Oh, and about the "America is racist thing" - where are the African-European leaders of Parliament, Heads of State, and notable leaders?

Or were those people not allowed to immigrant to Europe after colonialism closed shop?

And how is that acceptance of North Africans in France coming along for you all?

See, America has our faults - but at least we try and engage with them.

Southern states have always made the claim that the Confederates were about "states rights". A few racists aside, if you talk to the average person most of them do not associate the Confederate flag the same way others do - it's a difference in perspective.

It's hypocritical of Europeans, who cannot even form the United States of Europe, to talk about state's rights vs. federalism. America's "states" were originally small countries - vastly different from one another.

Also, I'd like to point out that there is no war. If this kid struck such a chord with the American population - in Charleston, which is painted as the white racist capital of the U.S. - then why are we seeing white people coming out...against it?

No, the media has a few more years left of fear mongering but unlike you I have seen and talked to the younger generation - with them, Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream has become a reality.

"Assault weapons bans don't work".

How do you know? Have you tried them? 1994 wasn't a ban on the guns, it was a ban on manufacturing the guns, and it expired after 10 years. And, by the way, mass shootings went down, although not in a statistically significant way, because the data set is so small.

Australia did. A Conservative Government realized that removing assault weapons and high-capacity magazines was the key to stopping mass shootings. They lost their jobs over it...but they say they'd do it again, because it saved lives.

We just don't have the political will to do the right thing.

@ Gunfighter

I agree, and I would like to add some statistics:
Violent crime is down, and trending down (way down).
Gun violence is down, and trending down (way down).
Inclusion is up, and trending up.

Maybe sometimes you just get psycopaths in society.

Not arming their victims is logically flawed. A psycopath is going to wait a month, a day, or weeks - and go through whatever hoops they need to to get a weapon. Because they're a psycopath.

34 innocent people are killed by guns for every 1 criminal, when looking at gun deaths that do NOT involve cops. We're not "Arming the victims".

"Australia did. A Conservative Government realized that removing assault weapons and high-capacity magazines was the key to stopping mass shootings. They lost their jobs over it...but they say they'd do it again, because it saved lives.

We just don't have the political will to do the right thing."

While the last statement may be true, it's also true that Australia's constitution doesn't have an equivalent to the 2nd Amendment. Much of what John Howard did would have (probably) been unconstitutional in the United States. Also, Howard and his government didn't lose their jobs over it. It was the "promise" of a GST that almost ruined them -- and even then they scraped by with a win in the next election...and then won the election after that...AND the election after that. It is certainly hard to imagine a similar electoral outcome in the United States (but maybe not THAT hard, depending on whether gun control actually became a campaign issue in the next election), and that mostly just points up another way that Australia is politically a different place from the United States.

@Gunfighter:
I think the Australian example and dozens of examples from across the globe prove that gun control measures do work.

So again what is a "change that makes sense given our constitutional framework"?

"While the last statement may be true, it's also true that Australia's constitution doesn't have an equivalent to the 2nd Amendment."

What does that have to do with the statement 'assault weapon bans don't work' ??

he really means "change that makes sense given the significant number of gun nuts in the nation that would shoot up government buildings if the government tried to take their guns". citing the second amendment is a cover for this.

As an aside, I'm sure the NRA and GOP are happy that the focus has turned away from gun violence and been distracted toward the battle flag.

Jeff, don't know if you saw it, but according to the FBI, the VAST majority of gun related homicides are carried out with handguns, not assault weapons.

KC, I have seen those numbers and linked to the raw data. That has been true probably since the beginning of tracking those statistics. Not sure what you're getting at.

I don't understand why you are pushing for the ban of assault weapons if handguns are the much more deadly weapon.

My point is that gun control measures (take your pick what type of measure) in other countries have led to a reduction of gun violence. That's a good thing.

Politically, gun control measures won't pass unless the gun lobby is on board. That's why I and others have put out the question: What would work? There must be *something*...

And no, I am not pushing for the ban of assault weapons. What gave you that idea?

Whoops, I misread. jbalcorn was the one talking about assault weapons bans.

I'd just like to say... I'm a little offended by the title of this thread. Specifically the word 'nutjob' is offensive, to nutjobs everywhere.

The forum is on the front page of our site, and is the first thing that new users see. You're always welcome to disagree with other members, but I ask that people do so in a civil way.

Since this is your first warning, I'm not going to take any points or silence you or anything, and I hope I won't need to ever send you a second warning :)

Pretty sure impersonating a mod is a silencable offense...

"Gun owner kills nine people" might offend responsible gun owners even more.

@orathaic
"'While the last statement may be true, it's also true that Australia's constitution doesn't have an equivalent to the 2nd Amendment.'

What does that have to do with the statement 'assault weapon bans don't work' ??"

I don't think it has anything to do with it, but then I wasn't addressing that statement. I was addressing jbalcorn's commentary about Australia and the United States. Except for some provisions, I'm pretty sure the current Australian legal regime wouldn't pass constitutional scrutiny in the US--even if it would generate the same positive effects were it to be enacted. So the requirement for a full-scale change isn't just political will (as was needed in Australia) but a constitutional amendment--a rather higher hurdle to cross.

Also, in response to Jeff, I don't know what Gunfighter would say, but I would suggest that a reasonable approach would be to treat guns like cars: if you want to use one, you have to be trained beforehand and you have to be licensed by the state. Exact details about licensing (minimum age, length of time between renewals, circumstances under which licenses can be revoked) and would vary from state to state. Excessively onerous licensing requirements would be subject to challenge under the 2nd Amendment. Under full faith and credit, your license would be transferable from one state to the next if you move. More "advanced" weapons could require a more "advanced" class of license, much as commercial drivers require a separate class of license. Once you're licensed, you retain the full and complete right to use, purchase, and otherwise enjoy (in the legal sense of the term) firearms of whatever make and model you choose and are licensed for unless and until your actions cause you to lose your license (committing a crime, for example, or leaving your gun loaded in a room with small children). Requiring gun insurance would probably be a logical follow-up as well (with excessive insurance requirements, like onerous licensing requirements, being subject to challenge under the 2nd Amendment).

I don't know if this is workable, but it appeals to me in that it recognizes that guns do not belong in the hands of the uninitiated and puts limits on the users of the guns rather than the machines themselves. It also has stuff that both pro-gun and pro-gun control types will love and hate, which is the type of approach that tends to work best in terms of actually becoming law, at least in normal times.

I find this funny, Class. A white as white gets guy shoots up a black church and you're ready to pull the "it's the immigrants" card.

Your post in response to me is rife with useless tidbits of information that hold no relevance to the issue at hand - gun violence. You can cast blame wherever you like, but it's not "immigrant violence" or "violence by people with mental disabilities." The common denominator is a gun and ammunition, and how such a great number of Americans think that the freedom to shoot people up and only be punished afterwards is so valuable and worth protecting is beyond me.

Have I hunted? Yes. I hated it. I don't find killing for sport to be terribly enjoyable. I shot a 44 from 50 feet at a rifle range here yesterday. Great? No, but good, yeah. I know how guns work, and if you would read anything I have ever said on this forum, you would realize that I don't give two shits about rifles, shotguns, and the like - you can't conceal those. You can't carry those around a city and then blow people away without a lot of negligence on the part of those who surround you. Handgun violence is what we need to target. Keep your pants on and don't misconstrue me.

Beyond that, you're just making personal attacks. I don't even know why. Your argument is so broken that I can't even construct a proper rebuttal simply because there is no argument to rebut. It's just words.

Also, don't call people a fascist. It's... um... typically wrong. I'm not Mussolini.

Since this topic mentions guns, I just noticed this website http://gunswithhistory.com/ after watching this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nAfWfF4TjM what do you guys think?

OutsideSmoker: Incidentally, that is pretty much exactly the gun reforms put in place by the Howard government in Australia (and swords shortly after).

I knew a lot of people with recreational swords before the legislation (and a couple with guns), they all got licenses and still have their swords (and guns).

The only thing to add is that safe storage is a requirement of having a license and it's subject to random inspection.

Class:
"It's hypocritical of Europeans, who cannot even form the United States of Europe, to talk about state's rights vs. federalism. America's "states" were originally small countries - vastly different from one another."
a) How is this even marginally relevant?
b) Have you never heard of the European Union?

"Pretty sure impersonating a mod is a silencable offense..."

So many rules!

“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”
― H.L. Mencken, Prejudices: First Series

I think you guys are missing an important fact.

Guns don't kill people (uh uh). I kill people (cha-chick). With guns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk

@ fiedler:

You have been silenced for 12 hours for impersonating a moderator.

jamiet99uk
-WedBiplomacy Moberator

oh noes!

This is kind of thrilling, like walking around the hospital naked. CAN YOU HEAR ME? hehheheh. Now I can finally have some quality conversation - with myself.

How bout those nicks? I know! Right? GO Hawks!