OT Trump prematurely ejaculates

[swaledale]

I suspect that’s not the point, Ram. I doubt people object to gun ownership by responsible individuals for sporting purposes, but the 2nd Amendment together with the historic gun culture of the US have created a scenario where, imo, the necessary checks etc have been sacrificed on the altar of the right to carry arms being enshrined in their culture.
The number of and easy availability of guns and ammunition in the States inevitably leads to there being more incidents of gun crime and atrocities such as Columbine and Sandy Hook imo.

Certainly a society where people can wander around the streets openly carrying semi automatic assault rifles is one I'm glad I don't live in.

As for most gun crime being black on black, and knife crime is often dismissed in the same way in the Uk. As in many western societies, if your in a middle income group or above then your probably unlikely to encounter a problem unless some crazy turns up at your school, or office or you somehow wander into a poorer area.

At this point I'd probably normally say that a concerted effort to reduce poverty and increase lifestyle chances for lower income groups would be a good place to start, but then I'm sure I'd be given a sermon on how this is just idealistic.

[ramAnag]

At this point I'd probably normally say that a concerted effort to reduce poverty and increase lifestyle chances for lower income groups would be a good place to start, but then I'm sure I'd be given a sermon on how this is just idealistic.

Sod the ‘sermon’...because actually you’d be right....imo.

[Ram59]

Certainly a society where people can wander around the streets openly carrying semi automatic assault rifles is one I'm glad I don't live in.

As for most gun crime being black on black, and knife crime is often dismissed in the same way in the Uk. As in many western societies, if your in a middle income group or above then your probably unlikely to encounter a problem unless some crazy turns up at your school, or office or you somehow wander into a poorer area.

At this point I'd probably normally say that a concerted effort to reduce poverty and increase lifestyle chances for lower income groups would be a good place to start, but then I'm sure I'd be given a sermon on how this is just idealistic.

You're right, you're being idealistic.

Blacks are twice as likely as whites to be living in poverty, but there are in excess of 20 times as many whites in the UK. So, roughly speaking there are 10 times as many whites living in poverty in the UK as there are blacks. Do we hear about 10 times as much white knife crime in the UK?

I don't think so, unfortunately, carrying a knife is an accepted practice in young poor blacks, more so than any other race.

[Andy_Faber]

You're right, you're being idealistic.

Blacks are twice as likely as whites to be living in poverty, but there are in excess of 20 times as many whites in the UK. So, roughly speaking there are 10 times as many whites living in poverty in the UK as there are blacks. Do we hear about 10 times as much white knife crime in the UK?

I don't think so, unfortunately, carrying a knife is an accepted practice in young poor blacks, more so than any other race.

Ram's right on both counts Swale. you'r ignoring the per capita effect and you're being idealistic.

Edit: in fact you are demonstrating the exact behaviour that I've been talking about yet don't have a name for, trying against the objective evidence to justify a particular behaviour when it reflects badly on particular parts of society

[ramAnag]

Ram's right on both counts Swale. you'r ignoring the per capita effect and you're being idealistic.

Edit: in fact you are demonstrating the exact behaviour that I've been talking about yet don't have a name for, trying against the objective evidence to justify a particular behaviour when it reflects badly on particular parts of society

So...just out of interest, are you, Ram and GP coming out in support of the gun lobby, the 2nd Amendment and the right to carry firearms?

[Andy_Faber]

So...just out of interest, are you, Ram and GP coming out in support of the gun lobby, the 2nd Amendment and the right to carry firearms?

If I were a USA citizen I would be so entrenched in my opinion on this that whatever side of the fence I was ten years ago I would be now and I will be til I die - that's part of the problem. As an observer, a former gun owner (a 4/10) and first hand observer of two accidents with firearms, my recommendation would be: 1) Don't look to repeal the 2nd amendment, its political suicide - almost all my US friends are Democrats, almost all 'carry' or have a legal gun in the home, almost all would vote Republican if it meant retaining the right - so forget that as idealism. 2) Work towards a point where a test of reasonableness can be applied, ie what amount and type of firearms can one person reasonably need for legitimate means. 3) identify the areas of life where possession of firearms for 'legitimate' (in their eyes) such as personal defence/law enforcement/hunting (for game that is then eaten)/stock protection becomes possession for 'illegitimate' means such as person on person attack in all its forms. 3) for those areas of life, initiate a two pronged 'attack' - 3a) zero tolerance towards perps (whole life sentences for instance) and 3b) probably most importantly, address the root cause of each (type of) incident and make serious steps to reverse whatever behaviours/trends/cultures have given rise to it. Trouble is even as I write that, especially 3b, it just reads like complete fantasy. Whats your position?

[ramAnag]

If I were a USA citizen I would be so entrenched in my opinion on this that whatever side of the fence I was ten years ago I would be now and I will be til I die - that's part of the problem. As an observer, a former gun owner (a 4/10) and first hand observer of two accidents with firearms, my recommendation would be: 1) Don't look to repeal the 2nd amendment, its political suicide - almost all my US friends are Democrats, almost all 'carry' or have a legal gun in the home, almost all would vote Republican if it meant retaining the right - so forget that as idealism. 2) Work towards a point where a test of reasonableness can be applied, ie what amount and type of firearms can one person reasonably need for legitimate means. 3) identify the areas of life where possession of firearms for 'legitimate' (in their eyes) such as personal defence/law enforcement/hunting (for game that is then eaten)/stock protection becomes possession for 'illegitimate' means such as person on person attack in all its forms. 3) for those areas of life, initiate a two pronged 'attack' - 3a) zero tolerance towards perps (whole life sentences for instance) and 3b) probably most importantly, address the root cause of each (type of) incident and make serious steps to reverse whatever behaviours/trends/cultures have given rise to it. Trouble is even as I write that, especially 3b, it just reads like complete fantasy. Whats your position?

My position takes three forms. Firstly I find it frustrating that you and GP (Ram59 is at least consistent) can seldom actually make your minds up, albeit for different reasons, and take a stance. You did the same thing over Brexit, both voting against it, both sometimes arguing against it but eventually coming out in some sort of vague support for it and, in GP’s case, regularly heaping scorn on those who continue to think it represents imminent disaster...or in your case suggesting that those who oppose gun control are nothing more than ‘idealists’. Take a stance that you believe in.

Decisions can be influenced by time and changing circumstances. No one in their right mind would have legalised the widespread selling of cigarettes and alcohol had they known what they know now. Conversely, 15 years ago it would have been difficult to believe that smoking in public places would have ever been banned and going even further back...in the late sixties/early seventies(?) the notion of any objection to drinking and driving and the use of breathalysers would have been opposed on the basis of some infringement of civil liberty. Unpopular legislation can be passed if the argument is strong.

I completely accept the greater need for landowners/farmers to own certain guns in the US. Beyond that and despite their ‘Wild West’ history, there is, imo, no justification for ordinary people to own a gun which they keep in the home and on their person and there is absolutely no need and no justification for individuals to have the right to own rapid fire automatic or semi automatic weapons. Things need to change, people need to - for want of a much, much better expression - stick to their (metaphorical) guns, and the US needs to have a rational, logical national debate about the issue.

For the sake of argument, and completely hypothetically, if we in the UK were now to try and change laws relating to gun control, ownership and availability to being like those in the USA would you support such change? Y/N...no pontificating...take a stance!

[Andy_Faber]

My position takes three forms. Firstly I find it frustrating that you and GP (Ram59 is at least consistent) can seldom actually make your minds up, albeit for different reasons, and take a stance. You did the same thing over Brexit, both voting against it, both sometimes arguing against it but eventually coming out in some sort of vague support for it and, in GP’s case, regularly heaping scorn on those who continue to think it represents imminent disaster...or in your case suggesting that those who oppose gun control are nothing more than ‘idealists’. Take a stance that you believe in.

Decisions can be influenced by time and changing circumstances. No one in their right mind would have legalised the widespread selling of cigarettes and alcohol had they known what they know now. Conversely, 15 years ago it would have been difficult to believe that smoking in public places would have ever been banned and going even further back...in the late sixties/early seventies(?) the notion of any objection to drinking and driving and the use of breathalysers would have been opposed on the basis of some infringement of civil liberty. Unpopular legislation can be passed if the argument is strong.

I completely accept the greater need for landowners/farmers to own certain guns in the US. Beyond that and despite their ‘Wild West’ history, there is, imo, no justification for ordinary people to own a gun which they keep in the home and on their person and there is absolutely no need and no justification for individuals to have the right to own rapid fire automatic or semi automatic weapons. Things need to change, people need to - for want of a much, much better expression - stick to their (metaphorical) guns, and the US needs to have a rational, logical national debate about the issue.

For the sake of argument, and completely hypothetically, if we in the UK were now to try and change laws relating to gun control, ownership and availability to being like those in the USA would you support such change? Y/N...no pontificating...take a stance!

I think what I've had is actually a 'nuanced view', on many issues. For Brexit, I voted Remain, I would vote Remain again, but as usual I chose to 'sit in the other fellah's chair' and try to understand what the motivations were for people that existed outside my small and well insulated bubble. Most of what I contributed in the Brexit thread was coloured by what I observed.and because what I observed stayed pretty stable, so did my contribution I thought. Respecting the decision of those who prevailed didn't stop me calling out, being exasperated with or occasionally being amused by some of the dafter things that came out of the Leave side, but it was the arrogance of the
Remain side, with their 'we're better than you, and we will prevail' attitude that created the biggest impression on me and you may have seen a hardening of my opinion that 'the will of the people' must be accepted - but thats a hardening of position not a failure to take a stance.

[swaledale]

If I were a USA citizen I would be so entrenched in my opinion on this that whatever side of the fence I was ten years ago I would be now and I will be til I die - that's part of the problem. As an observer, a former gun owner (a 4/10) and first hand observer of two accidents with firearms, my recommendation would be: 1) Don't look to repeal the 2nd amendment, its political suicide - almost all my US friends are Democrats, almost all 'carry' or have a legal gun in the home, almost all would vote Republican if it meant retaining the right - so forget that as idealism. 2) Work towards a point where a test of reasonableness can be applied, ie what amount and type of firearms can one person reasonably need for legitimate means. 3) identify the areas of life where possession of firearms for 'legitimate' (in their eyes) such as personal defence/law enforcement/hunting (for game that is then eaten)/stock protection becomes possession for 'illegitimate' means such as person on person attack in all its forms. 3) for those areas of life, initiate a two pronged 'attack' - 3a) zero tolerance towards perps (whole life sentences for instance) and 3b) probably most importantly, address the root cause of each (type of) incident and make serious steps to reverse whatever behaviours/trends/cultures have given rise to it. Trouble is even as I write that, especially 3b, it just reads like complete fantasy. Whats your position?

Actually I don't believe that any American politician has ever tried to repeal the second amendment. Gun control in the US terms, was more about more restrictions on what type of weapons could be bought and owned and more recording of who bought them. After all when the 2nd amendment was drafted, the most sophisticated weapon was a six shooter. As ever times of changed and lets face it if the NRA were actually a responsible organisation they would support limited control over weapons that have no civilian use whatsoever.

The US has whole life sentences, even capital punishment in some states, doesn't seem to have the desired affect. You are a pessimist aren't you? 3b is entirely possible and where it has been implemented has shown positive results, regrettably its not seen as a political priority, possibly because those unaffected look down on those affected and blame the victims for their own circumstances.

[Ram59]

So...just out of interest, are you, Ram and GP coming out in support of the gun lobby, the 2nd Amendment and the right to carry firearms?

If I was living in the US now, I would definitely have a legal firearm for my own protection and probably to enjoy the sport of target shooting once more. What I would vote against, is the right of normal citizens to own fully automatic weapons and guns that fire larger calibre bullets.

With illegal gun ownership so widespread in the US, I don't think that it'll ever be possible to take away the right of law abiding citizens to own a firearm for their own protection.

Would I support it in this country, no way. Having said that, I was upset to lose my own pistol used for sporting purposes only. I believed at the time and still do, that the ban was too general. In my instance which was the most common category, my pistol was a single shot .22 pistol. Even if I practiced hard, I would struggle to reload the single bullet in less than 5 seconds, this bullet being only around 5mm in diameter. It would be impossible for someone to go wild with such a weapon causing multiple fatalities. Put it like this, if I was put in a room with someone else for a fight to the death and was given the choice of such a weapon or a kitchen knife, I would choose the knife every time.