Jump to content

‘America is killing itself’: world reacts with horror and incomprehension to Texas shooting


webfact
 Share

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Did y'all have 300+ million firearms, with many, 10s of millions in the hands of criminals, with wide open borders, impossible to stop the influx of more.

 

Or live on a small or large island easy to control illegal imports.  Taking guns away from registered owners if fine, if you don't have 10s of millions of criminals in possession of firearms.

 

Your scenarios don't and won't work for the USA.

Quote

Yes the gun bans do work and for precisely the reasons stated - they stop any crazy person walking into a gun store and then going on a mass shooting spree.

It is the job of the police to stop the criminals and you are a criminal in UK or AUS if you are carrying a handgun or an assault rifle - so you go to prison.

In the recent Texas shooting the law allowed the gunman to buy the guns legally and to carry them, even if the perp was stopped by police they could not have done anything against him unless he made a direct threat - this is the stupidity of the Texas law

There are conflicting reports as to whether the gunman was challenged by law enforcement before getting to the school

So, yes, a gun ban along the lines of the UK or AUS would have stopped the massacre had he been challenged by law enforcement before he got there

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, superal said:

OK , so what is the answer to mitigate gun crimes in America ?  Or will it just carry on as usual ?

Make harder to purchase AR-15 semi-automatics, and associated ammunition. Require a special permit for current owners with regular inspections, on a federal level.  That would go a long way in stopping this problem.  A good compromise and a good start.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Phew , already earlier posted that  they wished a persons mum would have had an abortion rather than giving birth and now a post hoping a group of people all commit suicide by blowing their brains out . 

  Thats rather unpleasant things to say , but no doubt it will all be their fault as to why you are so nasty

You misunderstand.

I am not hoping that anyone will blow their own brains out.

From death records kept in the USA I know that they will.

A large number of the gun owners who will have dismissive, hateful, ugly things to say about the school shootings will kill themselves.

It's just a fact.

I am in no way nasty; you are having trouble processing all this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Personally, I don't think it can be fixed.  As long as parents aren't being parents, and parents aren't being responsible.  Along with a legal system, that is nothing more than a revolving door of incarnation and storage of criminals, short term, and profitable for the private sector.   Legal system being a billion $$$ business, nothing more, nothing less.

 

OT w/school shootings ... Previous thoughts I've had; raise the age to purchase, to maybe 25 yrs old, hopefully more mature and out of murdering school age from being bullied & rage.   Apparently won't make much of a difference, if reading link below.   

 

Along with making the parents of shooter, responsible for their firearms, as when was the last time, or any time, an owner of a weapon used in a school shooting prosecuted for allowing access to their firearms, if shooter didn't buy it themselves.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/report-7-in-10-school-shootings-carried-out-by-people-under-18/

 

You could price the guns out of the market for stupid people.  $5000 permit fee to buy, $1000 yearly fee to keep.  Along with mandatory steel lock safe to keep in before allowed to purchase.

 

But the lawyers would fight that, saying it's racist, and deprives the poor to firearms access and they will be left out.

 

I have no solutions, except if living in the USA, I'd carry a firearm, and hope they'd start placing violent criminals in jail for life, no parole.  Never happen.  USA ... Love it or Leave it.

 

I chose the latter.

 

 

Wow , yes I get it . So even the innocent good citizens might carry a gun for personal protection . This can only exacerbate the problem . Tell me if I am wrong but I think I read that federal laws regarding firearms can differ state by state ? I would hesitate in getting into an argument in a bar  , with so many guns around .

I would have serious thoughts of sending my child to school in the USA and would be vetting the schools for security and pupil protection . Apparently the school involved in the shooting had 2 armed security men on site . Maybe time for the parents to take some sort of action .

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, JCauto said:

The cops have been specifically told by the Supreme Court that they do not have to protect people.

Got a link?

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

Make harder to purchase AR-15 semi-automatics, and associated ammunition. Require a special permit for current owners with regular inspections, on a federal level.  That would go a long way in stopping this problem.  A good compromise and a good start.

Agree but I think that the N . R . A . would probably oppose any changes and only 52% of Americans said that more stricter gun laws were needed .  ( Gallop Poll ) . Time for the government to make big changes if the Senate will agree . 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2022 at 6:27 AM, pacovl46 said:

That's a new low, second and fourth graders!!! Just wow! I wish they wouldn't have shot him so he could rot in prison for the rest of his life!!! 

I have my doubts he would have lived long enough in prison to rot

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JCauto said:

Stop the BS. The cops have been specifically told by the Supreme Court that they do not have to protect people. Not surprisingly, they literally were afraid to go in because there was a guy with a gun there and it was dangerous. Come on, you're saying, that can't be true. That's LITERALLY what the police lieutenant interviewed on CNN said directly. There have been 8 mass shootings in Texas in the last 13 years and they "were not trained properly"? Come on.

Oh the poor dears are working 60+ hours a week racking up massive overtime and getting paid an average of over $100,000 per year for a job that requires a high school degree and a couple of months of training. But won't go into danger to protect the citizens paying their bills even when it's a kid and the cops have far superior body armor and numbers. ALL. COPS. ARE. BAD. ACAB.

Ya and all Thai girls are prostitutes?

 

You are beyond reason.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, PoodThaiMaiDai said:

Ya and all Thai girls are prostitutes?

 

You are beyond reason.

You don't understand the meaning. It refers to the origins, training, practice, equipping and culture of policing in the USA. They were a tool of the ruling class to attack and keep the workers from unionizing and otherwise gaining rights at the beginning and have never changed. They attract bullies and train them to be para-military, then arm and armor them to enable them to do so. They have established police unions whose entire existence is meant to prevent accountability and protect their actions from any outside scrutiny. They routinely target minorities and support election of "law and order" politicians who further empower them. They lobby and vote in judges who further their objectives and threaten any prosecutor who charges bad cops with getting no cooperation in the future so they're ineffective and get voted out in favor of complicit ones. This is systemic and you would have to be blind to not see it.

Within this culture, there are no "good guys with guns" who can do a damn thing about it. Are there idealistic people who joined hoping to help their communities? Of course. Are they able to overcome the culture and overwhelming majority who don't? Nope. And so long as mediocre high school grads are handed weapons and armor and told to go out and beat heads it is never going to change. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

It isn't as easy as you'd think to purchase a firearm. I sold guns in Texas, with a federal license, and background checks are mandatory. If the person didn't have any record, as this one didn't, they can buy a gun. There are millions of legitimate hunters and target shooters in the US, and they aren't the ones doing this kind of killing. This is mental illness, as all kinds of killing besides self defense are, and you cannot stop this as mental illness isn't easy to spot in one so young. Kids that age are angry at most anything, as this one was, from being bullied to controlled or neglected by parents, and raising the buying age might help, because by then they are more mature. Contrary to what some others have said, AR-15 rifles are the same as other semi automatics, with larger clips being the difference. I agree, there isn't any reason for clips above 8 shots, even if some like to just keep pulling the trigger at targets for fun. But, anyone with a rifle can kill as many as 5 before having to reload, and with a handgun, as many as 15 bullets are in the clip. The only was this can be halted is armed off duty police officers working as a side job, plus metal detectors in all schools, checked by said officers. Thailand has as much gun violence per capita as the US. No school shooting are taking place, which of course is great, but a lot are shot here by legitimate cowardly gun owners, who choose a gun over using their fists. Having people owning guns for self defense has saved many lives, where it wouldn't have happened otherwise. Criminals will get guns no matter what, and the police can't stop all of them. Hunting will never be stopped in the US, and like I mentioned earlier, it isn't hunters that are doing this. It is mentally disturbed individuals that are falling through the cracks, many of whom have come from homes where the parents are involved. Bullying in recent years isn't being tolerated as much as when I was in school, late 60's to mid 70's, and that has helped, but there will always be bullying going on, something the kids usually learned by being abused or neglected at home, and sometimes by peer pressure. Bottom line, metal detectors and armed guards in all schools, immediately. Letting teachers who have carry permits carry their firearms. Stopping all sales of multiple rounds in clips. Making parent, owners, of firearms responsible if their child gets access to a gun that isn't theirs. It's called the United States of America yet laws are different in all states,as well as punishment for crimes. Change that, although that might be near impossible because most of what goes on is about money and not common sense. Changing the open carry law, at least as far as Texas where I'm from is concerned, will make sure people like this can't just walk around without arousing any suspicion, to where guns and ammo are kept cased, in separate containers, until the final destination is arrived at. This excludes handguns of course, but these killings usually involve rifles of some sort, with high capacity clips. Finally, this isn't just happening in the US, as people kill others daily in every country, and guns aren't always the weapon of choice. Arguments about the UK and Australia have some merit, but other countries have the same problem as this shows............

Countries with the Highest Total Gun Deaths (all causes) in 2019

  1. Brazil (49436)
  2. United States (37038)
  3. Venezuela (28515)
  4. Mexico (22116)
  5. India (14710)
  6. Colombia (13169)
  7. Philippines (9267)
  8. Guatemala (5980)

Brazil has the highest number of total gun deaths from all causes in the world, with 49,436 out of 250,227 worldwide. The United States has the second-highest number of gun deaths with 37,038.

That said, if one isolates the violent gun deaths and adjusts for population size by expressing the rate as the number of homicides per 100k people, the list changes significantly.

Countries with the Highest Rates of Violent Gun Death (Homicides) per 100k residents in 2019

  1. El Salvador (36.78)
  2. Venezuela (33.27)
  3. Guatemala (29.06)
  4. Colombia (26.36)
  5. Brazil (21.93)
  6. Bahamas (21.52)
  7. Honduras (20.15)
  8. U.S. Virgin Islands (19.40)
  9. Puerto Rico (18.14)
  10. Mexico (16.41)

Gun violence in Latin America is exceptionally high, due in no small part to the prevalence of criminal gangs and a vibrant drug trafficking industry. The Inter-American Development Bank released a report highlighting several critical factors in Latin American cities that contribute to increased gun violence, including economic deprivation, residential instability, family disruption, absence from school, the population’s age structure, and alcohol consumption.

Gangs are much less of an issue in the United States, yet it is second only to Brazil on the list in total gun deaths. Many people understandably assume the high number of gun deaths in the U.S. is due to mass shootings, which receive frequent attention from the media. In truth, mass shootings account for only a small percentage of gun deaths in the United States. Rather, nearly two-thirds (63%) of gun deaths in the US in 2019 were suicides.

Countries with the Highest Rates of Firearm-Related Suicide (per 100k) in 2019

  1. Greenland (16.36)
  2. United States (7.12)
  3. Uruguay (4.74)
  4. San Marino (4.08)
  5. Montenegro (3.40)
  6. Argentina (2.67)
  7. Finland (2.66)
  8. Monaco (2.64)
  9. France (2.64)
  10. Venezuela (2.50)

In contrast to the U.S. and Latin America, gun deaths are extremely rare in countries like Japan, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Australia. These countries have implemented incentives or passed legislation to decrease the number of firearms in circulation. For example, in July 2021, Australia implemented a permanent gun amnesty program, in which unregistered firearms could be anonymously surrendered at police stations.

Japan boasts a population of more than 127 million people, yet finished 2019 with a gun death rate of only .02 per 100,000 people. One major factor in this success is that Japan has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. For Japanese citizens to purchase a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written exam, and complete a shooting range test, scoring at least 95% accuracy. Candidates will also receive a mental health evaluation, performed at a hospital, and will have a comprehensive background check done by the government. Only shotguns and rifles can be purchased. The class and exam must be retaken every three years..............................................This shows things can be done, and ownership can still happen. Would this have stopped this particular shooter? Maybe, maybe not, as he , as far as I see, didn't have any record and was only said to have been a little aggressive, whatever that could mean

 
 

On  the whole a sensible post but I have to pick you up on a couple of points

1) It is correct that it is usually disturbed individuals that perpetrate the mass shootings but they either obtain their guns legally (before the onset of any mental illness or do not have any record of mental illness at the time of purchase) or legally purchased by other members of the family - so none of the solutions outside of a gun ban would work in these cases

2) Yes, criminals still obtain guns but gun control laws make it much harder and much more expensive for your average person to obtain a weapon like this as they do not have access or the funds to go through the black market - in the UK for instance a black-market handgun sells for over $200 and just the possession of it is an offence with jail time, in the US by contract the same gun is available over the counter - with a cursory background check, for around $20 - and all legal

The drop in firearms related offences - in  both UK and AUS, can be directly correlated to the increased difficulty in obtaining weapons in the first place

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JCauto said:

You don't understand the meaning. It refers to the origins, training, practice, equipping and culture of policing in the USA. They were a tool of the ruling class to attack and keep the workers from unionizing and otherwise gaining rights at the beginning and have never changed. They attract bullies and train them to be para-military, then arm and armor them to enable them to do so. They have established police unions whose entire existence is meant to prevent accountability and protect their actions from any outside scrutiny. They routinely target minorities and support election of "law and order" politicians who further empower them. They lobby and vote in judges who further their objectives and threaten any prosecutor who charges bad cops with getting no cooperation in the future so they're ineffective and get voted out in favor of complicit ones. This is systemic and you would have to be blind to not see it.

Within this culture, there are no "good guys with guns" who can do a damn thing about it. Are there idealistic people who joined hoping to help their communities? Of course. Are they able to overcome the culture and overwhelming majority who don't? Nope. And so long as mediocre high school grads are handed weapons and armor and told to go out and beat heads it is never going to change. 

You are sadly tainted and wrong on about 98% of your statements. 

 

You have an obvious hatred for authority, particularly law enforcement.

 

Most cops have degrees because their pay is increased by thousands per month if they do.  There is a very small percentage that only have high school degrees or GED's.

 

CNN just came out with a timeline that contradicts your timeline: LINK

 

The initial responding offers arrived after 16 minutes and were shot.  There was an active gun fight with the shooter.  The hour delay was just the "Border Patrol Response Team" who came to help who were the ones who made entry into the classroom to stop the gunman.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SatEng said:

On  the whole a sensible post but I have to pick you up on a couple of points

1) It is correct that it is usually disturbed individuals that perpetrate the mass shootings but they either obtain their guns legally (before the onset of any mental illness or do not have any record of mental illness at the time of purchase) or legally purchased by other members of the family - so none of the solutions outside of a gun ban would work in these cases

2) Yes, criminals still obtain guns but gun control laws make it much harder and much more expensive for your average person to obtain a weapon like this as they do not have access or the funds to go through the black market - in the UK for instance a black-market handgun sells for over $200 and just the possession of it is an offence with jail time, in the US by contract the same gun is available over the counter - with a cursory background check, for around $20 - and all legal

The drop in firearms related offences - in  both UK and AUS, can be directly correlated to the increased difficulty in obtaining weapons in the first place

True but I did point out that hunters, and target shooters, like myself, aren't the ones doing these shootings. Banning our guns won't stop any of it, because guns will still be available for the disturbed to use. The checks we used were not cursory but total. Any felonies or domestic abuse crimes and you couldn't purchase. The least expensive gun we sold was around $130, a .380. Also, I mentioned that sometimes the guns were stolen or taken by legal owners by their children, and that could be stopped by using a gun safe. A legitimate adult might have trouble buying a gun because of his bills or debts, while a rich maniac could afford any weapon, so it isn't about being able to afford but the particular individual. I don't see guns ever being banned in the US, as there are millions of legitimate owners, hunters, target shooters, that aren't the problem. It's still down to the mental illnesses, which include narcissism, which is something most world leaders have and they're in charge, so what can be done there?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

............................ I don't see guns ever being banned in the US, as there are millions of legitimate owners, hunters, target shooters, that aren't the problem. It's still down to the mental illnesses, which include narcissism, which is something most world leaders have and they're in charge, so what can be done there?

But they can be banned as they are in other civilized countries, where hunters, target shooters exist also. It is a question of the wording of the law they need to pass. But there is reluctance in the US to do even that. Less guns - less possibilities. Nearly the same with nuclear weapons. If there are none then none can be fired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PoodThaiMaiDai said:

You are sadly tainted and wrong on about 98% of your statements. 

 

You have an obvious hatred for authority, particularly law enforcement.

 

Most cops have degrees because their pay is increased by thousands per month if they do.  There is a very small percentage that only have high school degrees or GED's.

 

CNN just came out with a timeline that contradicts your timeline: LINK

 

The initial responding offers arrived after 16 minutes and were shot.  There was an active gun fight with the shooter.  The hour delay was just the "Border Patrol Response Team" who came to help who were the ones who made entry into the classroom to stop the gunman.

You have not managed to contradict any of the 98% of my statements that you claim are wrong. You have one source that contradicts the timeline, a senior Law Enforcement official who wasn't there. He contradicts other law enforcement reports. Have you watched the videos from the parents trying to get the cops to go into the school? Have you seen the one where the cop is restraining the parent on the ground? This is not under dispute, only whether it was 40 minutes or 90 minutes before they moved in. You are correct that I have a very jaundiced view of the Police in particular, and authority in general. Ironically, I work in an area of law enforcement (LOL). 

Now as to your claims...why were the cops standing around waiting for a "Border Patrol Response Team"? Is that the protocol? Pretty sure it's not. BTW, other places where this happened include Stoneman Douglas and Columbine, it's not uncommon.

Most cops have degrees...I referred to college degrees. I'd accept JuCo or Community College as long as it was a 3- or 4-year course relevant to policing. According to the statistics, this is correct, that the majority do not. Despite the police officers' own organizations recognizing the benefits of this... https://policeofficer.org/blog/importance-college-degree-police

Currently, approximately one percent of local police departments in America require their officers to hold four-year degrees, as highlighted by Reflections from the One-Percent of Local Police Departments with Mandatory Four-Year Degree Requirements for New Hires: Are They Diamonds in the Rough? by Diana Bruns. And what’s more, only eight percent of police department in the U.S. require officers to have attended any college at all. 83 percent of U.S. police agencies require officers to hold a high school diploma. With more than 17,895 law enforcement agencies employing 1.1 million full-time police officers working in the U.S., as well as an additional 100,000 part-time employees, this means that fewer than 200 police departments require their police officers to hold four-year degrees from an accredited college or university.

 

This report is probably the best one I found, and is reasonably up-to-date. It notes that the last time people compiled a national survey about police education, philosophy and practice was 1988 (!).

https://www.policinginstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PF-Report-Policing-Around-the-Nation_10-2017_Final.pdf

Of particular note in respect to your contention is that "Slightly more than half (51.8%) of sworn officers in the United States have at least a two-year degree, 30.2% have at least a four-year degree, and 5.4% have a graduate degree. This varies considerably by state, region, agency size, CEO education level, union presence, and department type"

So, basically about half of the police officers in the USA have high school degrees, the other half have at least a 2-year Associate's Degree. Only 30% have 4-year Bachelor degrees. Of those, around 5% have Masters degrees. You were correct that promotion and pay incentives have been quite effective in driving these numbers up as it seems much of it happens after hiring.


 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JCauto said:

You have not managed to contradict any of the 98% of my statements that you claim are wrong. You have one source that contradicts the timeline, a senior Law Enforcement official who wasn't there. He contradicts other law enforcement reports. Have you watched the videos from the parents trying to get the cops to go into the school? Have you seen the one where the cop is restraining the parent on the ground? This is not under dispute, only whether it was 40 minutes or 90 minutes before they moved in. You are correct that I have a very jaundiced view of the Police in particular, and authority in general. Ironically, I work in an area of law enforcement (LOL). 

Now as to your claims...why were the cops standing around waiting for a "Border Patrol Response Team"? Is that the protocol? Pretty sure it's not. BTW, other places where this happened include Stoneman Douglas and Columbine, it's not uncommon.

Most cops have degrees...I referred to college degrees. I'd accept JuCo or Community College as long as it was a 3- or 4-year course relevant to policing. According to the statistics, this is correct, that the majority do not. Despite the police officers' own organizations recognizing the benefits of this... https://policeofficer.org/blog/importance-college-degree-police

Currently, approximately one percent of local police departments in America require their officers to hold four-year degrees, as highlighted by Reflections from the One-Percent of Local Police Departments with Mandatory Four-Year Degree Requirements for New Hires: Are They Diamonds in the Rough? by Diana Bruns. And what’s more, only eight percent of police department in the U.S. require officers to have attended any college at all. 83 percent of U.S. police agencies require officers to hold a high school diploma. With more than 17,895 law enforcement agencies employing 1.1 million full-time police officers working in the U.S., as well as an additional 100,000 part-time employees, this means that fewer than 200 police departments require their police officers to hold four-year degrees from an accredited college or university.

 

This report is probably the best one I found, and is reasonably up-to-date. It notes that the last time people compiled a national survey about police education, philosophy and practice was 1988 (!).

https://www.policinginstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PF-Report-Policing-Around-the-Nation_10-2017_Final.pdf

Of particular note in respect to your contention is that "Slightly more than half (51.8%) of sworn officers in the United States have at least a two-year degree, 30.2% have at least a four-year degree, and 5.4% have a graduate degree. This varies considerably by state, region, agency size, CEO education level, union presence, and department type"

So, basically about half of the police officers in the USA have high school degrees, the other half have at least a 2-year Associate's Degree. Only 30% have 4-year Bachelor degrees. Of those, around 5% have Masters degrees. You were correct that promotion and pay incentives have been quite effective in driving these numbers up as it seems much of it happens after hiring.


 

 

Education does not make someone intelligent or give them commonsense.  It only educates and traines them.

 

Only about 10% of the population can pass all the testing required to be a police officer.

 

The department I referred to is less than 4% which is less than Harvard University.

 

So the "not educated" statement really is irrelevant.  

 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, PoodThaiMaiDai said:

Education does not make someone intelligent or give them commonsense.  It only educates and traines them.

 

Only about 10% of the population can pass all the testing required to be a police officer.

 

The department I referred to is less than 4% which is less than Harvard University.

 

So the "not educated" statement really is irrelevant.  

 

 

So, you tell me I'm 98% wrong, I give you irrefutable evidence that I was correct, and you respond by neither acknowledging your error or my accuracy. You then challenge the entire basis for the discussion, despite engaging in it quite happily until you were proved wrong. Oh, and you do so after reading the policeofficer.org article where THEY (police officers) explicitly identify increased education as a thing that could improve policing and which should be pursued and supported as policy. 

"Only about 10% of the population can pass all the testing required to be a police officer. " You will note that I back up my statements with quality sources that have links. You tend to pull 98% of what you say out of thin air. Link please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, JCauto said:

So, you tell me I'm 98% wrong, I give you irrefutable evidence that I was correct, and you respond by neither acknowledging your error or my accuracy. You then challenge the entire basis for the discussion, despite engaging in it quite happily until you were proved wrong. Oh, and you do so after reading the policeofficer.org article where THEY (police officers) explicitly identify increased education as a thing that could improve policing and which should be pursued and supported as policy. 

"Only about 10% of the population can pass all the testing required to be a police officer. " You will note that I back up my statements with quality sources that have links. You tend to pull 98% of what you say out of thin air. Link please.

Apologies for not digging too deep in the breakdown our discussion and differences of opinions.  I am busy with some personal stuff right now.

 

Here is the LINK for the 10%.

 

The 4% is for the agency I was discussing is an internal document I don't access too anymore.

 

Last post today. Busy

Edited by PoodThaiMaiDai
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PoodThaiMaiDai said:

Apologies for not digging too deep in the breakdown our discussion and differences of opinions.  I am busy with some personal stuff right now.

 

Here is the LINK for the 10%.

 

The 4% is for the agency I was discussing is an internal document I don't access too anymore.

Understood - I have time to do so because I'm working and so this offers a chance at glorious glorious procrastination before I have to do something I dislike. I need to do something about that tendency towards procrastination, think I'll start tomorrow.

Thanks for sending the link - I think you also understand that this is a personal opinion of the writer of the blog who does not link to the source for his contention. So not really something we could use to further the discussion and understanding. I do appreciate that you're engaging in civil discourse. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

True but I did point out that hunters, and target shooters, like myself, aren't the ones doing these shootings. Banning our guns won't stop any of it, because guns will still be available for the disturbed to use. The checks we used were not cursory but total. Any felonies or domestic abuse crimes and you couldn't purchase. The least expensive gun we sold was around $130, a .380. Also, I mentioned that sometimes the guns were stolen or taken by legal owners by their children, and that could be stopped by using a gun safe. A legitimate adult might have trouble buying a gun because of his bills or debts, while a rich maniac could afford any weapon, so it isn't about being able to afford but the particular individual. I don't see guns ever being banned in the US, as there are millions of legitimate owners, hunters, target shooters, that aren't the problem. It's still down to the mental illnesses, which include narcissism, which is something most world leaders have and they're in charge, so what can be done there?

In  the US there is not the willingness to even enforce basic measures such as assault weapons bans, large cartridges etc.  

Strict controls, such as in Japan, may weed out some of the people with mental illness but not all, and we have no cure for that. As you say, as a gun seller, it is not possible to tell whether a person has a mental illness when you sell them a gun in the states, but in other countries you have to have a medical certificate from a doctor first - there is no way the Republican politicians would agree to this. 

As a gun seller did you ever have any qualms about who you were selling to and what they would do with it?

In other countries it has come down to a simple decision - do we want to restrict gun ownership or do we want to have recurring mass shootings of schoolchildren

In both the UK (after Dunblane) and Australia (after Port Arthur) the politicians bit the proverbial bullet and decided that the lives of children were more important than the rights to own guns and they took the political flak with popular support. 

There is not the resolve within the US political establishment for such a step.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Hmmm, interesting. 

 

It has been suggested that Australia does a much better job at controlling guns. They've bragged about "no mass shootings" for 25 years. But I wonder........... is that just a matter of presenting the best example, rather than telling the whole truth? 

 

And then I scrolled down only a few places in the "World News" forum at AseanNow, and found THIS............. 

 

Whaddya know! Even with their stern gun restrictions, "bad guys" are still killing people freely in Sydney! And from what it sounds like........... it sounds like they might be doing it with guns they're not supposed to have! 

 

Yes, America is still worse. It would be foolish to suggest otherwise. 

 

But it appears the presentation of Australia as this huge success............ was a sham! 

 

😂😂😂

 

Cheers! 

 

 

‘Everyday life now’: Sydney reels from organised crime turf war

By webfact,

Yesterday at 08:33 AM in World News

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  •  

image.jpeg

Sydney has been shocked by a series of assassinations and drive-by shootings amid a turf war between two organised crime gangs – the Alameddine Family and the Hamzy clan. Mejid Hamzy, brother of Bassam Hamzy – the leader of the Brothers 4 Life gang, was shot outside a house in the city’s west in October 2020 [File: AAP Australia via EPA]

 

Police swoop on drug gangs in Australia’s biggest city but lawyers fear controversial law changes will leave minorities vulnerable.

 

By Ian Lloyd Neubauer

 

Last week, a home in Sydney’s southwest was sprayed with bullets during a drive-by shooting.

 

No one was injured, although it was the second time in six months the house had been targeted and came after three assassinations over three weeks and a total of 13 in two years.

 

“What can you do? It’s everyday life now,” a neighbour who heard the shots told a local TV station.

 

Full story: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/26/sydney-reels-from-organised-crime-turf-war

Quite correct, and irrelevant. These guys are killing each other using illegal firearms, which are not the semi-automatics favored by mass shooters in the US, and certainly not freely available at a gun shop to any 18 yo.

Help me out here, please point me towards an armed invasion and mass shooting in any Australian school. Hint: You'll have to go back quite a few decades.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

This is targeted killings by gangs against gangs over drug wars and are NOT mass shootings. Huge difference. Furthermore, most of these gangs, particularly the bikie gangs have ties to gangs in the US. Guess where they smuggle most of their guns from?

Didn't realize you were so Anti-Yank, but you may want to read this first, before any more implications.

 

2013 - about 1% of illegal guns imported

2016 - same conclusion and about 1% imported

https://www.gunpolicy.org/documents/5329-australia-firearm-smuggling-and-the-origin-of-crime-guns/file

 

from Austria via Germany:

https://www.gunpolicy.org/documents/5329-australia-firearm-smuggling-and-the-origin-of-crime-guns/file

 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

No words to this....................

 

Texas Police Lieutenant Says Cops Were Reluctant to Engage Gunman Because ‘They Could’ve Been Shot’

 

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/texas-police-lieutenant-says-cops-were-reluctant-to-engage-gunman-because-they-couldve-been-shot/

I presumed as much.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...