More American children murdered by gun-toting lunatic

[Jamiet99uk]

19 small children and two teachers have been massacred in Texas today.

When is America going to end this insanity?

The obsession with gun ownership is madness.

[Jamiet99uk]

It's amazing the lengths Americans will go to in order to protect the lives of unborn fetuses in the womb, and yet they're happy for those children to be shot dead once they've been born.

Fucked up.

[Jamiet99uk]

Well, I'm glad we're all in agreement over this.

[Jamiet99uk]

26 years ago a gunman entered Dunblane Primary school in Scotland and shot 16 children.

The UK responded by massively tightening its gun laws (which were already stronger than in the USA).

In the 26 years that have followed, 0 further school shootings have taken place, resulting in a total of 0 deaths.

The choice facing America is pretty obvious.

Americans could prevent these incidents happening, if only they wanted to.

[Octavious]

For the sake of transparency and a more complete understanding of the situation in the UK, perhaps it's also worth sharing how many school shootings and resulting deaths took place prior to Dunblane and the change in gun laws?

[Octavious]

I should probably clarify at this point that I think American gun laws are ridiculous, but it would be utterly wrong to suggest that the UK history of school shootings can be used as anything close to conclusive evidence. You could just as easily look at English school shootings and say that the tightening of gun laws has made no difference whatsoever. Or look at the gun laws in Scotland prior to Dunblane and claim, on the safe assumption that attempts to tighten US law won't come close to pre-Dunblane Scottish law, that these attempts will fail to prevent future US school shootings.

[Jamiet99uk]

I should probably clarify at this point that I think American gun laws are ridiculous.

I think this is the key point.

[Octavious]

Do you? To my mind what is key can be outlined below.

Whatever solution applied to the problem must have the consent of the American people.

Whatever solution applied needs to take into account the peculiar realities of the current American situation, which are substantially different to what existed in the UK prior to Dunblane, and indeed much of the rest of the world.

Whatever solution applied to what is a complex and difficult problem is unlikely to be both simple and effective

[Chaqa]

I'm always torn on this because I'm both very sympathetic to the people who want to change the gun laws (and I think there's miles of progress that can be made that is reasonable before confiscations or anything), but I'm also a gun owner since I was able to and I don't really see why I should lose my rights because someone else is a terrible person.

There's so many guns in America that I'm unsure any change is going to help at this point, but I don't see any reason why we can't have universal background checks and more consistent laws on firearm storage and safety, at the very least.

Part of the issue is also that firearms laws are mostly state to state. It's all well and good if California or New York passes a more restrictive gun law, but most people could just travel across the border to Nevada (for CA) or Pennsylvania or New Hampshire (for NY) and get a gun with few questions asked.

I don't know what can be done to stop it, but if anyone even tried suggesting a mass confiscation/gun restriction there would probably be quite literal blood in the streets, as anyone coming to try to take guns from many gun owners would be met with the receiving end.

Especially given how close we came to the January 6 group succeeding, why would we want to give our guns up when we're the closest to a possibly tyrannical government we've ever been?

America is in a really dangerous spot atm and as a pretty liberal person, I'm probably more pro-gun than ever because I am absolutely terrified of some of my supposed "fellow Americans" who think that anyone who isn't a white Christian Republican is the devil.

[Jamiet99uk]

Thank you for that input Chaqa. It's interesting to see your perspectives as a resident of that strange land. I do have a few questions / queries / comments:

I'm always torn on this because I'm both very sympathetic to the people who want to change the gun laws (and I think there's miles of progress that can be made that is reasonable before confiscations or anything), but I'm also a gun owner since I was able to and I don't really see why I should lose my rights because someone else is a terrible person.

Why did you decide to obtain a gun in the first place? Why do you need one? What do you use it for?

There's so many guns in America that I'm unsure any change is going to help at this point, but I don't see any reason why we can't have universal background checks and more consistent laws on firearm storage and safety, at the very least.

It is my understanding that Texas, where the latest mass murder occurred, has extremely permissive gun laws with almost no restrictions. A quick Google tells me there have been at least 11 mass shootings in Texas in the past 6 years (including another school shooting in 2018 in which 10 people were slaughtered). I cannot even imagine ever wanting to visit such a violent, dangerous, fucked-up place.

Part of the issue is also that firearms laws are mostly state to state. It's all well and good if California or New York passes a more restrictive gun law, but most people could just travel across the border to Nevada (for CA) or Pennsylvania or New Hampshire (for NY) and get a gun with few questions asked.

This is definitely an issue. Would you agree that a federal-level gun law is needed, to establish uniform gun controls across the country? This would seem the only sensible answer.

Especially given how close we came to the January 6 group succeeding, why would we want to give our guns up when we're the closest to a possibly tyrannical government we've ever been?

America is in a really dangerous spot atm and as a pretty liberal person, I'm probably more pro-gun than ever because I am absolutely terrified of some of my supposed "fellow Americans" who think that anyone who isn't a white Christian Republican is the devil.

Do you really think it is likely that you may have to fight for your life against zealous Republicans in the near future? Would you be willing to kill them to defend yourself? You make it sound as if your nation is on the verge of a bloody civil war.

[Jamiet99uk]

Random fact:

In Texas there are laws regulating how many sex toys it's legal to own.
But you can have as many assault rifles as you want.

[Chaqa]

Thank you for that input Chaqa. It's interesting to see your perspectives as a resident of that strange land. I do have a few questions / queries / comments:

I'm always torn on this because I'm both very sympathetic to the people who want to change the gun laws (and I think there's miles of progress that can be made that is reasonable before confiscations or anything), but I'm also a gun owner since I was able to and I don't really see why I should lose my rights because someone else is a terrible person.

Why did you decide to obtain a gun in the first place? Why do you need one? What do you use it for?

Grew up with guns and in high school I did competitive sporting clays (think skeet shooting or trap shooting - flying clay targets), plus I was into history and own several historical rifles from the WW1/WW2 era. Not much of a handgun guy myself though.

There's so many guns in America that I'm unsure any change is going to help at this point, but I don't see any reason why we can't have universal background checks and more consistent laws on firearm storage and safety, at the very least.

It is my understanding that Texas, where the latest mass murder occurred, has extremely permissive gun laws with almost no restrictions. A quick Google tells me there have been at least 11 mass shootings in Texas in the past 6 years (including another school shooting in 2018 in which 10 people were slaughtered). I cannot even imagine ever wanting to visit such a violent, dangerous, fucked-up place.

I can't speak to any of this, but I avoid Texas because it's literally hell on Earth temperature wise.

Part of the issue is also that firearms laws are mostly state to state. It's all well and good if California or New York passes a more restrictive gun law, but most people could just travel across the border to Nevada (for CA) or Pennsylvania or New Hampshire (for NY) and get a gun with few questions asked.

This is definitely an issue. Would you agree that a federal-level gun law is needed, to establish uniform gun controls across the country? This would seem the only sensible answer.

There's many who would (somewhat but not completely justifiably) argue that the government does not have that power, especially if it were to go to the courts in the current Supreme Court. Plus, depends on the law. Some things like background checks or waiting periods may hold up, but many others wouldn't. Especially given how previous attempts like the AWB went where they were classifying things based on cosmetic reasons (google "assault musket" for a very simplified meme-based breakdown).

Especially given how close we came to the January 6 group succeeding, why would we want to give our guns up when we're the closest to a possibly tyrannical government we've ever been?

America is in a really dangerous spot atm and as a pretty liberal person, I'm probably more pro-gun than ever because I am absolutely terrified of some of my supposed "fellow Americans" who think that anyone who isn't a white Christian Republican is the devil.

Do you really think it is likely that you may have to fight for your life against zealous Republicans in the near future? Would you be willing to kill them to defend yourself? You make it sound as if your nation is on the verge of a bloody civil war.

A few years ago I wouldn't have, but these days I'm concerned. We have a literal insurrectionist running for Governor in my own state. Plus, this recent shooting just reinforces that cops can't be relied on unless they're looking out for their own.

There's so many major structural and political issues in the US right now, there's simply no way guns get addressed. As sad as it is, I wouldn't even rate school shootings as one of the top 5 or 10 most pressing situations the US has to deal with.

[Jamiet99uk]

Why did you decide to obtain a gun in the first place? Why do you need one? What do you use it for?

Grew up with guns and in high school I did competitive sporting clays (think skeet shooting or trap shooting - flying clay targets), plus I was into history and own several historical rifles from the WW1/WW2 era. Not much of a handgun guy myself though.

So most / all of the guns you own are historical collectibles rather than modern handguns? If that's the case, could they be safely disabled and still retain their collectible value? Do you have any guns you feel the need to carry in public and use on a regular basis? Do you carry a pistol or a shotgun when you go to the grocery store, or anything like that?

Part of the issue is also that firearms laws are mostly state to state. It's all well and good if California or New York passes a more restrictive gun law, but most people could just travel across the border to Nevada (for CA) or Pennsylvania or New Hampshire (for NY) and get a gun with few questions asked.

This is definitely an issue. Would you agree that a federal-level gun law is needed, to establish uniform gun controls across the country? This would seem the only sensible answer.

There's many who would (somewhat but not completely justifiably) argue that the government does not have that power, especially if it were to go to the courts in the current Supreme Court. Plus, depends on the law. Some things like background checks or waiting periods may hold up, but many others wouldn't. Especially given how previous attempts like the AWB went where they were classifying things based on cosmetic reasons (google "assault musket" for a very simplified meme-based breakdown).

Well hang on. It's my understanding that the right to own guns at all is derived from an amendment to the US constitution. So in theory that constitution could be amended again to ban guns, either entirely or based on some specific range of firearms to be banned. It's my understanding that a 2/3 vote of both Congress and House of Representatives would be needed to do this. So, surely, they ought to do that, because children are being massacred and that needs to stop, at once, no?

If not, why is it ok for children to be shot dead in large numbers?

Especially given how close we came to the January 6 group succeeding, why would we want to give our guns up when we're the closest to a possibly tyrannical government we've ever been?

America is in a really dangerous spot atm and as a pretty liberal person, I'm probably more pro-gun than ever because I am absolutely terrified of some of my supposed "fellow Americans" who think that anyone who isn't a white Christian Republican is the devil.

Do you really think it is likely that you may have to fight for your life against zealous Republicans in the near future? Would you be willing to kill them to defend yourself? You make it sound as if your nation is on the verge of a bloody civil war.

A few years ago I wouldn't have, but these days I'm concerned. We have a literal insurrectionist running for Governor in my own state. Plus, this recent shooting just reinforces that cops can't be relied on unless they're looking out for their own.

There's so many major structural and political issues in the US right now, there's simply no way guns get addressed. As sad as it is, I wouldn't even rate school shootings as one of the top 5 or 10 most pressing situations the US has to deal with.

That's sad and I fear for your country.

[Octavious]

The latest shooting news story from the US sees a man with a criminal record and an illegally obtained gun shot just prior to a shooting spree by a public spirited woman with a legal firearm. This outlines that an oft criticised argument of the pro gun side is valid and carries some weight.

The obvious counter argument is that it would be much harder to illegally obtain guns if there were far fewer guns in existence and no legal reason to carry one, but it will be a long and painful transition to this European style situation from that currently existing in the US if harsh gun control laws were suddenly implemented.

[Jamiet99uk]

Yes, but "it would be difficult and take time" is not a great argument for inaction, when the problem you're trying to solve is the mass murder of innocent people.

[Octavious]

Yes, but "it would be difficult and take time" is not a great argument for inaction, when the problem you're trying to solve is the mass murder of innocent people.

It depends on the the difficulties are and how long the time will be. If we are looking at many years during which you have disarmed the civic minded population whilst the criminal classes are still generously equipped it is indeed a strong argument. There will inevitably be a great number of stories involving murders and mass murders which could have been prevented if only the good guys had been allowed to keep their weapons. Off duty police officers in tears because they were powerless to prevent a tragedy, and the like.

You will have to be able to explain to the relatives of those who are killed because of your decision that they died for the greater good. And the trouble with such arguments is that real dead people grab the attention more strongly than theoretical numbers of survivors of events that were prevented. Especially in the early stages when the positive impact of the decision is slowly growing whereas the negative consequences are far more immediate

[Jamiet99uk]

Yes, but "it would be difficult and take time" is not a great argument for inaction, when the problem you're trying to solve is the mass murder of innocent people.

It depends on the the difficulties are and how long the time will be. If we are looking at many years during which you have disarmed the civic minded population whilst the criminal classes are still generously equipped it is indeed a strong argument. There will inevitably be a great number of stories involving murders and mass murders which could have been prevented if only the good guys had been allowed to keep their weapons. Off duty police officers in tears because they were powerless to prevent a tragedy, and the like.

You will have to be able to explain to the relatives of those who are killed because of your decision that they died for the greater good. And the trouble with such arguments is that real dead people grab the attention more strongly than theoretical numbers of survivors of events that were prevented. Especially in the early stages when the positive impact of the decision is slowly growing whereas the negative consequences are far more immediate

All of this implies that currently, many violent crimes in the USA are prevented or tackled thanks to the intervention of armed civilians.

Do you have any evidence that this is true?

Published studies in this area would suggest the opposite is true:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... nce-shows/

[Jamiet99uk]

Because otherwise, how about explaining, to the relatives of the over 150 children shot and killed in American schools since 2010, about how America's gun culture made their dead children safer?

[Jamiet99uk]

Those are "real dead people", rather than the potential dead people you are speculating about. They really died, thanks to America's gun love.

[Octavious]

Do you have any evidence that this is true?

Published studies in this area would suggest the opposite is true:

The leading story on the news this morning is clear evidence.

I have seen no studies that suggest the opposite.