigorous testing regime to get one.

[Spud]

I love guns and would certainly own them if it was legal.

It's not legal, and I totally understand why, so too bad.

If less people had them, less people would want them. The forming-a-militia thing doesn't seem practical since nowadays the government has control over more sophisticated weapons that would be impossible to fight against (?)

[Outrider]

If less people had them, less people would want them. The forming-a-militia thing doesn't seem practical since nowadays the government has control over more sophisticated weapons that would be impossible to fight against (?)

Look at the sort of people advocating for gun rights in the US, do these strike you as primarily 'practical' people?

It's deeper than that caricature, though, the US is culturally founded upon the idea that what makes them different is their cleaving to individual rights. They are a nation created out of the stance that individual rights outweigh other concerns, and it's become the bedrock of their sense of exceptionalism.

Whilst there are examples where they're quite happy to encroach on some people's rights (abortion, voting access etc.), so long as they can keep the 2nd amendment discussion as being about protecting individual rights they're going to have a great deal of success over there.

O.

[BeRational]

If less people had them, less people would want them. The forming-a-militia thing doesn't seem practical since nowadays the government has control over more sophisticated weapons that would be impossible to fight against (?)

The militia thing is not something I would be interested in.
I am in the UK and I like guns, but I cannot have them, so no problem

[Aruntraveller]

..