If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Easier to point to lone nutter (latest US mass shooting)
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Well once again there are people mouring in the US because someone has pulled a gun in an education establishment.
Once again the reports start coming out about loner with "issues", insinuations of mental health problems...
And still it seems that ignorance of a link between availability of guns and this sort of crime - as well as an apparent culture of aggression means that the citizens of the States can simply pass this off as a sad event caused by a loner... rather than a systematic breakdown in society leading to more events in this one country than in the rest of the world combined...
Does anyone think that they will ever realise that there is something rotten in Mom's Apple Pie?
Once again the reports start coming out about loner with "issues", insinuations of mental health problems...
And still it seems that ignorance of a link between availability of guns and this sort of crime - as well as an apparent culture of aggression means that the citizens of the States can simply pass this off as a sad event caused by a loner... rather than a systematic breakdown in society leading to more events in this one country than in the rest of the world combined...
Does anyone think that they will ever realise that there is something rotten in Mom's Apple Pie?
0
Comments
The big problem is that people grow up watching violent movies, seeing how the violent characters get the money and get the girl, and then people are surprised that we have a violent society.
There is a direct link between the amount of violence that young people are exposed to and the amount of violence that people perpetrate. That isn't just about the media portrayal of violence as entertainment- people with violent childhoods tend to be violent themselves- but the media exposes more people to violence and normalises violent behaviour.
But pointing this out makes you some sort of religious/censorship fruitloop.
What about the whole "shoot first" mentality which is partly why people want guns in the first place, but also evidenced by an military with a poor records for shoting anything that moves...
Is there a particularly strong link? Israel, Switzerland and Canada have very high levels of gun ownership yet relatively low levels of gun crime.
There are fifty states, some have tight gun control - and in some beyond federal regulations there's no state laws controlling firearms...
Gun laws help but it's not going to magically end the problem. London has high gun crime yet the UK has among the strictest gun laws in the world...
We do have a similar level of violent crime though - ours tends to be more stabbings, glassings etc. Now this does make it mean that we have less mass murders and more people who survive, but the US isn't more intrinsically violent than the UK
Massive generalisation on both counts. People want weapons for all sorts of reasons, some good, some bad, some to do with liberty and right of the individual and some to do with fear (its worth noting that the Franklin quote so often bandied about without any thought on this board is about the right to bear arms*)
The US military is much less gung-ho than the French for example. It always makes the news when you shoot something you shouldn't, but never makes the news when you don't shoot something you shouldn't ( This combined with a culture of openess and a reluctant willingness to air dirty washing in public makes it seem the US is worse than they are).
*of course he may not originally have said it and there's an argument second ammendment supporters made it up to support their argument
We do have the same level of problems, though, but over here we have knife crime because guns are less readily available. Whether being stabbed is better than being shot is a moot poiint. We have similar levels of violent crime and in places like Nottingham and London we have similar levels of violent crime using guns.
Stricter gun laws would probably stop shootings but it wouldn't do anything about the violence we have.
When was the last mass shooting in the UK?
Indeed they were
While it is true that other countries with high gun ownership don't have as high incidents of shootings as the US, the truth remains that gun ownership does not prevent crime or protects law abiding citizens to any extent. On the contrary, you can guarantee that burglars and robbers are all going to be carrying in such nations, and in the immense majority of cases the victim is going to come worse off. How many situations in which a home owner disturbs a burglar in Britain and the burglar legs it (or at worst beats the homeowner up) would end up in a shootout if everybody owned guns in Britain? A lot.
There are no pros about legal gun ownership, and a lot of cons.
Of course if you're a cynic you might believe there are limits to liberalism...
(For the record I think our laws our too strict and the US (or at least some states) aren't strict enough)
However if one does not believe in the right to own nuclear weapons, I can't see why they would feel their liberty infringed by not being able to own a gun. I mean, does anyone here feel opressed because they're not allowed to own nukes? Is it any different from not being allowed to own a gun?
If I feel my personal liberty is being infringed it certainly comes from, say, not being allowed to take drugs for my own recreation if I wish to do so, or not being able to die with dignity as and when I choose it. Gun ownership ranks pretty low in my liberty priorities.
Indeed, even though I suspect the majority of gun owners in the US are firmly against drug use, you have to wonder what kind of logic they subscribe to when they think their personal liberty is enhanced by the right to own a device designed soley to kill a human being, when at the same time they don't mind about about laws who would put them in jail solely for posessing substances designed to make them feel good.
i'd say the gun laws we had until we banned handguns were perfectly reasonable ie legal to own under strict license, and awkwad to get licenses, but at the same time they aren't that bad really since there is hardly any use for a gun
the single best thing they could do in america is for every gun you get, you have to provide a test round to the police there for record keeping, also keeps the 2nd amendment, which in it's entirety allows for the states to defend themselves against the federal government in case the federal government ever used the national army on their own people
And there's the rub isn't it... We all want liberty for ourselves, but are willing to sacrifice it for others.
To be fair we're all the same. I want the liberty to drink and smoke, but I don't want others to have the liberty to have weapons. But as a drinker and a smoker I have as much potential to harm others as the average gun-owner does (next to none)
As an aside given how widespread gun ownership in the US is I'd say that saying the average gunowner is against drug use is probably only accurate is saying the average person is.
Young people are dying like flies by their own hands in Bridgend and all I hear in the media is blame placed on internet websites despite there being no conclusive evidence as yet.
We need to look deeper methinks...
I'm not sure the comparison with drinking and smoking holds much water either. Neither activity is designed to kill another human being. Unlike a gun.
You seem to be missing my point - I am not arguing that weapons don't kill (though strictly speaking it's the bullet which kills unless you bash someone over the head repeatedly) or that the US doesn't have a higher murder rate.
I'm perfectly happy to have weapons laws in place
But what I am arguing is that it reduces people's liberty.
Perhaps smoking less so. but alcohol results in thousands of deaths per year in terms of drink driving and violence. Okay most people, won't get into a car drunk, but then most firearm owners won't ever fire there weapon at a person.
As I said I'm happy to have weapons restrictions in place, but lets not pretend that we're doing anything but sacrificing people's liberty for our own security.
A world where everyone would have 100% liberty to do absolutely anything they wanted, even if it could be achieved (which I very much doubt, since some people's liberties would invariably clash with others and something would have to give) would be an indescribable hellhole. We simply have to make the best of life and to weigh in our priorities and quality of life together with our liberties.
The fact that by not being legally allowed to own a gun my liberty is being somehow eroded is as relevant as the fact that I'm not allowed to own nukes or drop kittens in deep fryers. And so it should be to anyone with an ounce of common sense, decency and rationality in them. It's not even worth pointing out IMO.
I dont get it anyway what are guns for?what are they used for?it aint legal to shoot sum1 is it,i know people go on abouts hunting and that but cum on we are in britain we aint in the middle of a game resoviour in africa.
I know 'guns dont kill,people do' but they make it so any nutter with a finger can possible kill you.
It's a rather silly analogy. I've never known anyone go target shooting with nukes or hunting with them either.
Of course it couldn't. I don't believe in 100% liberty.
Well it wouldn't erode your liberty, so that's alright. But there are plenty of legitimate uses for pistols and rifles. Now I'm willing to say that it's tough, but we're going to reduce your liberty for my safety. But I do accept that it's going to have a negative impact on some people's freedom...
The Government are allowed to have guns and we're not. That immediately erodes our liberty to quite a significant extent, because we can't defend ourselves against the Government.
There are plenty of legitimate uses for rifles and pistols beyond killing people. I think gun controls in this country are too strict; only the criminals have guns, which puts us all in a weaker position.
And nuclear weapons? Presumably anyone rich enough should be able to afford one of them to defend themselves against the government?
Higher prevalance of black nail polish, eyeliner and hairspray.