commandlinegamer
Philosopher
Paraphrasing a post I just saw on Twitter: Why is it a right to have guns, but a privilege to have universal healthcare?
School shooting: but don't mention guns!
- Thread starter Travis
- Start date
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
Would they have anything worth stealing in that case?!
commandlinegamer
Philosopher
Worth noting in addition to Carnivore's worthy post above, the Scottish Government announced only a day ago a consultation with regard to the licensing of airguns:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20720203
"Under the new scheme, anyone wanting to own an air gun would need to demonstrate they had a legitimate reason for doing so."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20720203
"Under the new scheme, anyone wanting to own an air gun would need to demonstrate they had a legitimate reason for doing so."
zeggman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,911
I suppose I'm one of those gun nuts, then, though I don't own a gun myself.
This was, of course, precisely the reason the 2nd Amendment was written, whether you like it or not.
And yes, if the government became too tyrannical, I'm pretty sure 300 million armed citizens would be more than a match for it.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Ah, the gulag perhaps?
So how will you identify those people? And at what level will force treatment?
It is a much more complicated issue than just some hand wave of 'get them treatment'.
I have put people in the hospital, I have signed petitions for involuntary hospitalization. There is a high bar to deny someone their liberty.
You also neglect other issues:
-will you mandate treatment for all people with mental illness?
Hell we can't even enforce orders of protection for victims of violence. And you want us to enforce compliance how? How many people are killed by people they had OPs against. How many of them had a mental illness?
We are a society that has the same level of mental illness as other societies, yet somehow we have a proportion of gun death much higher than others.
Strange conclusion that the issue is mental health, I wonder how many people are irrationally paranoid?
What about people who are not mentally ill but have entitlement issues?
How many of them shoot places up? How many preform drivebys?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
And where did those weapons come from?
I am not about gun control myself. Just registration, one dollar a year and maybe a bulk discount for people who own hundreds of guns.
Like my friend the arms collector and appraiser.
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
It must be terrible living somewhere where things are so messed up that - as you seem to suggest - just about anyone can do that. Walk into the right pub in London, and you could get a gun, but you'd have to be very much the right sort of person yourself in the first place, i.e. known to/vouched for by other criminals. Ordinary people - i.e. the vast majority of the population - would get a curt, "I'm sorry, officer, I can't help you."
anglolawyer
Banned
Wow! The message seems to be: don't go to school folks! A lot of those are different but I accept things are not as simple as I thought. Red Indian massacres don't count though. Let's agree on that.
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
Because the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution, while there are no sections or amendments for health care.
That was easy.
anglolawyer
Banned
It seems to be impossible for some to discuss other cultures without being either judgemental or superior or both. In Britain we have a craven interpretation of freedom in which our parliament is still infested with bishops and lords, patronage remains rife and our knee-jerk reaction to every transient inconvenience is to regulate it, the latest example being a debate on how best to muzzle the press. Yet, 'we' think we have the answers to everything and an entitlement to patronise everyone else.
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
When the 2nd Amendment was written, we did not yet have a Constitution (meaning it wasn't ratified and adopted yet), nor had we had an orderly transfer of governmental power via the vote.
And 300 million guns =/= 300 million armed citizens.
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
Actually it's quite nice living here.
anglolawyer
Banned
Agree.
zeggman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,911
If the government ever goes tyrannical, that sort of implies that it isn't honoring the orderly transfer of governmental power via the vote.
It's a lot closer than zero guns would get you.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,193
I do not think even the deaths of all of these children will make any difference to US gun control and the number of guns. There have been loads of previous massacres which resulted in little no action.
Carnivore's post #778 is spot on and in the UK a similar massacre of children resulted in a quick, pretty much unprotested wholesale change to what guns were in circulation. There was also an increase in the checks on people applying for or renewing firearms licences to try and find out social/mental health issues whereby referees have to people who actually know the person and not just local dignitaries who maybe only see them occasionally.
It is worth noting that whilst it is not in our constitution in as much as we don't have one like the USA, any law abiding citizen in the UK can get a firearm.
The big differences are
- the type of firearm people in the UK can possess is limited compared to the USA
- people need to give a reason for getting a gun, hunting, vermin control and sport (targets, clays etc) are accepted. Self defence is not. That works because so few attacks are with guns and for likes of robberies in shops the advice is to just let the criminal get on with it and not fight back.
- people here do not see their government ever turning tyrannical, so have no reason to defend themselves from it and so that is not seen as a reason to get a gun.
- people in the UK are just not as attached to guns as they are in the USA. So when there is a massacre we are more prepared to give up guns and accept further control rather than think, more guns will solve this problem.
Carnivore's post #778 is spot on and in the UK a similar massacre of children resulted in a quick, pretty much unprotested wholesale change to what guns were in circulation. There was also an increase in the checks on people applying for or renewing firearms licences to try and find out social/mental health issues whereby referees have to people who actually know the person and not just local dignitaries who maybe only see them occasionally.
It is worth noting that whilst it is not in our constitution in as much as we don't have one like the USA, any law abiding citizen in the UK can get a firearm.
The big differences are
- the type of firearm people in the UK can possess is limited compared to the USA
- people need to give a reason for getting a gun, hunting, vermin control and sport (targets, clays etc) are accepted. Self defence is not. That works because so few attacks are with guns and for likes of robberies in shops the advice is to just let the criminal get on with it and not fight back.
- people here do not see their government ever turning tyrannical, so have no reason to defend themselves from it and so that is not seen as a reason to get a gun.
- people in the UK are just not as attached to guns as they are in the USA. So when there is a massacre we are more prepared to give up guns and accept further control rather than think, more guns will solve this problem.
Almost exactly the same in Australia
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
It's also rude to paint a nation of 300 million people with a broad brush or post sneering, condescending social commentary about us telling us what awful people we are.
(Not saying that about you, but I can see why Stank Ape is perterbed.)
scarlettinlondon
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 5, 2009
- Messages
- 452
I worry about the insistance by some that more mental health screening is what is required.
I have to say that I am a child and adolescent psychologist, and as part of that role I have to alert the proper authorities if a young person (under 24 is my range) is at risk of harming themselves or harming others. This includes using weapons.
I think perhaps that some people don't really understand how this works.
Most of my client base would be young (16 to 19) men who have a history of aggression, burglary, car crime etc. I talk to them about their reasons for arming. I must say that on a one to one basis, the vast majority come across as rational, sane and delightfully charming young men. They have a good grasp about the law relating to arming. They accept that guns and knives (knives mostly in the UK) are a bad thing. They know that if they carry a weapon they are more likely to get hurt. Their prevailing answer is that 'other lads have them and I need to defend myself'. Second to this is a macho culture where they are percieved to be bad ass if they carry a weapon to ensure their own safety.
What I am saying is that there is no way that these lads are any less sane than myself. Their reasons are logical, they do not talk about cleansing the earth of wickedness etc. I can report them as a risk to others but I cannot assign any mental illness to them. They are not mentally ill. They are reacting to a percieved threat.
In actuality these boys are a threat both to themselves and others because of the culture in which they exist. Not the UK culture but a subculture that means that a significant proportion of lads in this area are armed and they feel the need to defend themselves. These lads accept my argument that if there were no other knives around they would prefer not to arm themselves as they do see that their weapons put them more at risk.
Now, I meet these lads regularly. Some of them will hurt another human being, some will not. I have no real way of differentiating between these two groups reliably. The ones that hurt others will do so because of situation, opportunity and access to weapons, not because of a mental health issue. Pre knives/guns, it would have been a fist fight. Likely both lads would have lived. The aggression and the need to protect themselves would be there but the weapon would not. Likely they would live.
What I am getting at is that there does not need to be mental illness for people to hurt other people. These lads have no mental health issues. They exist in a subculture where weapons are a status symbol, are cool and are relatively readily available. Where others carry them, they have to as well.
They would prefer not to have to do it. I would love to offer them a culture where they didn't need to.
The interesting thing is that no lads have ever told me that they think weapons should be more readily available. They would all prefer them to be less available so that they could feel safer. They would prefer the culture to change. That's an interesting difference from the pro gun lobby in the USA who seem to me to really want to convince everyone that responsible gun ownership is safe. These lads are more honest. They know it's unsafe, they just have to do it. They don't try to persuade me that other lads would use other weapons if knives and guns weren't available. They seem to be able to hold the view that weapons are unsafe, the world is made unsafe by them and until the world is a safer place they will continue to carry them and sometimes use them. They know that they contribute to the lack of safety in their environment but of course are powerless to change that.
If the Pro gun chappies across the pond could see what my lads see, that gun ownership in general contributes to crime but that until something is done about the gun flooded environment, they will continue to carry them to make themselves personally feel safe I think we would have made a start.
What I struggle against here is the insistance that responsible gun ownership by citizens is a good thing, and overall harmless, as those that kill will use other weapons if they can't get guns.
I cannot agree with that as an argument. Whilst they will probably start mowing people down with lawnmowers, home made bombs etc, the number of deaths will be smaller. And that is a good thing.
Please don't assume that mental health professionals working with this group can define reliably who is of imminent threat and who is not. We can't. Everyone can spot the sweating muttering nutter armed with a weapon. The others are just lads.
The context is what we can change however. if we could change the cultural context to one where carrying weapons was not the norm, then fewer people would own one and fewer would get hurt. The sweating nuttery types would not have such easy access and the normal lads would not have the opportunity. Another good thing.
Now I also understand two other things. That personal safety is put ahead of community safety by individuals both among my own lads and the pro gun chappies. Both groups are willing to arm themselves to defend themselves. Whilst that continues to be the prevailing view, nothing can change in either group.
The second is that the mass school shootings are a different bunny altogether. The mass school shooters can be recognised earlier. However, there's another problem. It is difficult to constrain the freedom of individuals before they do anything dangerous - and that's the issue. We want to stop them before they shoot up the local primary school and to do that we would have to constrain their personal liberties before they have done anything wrong.
It seems to me that gun/weapon control will eventually change the culture to one when guns are non accessible so that even those inclined will have less of an opportunity.
I understand that that's a near impossibility in the USA because of the free availability of guns and the saturation of the country and culture. However, I think that it's time to get into the open the possibility of moving towards that state. Discuss how it could become a reality. Discuss how to move towards that goal. It is not easy, there are no easy solutions. The pro gun lobby seem to have no interest in even opening that discussion or even in thinking about the possibility that a gun free culture could be a good thing.
And that's a shame
I have to say that I am a child and adolescent psychologist, and as part of that role I have to alert the proper authorities if a young person (under 24 is my range) is at risk of harming themselves or harming others. This includes using weapons.
I think perhaps that some people don't really understand how this works.
Most of my client base would be young (16 to 19) men who have a history of aggression, burglary, car crime etc. I talk to them about their reasons for arming. I must say that on a one to one basis, the vast majority come across as rational, sane and delightfully charming young men. They have a good grasp about the law relating to arming. They accept that guns and knives (knives mostly in the UK) are a bad thing. They know that if they carry a weapon they are more likely to get hurt. Their prevailing answer is that 'other lads have them and I need to defend myself'. Second to this is a macho culture where they are percieved to be bad ass if they carry a weapon to ensure their own safety.
What I am saying is that there is no way that these lads are any less sane than myself. Their reasons are logical, they do not talk about cleansing the earth of wickedness etc. I can report them as a risk to others but I cannot assign any mental illness to them. They are not mentally ill. They are reacting to a percieved threat.
In actuality these boys are a threat both to themselves and others because of the culture in which they exist. Not the UK culture but a subculture that means that a significant proportion of lads in this area are armed and they feel the need to defend themselves. These lads accept my argument that if there were no other knives around they would prefer not to arm themselves as they do see that their weapons put them more at risk.
Now, I meet these lads regularly. Some of them will hurt another human being, some will not. I have no real way of differentiating between these two groups reliably. The ones that hurt others will do so because of situation, opportunity and access to weapons, not because of a mental health issue. Pre knives/guns, it would have been a fist fight. Likely both lads would have lived. The aggression and the need to protect themselves would be there but the weapon would not. Likely they would live.
What I am getting at is that there does not need to be mental illness for people to hurt other people. These lads have no mental health issues. They exist in a subculture where weapons are a status symbol, are cool and are relatively readily available. Where others carry them, they have to as well.
They would prefer not to have to do it. I would love to offer them a culture where they didn't need to.
The interesting thing is that no lads have ever told me that they think weapons should be more readily available. They would all prefer them to be less available so that they could feel safer. They would prefer the culture to change. That's an interesting difference from the pro gun lobby in the USA who seem to me to really want to convince everyone that responsible gun ownership is safe. These lads are more honest. They know it's unsafe, they just have to do it. They don't try to persuade me that other lads would use other weapons if knives and guns weren't available. They seem to be able to hold the view that weapons are unsafe, the world is made unsafe by them and until the world is a safer place they will continue to carry them and sometimes use them. They know that they contribute to the lack of safety in their environment but of course are powerless to change that.
If the Pro gun chappies across the pond could see what my lads see, that gun ownership in general contributes to crime but that until something is done about the gun flooded environment, they will continue to carry them to make themselves personally feel safe I think we would have made a start.
What I struggle against here is the insistance that responsible gun ownership by citizens is a good thing, and overall harmless, as those that kill will use other weapons if they can't get guns.
I cannot agree with that as an argument. Whilst they will probably start mowing people down with lawnmowers, home made bombs etc, the number of deaths will be smaller. And that is a good thing.
Please don't assume that mental health professionals working with this group can define reliably who is of imminent threat and who is not. We can't. Everyone can spot the sweating muttering nutter armed with a weapon. The others are just lads.
The context is what we can change however. if we could change the cultural context to one where carrying weapons was not the norm, then fewer people would own one and fewer would get hurt. The sweating nuttery types would not have such easy access and the normal lads would not have the opportunity. Another good thing.
Now I also understand two other things. That personal safety is put ahead of community safety by individuals both among my own lads and the pro gun chappies. Both groups are willing to arm themselves to defend themselves. Whilst that continues to be the prevailing view, nothing can change in either group.
The second is that the mass school shootings are a different bunny altogether. The mass school shooters can be recognised earlier. However, there's another problem. It is difficult to constrain the freedom of individuals before they do anything dangerous - and that's the issue. We want to stop them before they shoot up the local primary school and to do that we would have to constrain their personal liberties before they have done anything wrong.
It seems to me that gun/weapon control will eventually change the culture to one when guns are non accessible so that even those inclined will have less of an opportunity.
I understand that that's a near impossibility in the USA because of the free availability of guns and the saturation of the country and culture. However, I think that it's time to get into the open the possibility of moving towards that state. Discuss how it could become a reality. Discuss how to move towards that goal. It is not easy, there are no easy solutions. The pro gun lobby seem to have no interest in even opening that discussion or even in thinking about the possibility that a gun free culture could be a good thing.
And that's a shame
Last edited:
zeggman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,911
I don't expect to see it myself, I just get annoyed with the "why do you need (x) to hunt deer?" opiners who IMO are missing the point.
There are still enough tyrannical governments in the world to suggest that, however unlikely it is that the United States would ever find itself in that position, it isn't completely outside the realm of possibility.
If we ever decide, as a nation, that it is outside the realm of possibility, we can repeal the 2nd Amendment. Simple as that.