2-year-old boy shoots mother dead in US

[djhotsox]

7x7:

You keep criticizing posters that post on events in the UK, saying they are 6,000 miles away and don't know what is happening in your little part of the world.

How far away from the US are you located?

Someone asked for a comparison; I gave one.

Another poster commented on that comparison, I asked a question about that comment.

I do not criticise people who comment on events in the UK. I criticise those who claim to know exactly what everyday life in the UK is like today when they live in Thailand and so have no real experience of it.

Nowhere have I said that I know exactly what everyday life is like in the US today; and I wont as I have no real experience of it.

Then why do you care so much, some inmate need to act superior to driven by a deep seeded inferiority complex . . .?

Oh, by the way I, like you do and pointed out, used a "?" to make it appear as a question and not an accusation even though it is more of an accusation and question for which I am not seeking answer as I already know your answer even before question asked.

and that is what we call "rhetorical"......explanation not required..........that's al folks, nothing to see here....move along now....

Edited January 5, 2015 by djhotsox

[manarak]

<snip>It would be interesting to do a non-emotional and logical/mathematical analysis of benefits and costs of private weapons by sourcing figures from a country with reasonable gun control, i.e. concealed and home weapons granted only to "responsible good citizens". Do the US qualify?

Japan has one of the toughest gun control regimes in the world; so let's have a look.

Country vs country: Japan and United States compared: Crime stats

You will see that in almost every category; especially violent crimes such as homicide, rape, assault, etc., the US comes of worse.

So maybe there is something in the American psyche which makes them violent and so Americans do need their guns to protect themselves from their violent fellow citizens; or perhaps the fewer guns people have, the less violent crime there is.

I think it's the latter.

I think it is not possible to draw conclusions on gun control from a comparison of countries.

For years, Swiss army reservists had their personal weapons at home with ammo, yet Swiss crime stats were among the lowest in the world, so this would rather plead in favor of dissemination of guns.

I would rather be interested in seeing following statistics from one same country:

- amount of murders / durable disabilities caused using a registered gun

- amount of murders / durable disabilities caused using a stolen registered gun

- amount of assailants / trespassers killed or wounded in self-defense or home defense using a registered gun

- amount of assailants / trespassers deterred with a registered gun

- amount of accidental deaths / durable disabilities caused by misuse / negligence of a registered gun

I think the USA don't qualify as a country from where I would like to see the data because from what I know, guns were/are pretty easy to obtain in the USA.

Which country does have a sensible gun dissemination policy ?

any chance to source such figures somewhere?

[CMNightRider]

Many anti-gun posters on Thai Visa, bring up the fact Australians gave up their guns. The Australian government not only took their guns away but their right to protect themselves in their own home. I’m sure the 80 million plus legal gun owners in America, will eventually see the logic in that.

The anti-gun nuts think confiscating guns from all legal gun owners will be the cure to all these terrible shootings. In this case, the cure is far worst than the disease. Incidents continually take place all over America, where legal gun owners successfully defend themselves against armed robbers or intruders. Liberals tend to completely ignore this fact.

Anti-gun nuts, can continue with their hysterical rantings, weeping, and wringing their hands over gun ownership in America, but the 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere.

How about the need for an assault rifle or sniper rifle "to protect your American home"?

You really need to watch Jim Jefferies' latest stand up "Bare" he's hit the nail right on the head.

The second amendment needs to be amended.

I never met anyone who uses an assault rifle or sniper rifle to protect their home. I'm not certain what you are trying to imply. Most home owners in the U.S. own a handgun or shotgun. You may weep and wring your hands from now to dooms day, the 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere.

Exactly what I mean... The likes of you can go down the road, walk into a shop and come out armed to hell with one of these things!!

YOU MISSED THE WHOLE POINT!!!

YOU DON'T NEED to be able to own such weapons!!!

ALL fully automatic weapons should be limited to the armed forces anyway!

If you really were to fight against the government one day, do you really think you'll have the slightest chance of overpowering them??

NEVER! It ain't never gonna happen!

Hold on there Mr. Porkster, I don't see the need to get hysterical over this issue. When you type in caps that is the equivalent to yelling when speaking.

Who are you to say, "YOU DON'T NEED to be able to own such weapons."???? America is a big country, and a lot of people enjoy shooting not only handguns but rifles as well. Some have access to gun ranges that can accommodate shooting rifles at long range, and others go out into the desert or up into the mountains to shoot. America still has vast open lands.

Alright Mr. Porkster, you can resume weeping and sobbing over people in America, being able to own firearms. Okay folks, nothing more to see here..........keep on moving.

[Jai Dee]

An off-topic post and all replies to that post have been deleted from this thread.

[metisdead]

A post commenting on moderation has been removed. Some more off topic posts and replies have been removed. This is not about gun control comparisons with the UK, EU or Australia.

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts have been removed, there is another thread running about the son shooting his hedge fund father:

Son arrested in NYC hedge fund founder shooting

[howto]

A lot of USA hatred on this thread.

My condolences to the mother... and to the child,

reguardless of the mistakes mom made.

I support

- the constitution

- the bill of rights [every one of them].

I don't care if you non americans don't like it.

You have your own issues to deal with.

I do care if americans fight againts it.

At minimum,

one needs to know the basics of shooting.

That does not mean they should own a handgun / rifle.

This is succent as to why I carry...

and why my children / wife are

educated and competent to it's use.

Nothing to do with hunting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

There is more I would say...

she says it better...

more vids...

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Suzanna+Gratia+Hupp

Please you anti-american nutered fools,

grow a set, take back your country, 'fore it's too late.

If you want 'stats of gun crime in the states,

then look to the FBI website.

[notmyself]

Please you anti-american nutered fools,

grow a set, take back your country, 'fore it's too late.

Now the senate has changed hands the ownership has changed. Welcome to the USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers.

[NeverSure]

Is this thread still going? Does someone on TVF think his profound words will change the Constitution of The United States of America?

Lemme tell ya what it would take to change it.

1. 2/3 of the members of both houses of Congress would have to vote to change it.

2. Even if they did that, it would then have to go to the states to be ratified. 3/4 of the legislatures of the 50 states would have to vote in favor of the change.

3. The President isn't involved. The process bypasses the POTUS.

OR

It could start with the states.

1. 2/3 of the 50 state legislatures could call for a Constitutional Convention. If they did they would meet to propose an amendment(s).

2. If an amendment was proposed, it would have to go back to the states and be ratified by 3/4 of them.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It ain't gonna happen despite the moaning on here. Give it up. You're wasting your energy. Americans want to be armed.

[mania]

Not to mention if you look up Oath Keepers you will see much of the current

military & police would stand with civilians if the cause was just.

[metisdead]

More posts have been removed:

Inflammatory posts and replies have been removed. Trolling nonsense posts have been removed. A post with derogatory slurs toward Americans has been removed.

Please stay on the topic of the thread. That means addressing the issues presented in the post, not in making comments to or about other posters. Doing so is off-topic and your post will be removed and you could face a suspension.

You have every right to express your opinion about the topic. You may disagree, but it must be done in a civil manner.

Edit: Some more off topic posts and replies have been removed. This is not about the sale of assault rifles or assault weapons or who started wars, or who lost what war, etc.

[notmyself]

It ain't gonna happen despite the moaning on here. Give it up. You're wasting your energy. Americans want to be armed.

The same was said regarding slavery, women's suffrage and equal rights for African Americans.

I do however agree with you in the short to mid term. There could be half a dozen school shootings a day but nothing would change because American people will always choose having a gun over the life of a child.

The people also have a preference to be owned which is why you cannot get money out of politics. In many ways the US is like the middle east where they do not understand the concept of democracy and certainly don't want it. Imagine some fella in Iraq for example being told by America that democracy is way the way forward who then wonders why, if it is so good, America does not practice it itself.

The first amendment gives people the constitutional right to give themselves over to servitude and like the second, they will not give up this right easily.

[chuckd]

Please you anti-american nutered fools,

grow a set, take back your country, 'fore it's too late.

Now the senate has changed hands the ownership has changed. Welcome to the USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers.

NMS:

You might want to look at the link below as to who is trying to own the USA.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of top organization contributions in the 2014 mid term election cycle

#1 - Tom Steyer - $73,843,859 to Democrats and liberals

#17 - Koch Industries - $7,730,635 to Republicans and conservatives.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toporgs.php

You need to stop listening to Senator Harry Reid and his cohorts.

PS: Just a quick note to point out the US form of government is not a Democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic.

Edited January 7, 2015 by chuckd

[notmyself]

Please you anti-american nutered fools,

grow a set, take back your country, 'fore it's too late.

Now the senate has changed hands the ownership has changed. Welcome to the USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers.

NMS:

You might want to look at the link below as to who is trying to own the USA.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of top organization contributions in the 2014 mid term election cycle

#1 - Tom Steyer - $73,843,859 to Democrats and liberals

#17 - Koch Industries - $7,730,635 to Republicans and conservatives.[/size]

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toporgs.php

I guess you are pointing out the Koch ind. got a good deal.

PS: Just a quick note to point out the US form of government is not a Democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic.

Which is entirely my point.

[Tep]

PS: Just a quick note to point out the US form of government is not a Democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic.

I have seen this statement before and was intrigued. It seems this is a strong element in the literature of the far right who twist themselves in knots redefining and 'clarifying' democracy. Basically the argument is that democracy represents the tyranny of the majority and a lot of reference is made to the Europeans and I guess their 'socialism' as opposed to the American Exceptionalism with the Constitution and all that. This, of course, ignores the existence of constitutions, many of them based on the same rationalist principles as the US model, in other liberal democracies.

Having studied politics, I am interested in this debate. I see many issues related to majoritarian political systems in this region such as Singapore and Malaysia and, of course in other places like Russia and Central West Asia. But I cannot come to accept the notion that the US form of government is not a democracy.

I guess the fear of the tyranny of the majority may be valid in the gun control debate when the situation arises that the majority of voters in cities, counties and states mandate stricter controls over guns.

I speculate that the reason the far right does not accept that the US is a democracy is that they are so ideologically hidebound that they refuse to accept any word that has any connection to the word Democrat.

[Tep]

Is this thread still going? Does someone on TVF think his profound words will change the Constitution of The United States of America?

Lemme tell ya what it would take to change it.

1. 2/3 of the members of both houses of Congress would have to vote to change it.

2. Even if they did that, it would then have to go to the states to be ratified. 3/4 of the legislatures of the 50 states would have to vote in favor of the change.

3. The President isn't involved. The process bypasses the POTUS.

OR

It could start with the states.

1. 2/3 of the 50 state legislatures could call for a Constitutional Convention. If they did they would meet to propose an amendment(s).

2. If an amendment was proposed, it would have to go back to the states and be ratified by 3/4 of them.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It ain't gonna happen despite the moaning on here. Give it up. You're wasting your energy. Americans want to be armed.

Interesting that your affectation of disinterest in this thread results in a grade school civics lesson together with a Wikipedia reference. Of course, stricter gun controls need not require a constitutional amendment but just a re-interpretation of the existing amendment. For example, a future Supreme Court could add more weight to the first phrase of the text focussing on the words 'well regulated' than the current phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

Only a generation ago, there was a different interpretation of the 2nd amendment "The overwhelming consensus was that the Second Amendment gave state militias a right to obtain and bear arms but it did not give individuals any rights" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/how-conservatives-reinvented-the-second-amendment/

This reason is why the fr right is so active in trying to influence court appointments where they are done through elections, at all levels e.g. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/right-quietly-pours-money-montana-hoping-flip-pivotal-state-supreme-court. More mass shootings, more activism on gun control, a flip in the make up of the Supreme Court can all combine to result in more gun control.

This is why people should speak out about gun control. This is why non Americans should speak out about gun control. The hysteria of some posters in response to this is evidence that they are concerned that this will contribute to an environment that results in change and that the examples and experiences of countries that are not America may be modelled.

I am a former gun owner and gun user. The law changed and I could no longer own or use my guns. The gun control issue should be nuanced. Hyper partisanship and ideological inflexibility does not allow for such nuance. I would like to see and maybe participate in a discussion about gun control that does not involve being broadly labelled as vermin or despicable by some of the more hysterical usual suspects here in their childlike tantrums.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Tep

[mania]

I have seen this statement before and was intrigued. It seems this is a strong element in the literature of the far right who twist themselves in knots redefining and 'clarifying' democracy.

At the risk of taking this even further OT

It is not nor was it ever a case of the far right twisting anything.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution,

which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention.

If you should need more Google is your friend

[Naam]

Be interesting to hear what the very vocal ThaiVisa Gun Lobby has to say about this, especially the clown who tried to tell me that 'the best way to stop a bad man with a knife is a good gal with a gun' after the Manoora tragedy. Imagine going through life knowing you shot your own mother dead before you were old enough to even understand the dangers of carrying a loaded firearm. RIP.

Regardless of your views (I'm pro gun control but not anti gun per se) I think what they'll say is that keeping a loaded gun within reach of a child is just plain dumb. Which it is.

This is just incredibly sad.

dumb² because bullett in the barrel,

dumb³ because obviously safety off,

but still extremely sad.

[45slap]

Safety off? That's what you get.