You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Wouldn't the simplest solution be to ban the sale of ammunition to the general public?
Guns are really rubbish without bullets - a baseball bat would be more useful!
Obviously there would be a black market but the inability to pop down to Walmart for your ammo would surely create a chronic shortage?
And quite easy to implement I would have thought.
Zero chance of that attracting political support.
Zero chance of that attracting political suppor
Yup.
https://elections.bradyunited.org/take-action/nra-donations-116th-congress-senators
Having had a flick through this thread it occurred to me that given many of these 2nd amendment types all think the Trump had the election stolen from him, if now isn’t the time for small well organised militias to rise up against the US Government, when is? And given that they aren’t, doesn’t it show that they are either cowards or don’t believe in the 2nd amendment?
Now, having written it down, I realise calling MAGA-types bluff on a second US Civil war is quite a bold move, but still, I think the logic stands.
Zero chance of that attracting political support.
There is broad consensus for more controls, even from Republicans. Right up until the NRA and the various gun nuts get their hands on it and start screaming about their rights being infringed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_background_check
crazylegs - my post was a direct response to the clearly impractical and unworkable suggestion that ammunition sales to the general public should be banned.
hard core gut totting Americans.
Excellent typo that deserves recognition in a conversation involving Gravy Seals and Meal Team Six
Making owners responsible and banning carrying would be a great start. I also agree with the old classic Chris Rock routine. Make bullets really expensive to purchase.
I genuinely feel sorry for the majority of US citizens who are trying to live a normal life amongst the epic levels of arsehattery displayed by a minority. The constitution, like many old documents people cling to, was written in a very different time with a whole other bunch of stuff going on that influenced it. It’s not fit for purpose in a modern world. A bit like a lot of other old texts.
Guns just seem so engrained in American culture. From the militaristic police force to depictions in cinema and games to music and TV series. The gun is everywhere and seems, on the surface at least, to be widely accepted. God forbid you see a nipple though! Very odd morales and values
It’s slightly OT, but I think to how many hours of instruction & practice I’ve had on various systems to maintain a high degree of competency on firearms and in the US they’re given out like candy.
My view has put me at odds with American friends because I’ve stated I don’t want some fat, bloating walt anywhere near me in public with a firearm who has had little to no training.
Yeah, this is a really good argument. I forget the exact details now but read a statistic a while back that the accuracy rate of trained armed response types under pressure in an actual combat situation is something like 30%. It might not even be that high. Some redneck who thinks he's John Goodman in The Big Lebowski has no chance.
I don’t subscribe to the ‘good guy with a gun’ maxim because if they don’t know what they’re doing they can pose a wider threat to others.
But then the other side of that coin is if training and proficiency became a requirement of ownership then when shootings occured, the body count would be a lot higher.
The absolute body count might be higher, but the number of innocent bystanders getting shot by accident might fall considerably? I honestly don't know the answer to that.
The problem is that a lot of the US doesn’t want it fixing. The reason they have so many guns is because they like them.
Have got a link?
Everything I have seen suggests the opposite.
I said "a lot," not "most." Just 1% of the USA is three million people, and the stats are considerably higher than that.
In any case, whilst there's a near 1:1 ratio of guns to people, gun ownership is not an even distribution as you said yourself. Those who like guns often tend to really like guns.
my post was a direct response to the clearly impractical and unworkable suggestion that ammunition sales to the general public should be banned.
The suggestion was that ammunition sales to the general public could be banned, not should be banned. I said yesterday, quote, "lack of political will is probably the biggest obstacle".
So I fully recognise "zero chance of that attracting political support".
I fail to see how it would be "unworkable" though if the political will existed. Can you explain how with the political will it would be impractical and unworkable to ban the sale of ammunition to the general public?
Most countries don't have any problem banning the sale of ammunition to the general public.
I said “a lot,” not “most.” Just 1% of the USA is three million people, and the stats are considerably higher than that.
Oh yeah fair enough. All the polls suggest that the majority of people don't own guns and that the majority want tighter controls.
I believe that the problem might be that it is very low down on people's list of priorities, consequently politicians don't feel strongly motivated to respond.
I believe that the problem might be that it is very low down on people’s list of priorities, consequently politicians don’t feel strongly motivated to respond.
I think its more those in favour are a lot more vocal and engaged in single issue politics. Whereas the majority of those against whilst not overly fans dont have the same commitment (outside those who have had friends and family killed by people with guns).
Plus the gun lobby has quite a lot of money to throw around even leaving aside the Russian money funnelled by the NRA.
The counter lobby doesnt have the same cash since are mostly bereaved people rather than gun manufacturers raking in the cash.
The absolute body count might be higher, but the number of innocent bystanders getting shot by accident might fall considerably? I honestly don’t know the answer to that.
Apologies @Cougar I was talking from the perspective of the perpetrators. If there was a higher bar on competency it would potentially increase the lethality when these types of incidents occur in favour of the maniac doing the killing.
Like you I don't know what the first step is, especially with the amount of sway the firearms industry has with political figures.
I think its more those in favour are a lot more vocal and engaged in single issue politics
Yeah it would seem that in a pro-gun control politician verses a pro-gun politician scenario the pro-gun control politician loses out.
Simply because those in favour of greater gun control don't treat it as a priority in the way that those in favour of guns do.
"From my cold dead hands" suggests an exceptional level of fanaticism.
Yeah, it's a bit like a fetish, like brexit.
They don't care until something happens to make them care, and then all of a sudden it's a big issue for 2 days.
Then it's right back to 'Guns = awesome'!
Apologies @Cougar I was talking from the perspective of the perpetrators. If there was a higher bar on competency it would potentially increase the lethality when these types of incidents occur in favour of the maniac doing the killing.
I think we're at angry dolphins and it's probably me who is not being clear. I was talking about US shootings generally, not any specific incidents like the recent one. Like for instance, gang activity - someone taking a potshot at a rival gang member is more likely to hit their target if trained, but less likely to hit someone else.
I'm no expert on how to go about a mass shooting (I'm a sociopath not a psychopath😁) but if I were a deranged lunatic wanting to go on an indiscriminate killing spree then I think I'd likely favour quantity over accuracy.
“From my cold dead hands” suggests an exceptional level of fanaticism.
I don't think it's all that exceptional, sadly.
“From my cold dead hands” suggests an exceptional level of fanaticism.
There's a reason why Trump held his latest rally at Waco, pretty close to the 30th anniversary of the tragedy there.
It's a potent symbol of government over-reach for much of his base, a demonstration of 'what happens when you come and try to take my gunz'. The fact that the cult at Waco were involved in child rape further shows the order of priority in terms of child safety vs guns.
He wants to take their fear and paranoia about the federal government and tie it in with his current legal troubles.
Going back a bit to ownership,
Amongst gun owners, about a third own just one, a third own 2-4 and a third own five or more. It's a similar split for don't own / might own / will never own.
Uvalde school shooting was on May 24, 2022. It was the TWENTY SEVENTH school shooting of the year.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/interactive/school-shootings-database/
[img] 
[/img]
A think that always strikes me as sad isn't that it's polarised, it's that it's daftly polarised. You say, are you in favour of gun control, a lot of people say no. But then you say...
Are you in favour of making guns easier to get than they are now? No
Are you in favour of removing age restrictions on guns? No
Are you in favour of allowing access to fully automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, bump stocks etc? No.
Are you in favour of stopping convicted felons from having a gun? Yes
Do you think people on the no fly list should be allowed to have a gun? No
Do you think people with a serious mental health issue should be allowed to have a gun? Probably not
Do you think guns should be locked in the home to protect kids? Yes
Do you think it should be legal to take a gun into a school? Probably not.
Are you in favour of wait times for guns? Yes
But gun control? No we hate gun control. The conversation is completely broken at a basic communications level, people can be pro and against gun control in teh same breath. A huge proportion of US voters are in favour of tighter gun control but absolutely opposed to the words gun control.
@cougar, could the same not be said for cyclists? Look at the old n+1 joke on here. I'd say its true for any enthusiast no matter their interest.
Of course I realise whilst typing that's exactly your point, that despite high numbers in circulation the numbers are skewed in terms of absolute ownership.
Also just because a problem can’t be fixed overnight doesn’t mean you shouldn’t start the process.
@msp Easy to say when it's not you in the spotlight, it would seem.
They’ve decided collectively that the endless death toll* is worth the price. Let them get on with it. The weird thing for me is that knowing what legalised weaponry looks like, they (and people tin this country for that matter) still persist with the idea that somehow the legalisation of recreational drugs is still worth campaigning for.
@nickc - thats quite a strange connection to make. The US problem with guns is not that some of them are legal in some controlled ways but that its essentially a free-for-all. Only the most extreme drug legalisation people argue for a free-for-all approach. It's clear that banning guns in the UK is far more effective than banning drugs. There's a spectrum from legalise everything for everyone (call that 0) through to ban everything and send anyone even remotely involved to jail for years (call that 100). On that massively oversimplistic scale US gun laws probably about 3-8 depending on the state and UK gun laws are about 85.
Pointing to the US gun law as proof that decriminalisation or legalisation of some drugs won't work rather than pointing to say Canada, Netherlands or Portugal where they have varying degrees of legalisation seems odd. Its like pointing to the US alcohol prohibition, UK licensing laws, Scandinavian licensing laws, and say Itallian drinking culture and concluding that Quatar's drinking laws are probably the answer.
If there was a higher bar on competency it would potentially increase the lethality when these types of incidents occur in favour of the maniac doing the killing.
I guess it depends on how many additional barriers you put in the way. Since the meal team 6 does seem accurate in many cases perhaps after doing basic safety measures follow it with "shooting whilst physically knackered" and give them a brick filled bergen and send them off for a nice long march before doing an obstacle course before the range.
In terms of getting rid of existing weapons even if there is the will whilst it wont be a short term process I think it would be possible. If you look at late victorian England its pretty surprising how many guns seem to be in circulation. It was only in 1903 any real attempt to regulate was put in place.
But gun control? No we hate gun control. The conversation is completely broken at a basic communications level, people can be pro and against gun control in teh same breath. A huge proportion of US voters are in favour of tighter gun control but absolutely opposed to the words gun control.
There's a very effective, broad-spectrum right-wing propaganda machine at work in the US, part of its function is causing and keeping the phrase "Gun Control" to be seen as a dirty word by those susceptible to the messaging. As you point out, lots of the measures that would constitute gun control, probably appeal to huge swathes of them, but the propaganda is effective and well funded...
Christmas message of peace
They obviously have looked in the Christmas message of peace. The story is followed by the wholesale slaughter of innocents by a tyrannical government. Although there is at least one happy story when a child is saved, although separated from his parents, by being placed on a small boat.
thats quite a strange connection to make.
Not to my mind, they're both a largely uncontrolled yet normalised societal harm. Gun control at the point of sale mostly isn't the solution (in the same way that I'm more and more convinced that legalising some hard drugs isn't the solution either) People will get them and use them and they (and others) will die from the effects of them. Legal or otherwise
I don't know what the solution is, these things exist and the genie isn't going to go back in the bottle, but I can see the connection and similarities between the two.
Worked in the US (mid west and southern states) have American and British friends living there.
A Texan bloke i worked with described the US as a third world country with electricity.
The incidents that have occurred over the last few years would make any reasonable government legislate to stop it happening.
Don't ever think the US is actually a forward thinking democracy, it is an ideological right wing autocracy in which the autocracy is the ideology. Further examples include Healthcare, Religion, Racism, workers rights and so on.
Gun control at the point of sale mostly isn’t the solution
Gun control at the point of sale is proven to work at a societal level, whereas there is no evidence that the prohibition of drugs has been effective, in fact many argue it has been counterproductive in educating prospective users and treating current addicts.
It's legal to buy guns in America, and yet millions of them each year are exchanged totally illegally. In California, for example, it's hard to buy some sorts of handguns- because the law bans them and semi autos, yet there's a loophole that says you can buy any weapon if it's sold to you privately by a cop. Now hundreds of cops in the state have a side gig selling really quite powerful guns to, well, just about anyone really.
Some of them are bought by folks growing legalised cannabis, why? Because despite the fact that cannabis is legal to buy in California, the taxes imposed on it's sale mean it's quite expensive and can only really be afforded by well off middle class folks, but the quality of it is really very good, so now there's a pretty good trade in it on the black market; rather than go to all the trouble and expense and potential hassle of growing your own (still illegal) just buy a gun from a cop and go and steal it, the growers defend themselves and there's a shoot out caused by illegal handguns sold illegally over legally grown soft drug, that the cops will have to deal with getting hurt in the process by the same handguns that their colleagues sold on the black market
All in a state where both handguns and cannabis are legal.
n fact many argue it has been counterproductive
Yes, I don't disagree. All I'm saying is that I can see a connection between the two. Here is a societal harm - in this case drugs, and a large part of the harm caused by them is the fact that they are illegal. So legalise them; goes the argument to relieve the harm. Well, we have an example of what happens if you legalise a social harm - privately held weapons - how's that going? That's the question I'm asking is all.
Well, we have an example of what happens if you legalise a social harm – privately held weapons – how’s that going? That’s the question I’m asking is all.
In the country's that have applied strict gun controls such as the UK, rather well. In countries with lax gun controls such as the US very badly. In country's where they switched from lax gun control to stricter gun control such as Australia, the situation improved quite a lot.
Whereas there is no such evidence in the difference between the prohibition, decriminalization or legalization of drugs having the same impact, in fact decriminalization or legalization has actually shown to improve outcomes especially if the money pumped into the "war on drugs" is instead directed to treatment.
especially if the money pumped into the “war on drugs” is instead directed to treatment.
Yes I agree. I'm not anti drug legalisation at all, what I'm saying is that imagining that the harm caused by them will disappear if they're legalised is a liberal do-gooder fantasy, (and I'm a liberal do-gooder)
stricter gun control such as Australia, the situation improved quite a lot.
Has it? While this paper suggests that gun death has reduced, it makes for pretty sober reading if you think that stricter gun control has made Australia safer, and comparing Australia with the US has it's own issues, population size, societal attitudes, all play a massive factor.
I'm not disagreeing that the situation isn't complex or that there isn't things that we could do better, but the simple arguments; ban the sale of guns or make them harder to get, or legalise some drugs to reduce the criminal element of their sale and use, are often not as straightforward or effective as they first appear.
Yes, I don’t disagree. All I’m saying is that I can see a connection between the two. Here is a societal harm – in this case drugs, and a large part of the harm caused by them is the fact that they are illegal. So legalise them; goes the argument to relieve the harm. Well, we have an example of what happens if you legalise a social harm – privately held weapons – how’s that going? That’s the question I’m asking is all.
The fundamental premise of your argument is that its we can treat/compare two different "societal harms" as though they are the same. That's almost always a route to bad policy which doesn't achieve its aims.
and comparing Australia with the US has it’s own issues,
But you are comparing the US to everywhere else with your "see legalisation doesn't work". Even your "see some restrictions don't work" argument is based on some shonky law with stupid loopholes from California. And "legalise" implies they were once illegal - the US gun issue is not that they decided to relax the laws, it's that they've got centuries of free for all and the culture that goes with that. They did legalise a societal harm much more analogous to drugs in 1933 - and as far as I am aware there is not a massive black market for liquor sales, so it can be done if you want to do it.
A Texan bloke i worked with described the US as a third world country with electricity.
It's really a collection of third world countries operating within a trade bloc.
That’s almost always a route to bad policy which doesn’t achieve its aims.
None of the legislation around guns or drugs fundamentally achieves it's aims as far as I can see, and any attempt do so creates perverse incentives - because both drugs and guns are valuable to criminals.
Even your “see some restrictions don’t work” argument is based on some shonky law with stupid loopholes from California
Yes, I agree, the point I was making was that even when progressive legislators in California tried to de-criminalise cannabis all they created was just another route to illegality and violent crime - it certainly wasn't their intent . The taxes the raise from sales goes to education programmes to inner city kids largely, and yet hasn't stopped (or even slightly dented) illegal trade in both guns and drugs. There's no reason to suppose that UK legislators will make a better fist of it.
I agree that there's no a massive black market for liquor sales, but that's not to say that alcohol doesn't represent a societal harm, it has done and continues to do massive amounts of harm, but society has just got used to it. I'm not certain that legalising further demonstrably dangerous drugs makes that any better?
And just when you think the US can't get any more batshit crazy....
And rather than impose limits on guns, which polling shows Americans generally favor, Texas’s state legislature is considering a bill that would require children in grade school to be given access to battlefield-style tourniquets and to be trained on how to use them to stop bleeding in case a mass shooter targets them.
Guardian Linky to latest American mass shooting
From the article:
“The first girl I walked up to was crouched down covering her head in the bushes,” he told CBS. “So I felt for a pulse, pulled her head to the side and she had no face.”
If only he had a tourniquet.
I guess its progress from "thoughts and prayers".
Who knows in a few more years they catch on to firearms being the problem.
Texas’s state legislature is considering a bill that would require children in grade school to be given access to battlefield-style tourniquets and to be trained on how to use them to stop bleeding in case a mass shooter targets them.
I guess Republicans are absolutely fine with kids learning how to deal with blood, as long as its presence isn't a result of natural bodily functions.
The media should show the after effects of being shot, (with permission from the relatives) as that may drive the gun regulation agenda forward.
Then again thoughts and prayers trump actual facts……..shrug.
In first aid training I have seen genuine footage of plain clothed American cops using tourniquets, which they had been wearing round their ankles, as they frantically tried to stop catastrophic bleeding in someone that they had just shot.
I guess its progress from “thoughts and prayers”.
Guardian Linky to latest American mass shooting
The term "Shot to death" used a few times in there instead of the usual "shot dead"- new one on me. Is is meant to be more impactful?
Gun ownership reasons are varied but 'to protect me and my family' and 'I love guns me' seem to be the two largest reasons. Sometimes those who declare 'protect' are really just giving an excuse for their 'I love guns' predilections. It's interesting that the hero of that article was ex forces and police but still describes himself as a 'gun lover'. It's my experience that having used one professionally (especially if that involved discharging it at another human) rather blunts the 'love' in most people. 'Respect' maybe - but love....Anyone who has used one successfully for their ultimate purpose and still has a 'love' probably should not be allowed to use one again. I certainly have no plans to handle a gun again.
In first aid training I have seen genuine footage of plain clothed American cops using tourniquets, which they had been wearing round their ankles, as they frantically tried to stop catastrophic bleeding in someone that they had just shot.
Armed officers in the UK carry the same sort of kit, though maybe not on their ankles.
Mr Self is an example of one of those people you’d expect to use their ‘god’ based bullet shield right up to the point someone has a gun in their face and they start to cry and beg and insist they will pay the wielded large amounts of cash.
I see Musk is trying his best to throw mud on the idea that a neo-nazi might have done something bad .....
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1655977617583898637?t=iGpHqGwhfDznqzQAOkk_aQ&s=19
Keith Self is an absolute dickhead.
In first aid training I have seen genuine footage of plain clothed American cops using tourniquets, which they had been wearing round their ankles, as they frantically tried to stop catastrophic bleeding in someone that they had just shot.
In most of the videos I have seen the cops just scream conflicting orders at the shot person before handcuffing them. Never any sort of rush to administer first aid.
It was actually in a London Ambulance Service first aid training course that I saw the footage of America cops trying to save the life of someone that they had just shot.
Not a Hollywood film! 😉
It’s my experience that having used one professionally (especially if that involved discharging it at another human) rather blunts the ‘love’ in most people. ‘Respect’ maybe – but love….Anyone who has used one successfully for their ultimate purpose and still has a ‘love’ probably should not be allowed to use one again.
Agreed. It's a tool, it requires skill to wield and apply it effectively, it should utterly be respected as it can all go sideways in an instant.
I'll die a happy man if I never have to handle one again.
Not directly related but this short from more or less touches on guns in the wider discussion about the average life expectancy decline if good old U.S.A.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0fldqhb?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile
Keith Self is an absolute dickhead.
Shame someone didnt ask him his position on Epicurus' trilemma.
Seems particular apt when talking about a random shooting event.
So....
The coward who failed to stop the Parkland school shooter killing 17 people has been found "not guilty" of child neglect and negligence.
Sorta blows a hole in the NRAs argument that guns prevent killing. What's their next tactic?
The coward who failed to stop the Parkland school shooter
I am not sure its really cowardly not to go one on one when you are outgunned and lack any protective gear. Probably more average.
Sorta blows a hole in the NRAs argument that guns prevent killing. What’s their next tactic?
I think you are overestimating their flexibility here. The answer is always more and bigger guns.
Plus maybe some training and more guards. If every school has a swat team you dont have to worry about the single officer freezing.
Sorta blows a hole in the NRAs argument that guns prevent killing. What’s their next tactic?
Too easy to answer that!
Better / bigger / heavier more secure doors at schools
Bigger guns for school security guards / police
More security guards and police (with more guns obvs)
Guns for teachers
More guns
Guns
For goodness sake franksinatra, won’t you think of the children. . . and give them guns!
Bulletproof vests for the kids.
Guns for the kids so they can shoot the shooter.
Double Uzi's for the teachers
Sorted! (apart from my 3minute late reply!)
And another example of the recklessness of those with guns.
Just plain bonkers but unfortunately incidents such as these are all too common. But as a single victim, probably doesn’t get much column inches outside of local news. That said, in 2 years of living in Texas, the only non cop I’ve seen carrying is a cousin who is ex cop so at least has some training.