Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rhiannon on October 02, 2017, 07:37:41 AM
-
Breaking news but this doesn't sound good.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41466116
-
Unconfirmed reports are that three gunmen shot dead a hotel security guard and then fired automatic weapons from the hotel windows into the crowd. Sounds like a pre-planned attack and on an audience that presumably would mostly be white.
-
Another terrible tragedy. :o When will the US realise that a society which permits all and sundry to own guns is less safe than others?
-
Well the most important thing is that Laura Robson is safe.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/41468025
/sarcasm
-
Another terrible tragedy. :o When will the US realise that a society which permits all and sundry to own guns is less safe than others?
Some of them would argue that owning guns actually makes them more safe in some ways e.g. from their own government. Frankly, I think they are deluded, but hand wringing won't get it done and neither, unfortunately will crimes like this.
-
At least fifty people have died.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41466116
I've already heard witnesses saying that if they'd had their guns on them they could have had a chance of taking the gunman out.
-
Another terrible tragedy. :o When will the US realise that a society which permits all and sundry to own guns is less safe than others?
There are a number of countries around the world with high levels of gun-ownership - though not quite to the levels of the US - and they don't even begin to approach the levels of gun-death and gun-violence that we see in the US. Whilst gun ownership provides opportunity, it does so in a number of place, but it's the attitude towards gun-ownership from Americans that's different.
I'm not immersed in it enough to make a solid determination, but all of the talk that gets reiterated elsewhere from the US is about the 'right to bear arms', which is a right in other places that don't seem to shout about it in the same way. What I don't hear enough of is the responsibilities of gun-ownership, but I don't know if that's because I'm not there or because it's not happening.
Either way, at some point even the Americans have to realise that their experience of gun death isn't the same as everyone else's.
O.
-
At least fifty people have died.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41466116
I've already heard witnesses saying that if they'd had their guns on them they could have had a chance of taking the gunman out.
Which given latest reports seems unlikely.
-
At least fifty people have died.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41466116
I've already heard witnesses saying that if they'd had their guns on them they could have had a chance of taking the gunman out.
The guy was shooting from a window of a hotel opposite so not very likely. Terrible event.
-
At least fifty people have died.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41466116
I've already heard witnesses saying that if they'd had their guns on them they could have had a chance of taking the gunman out.
And possibly taking other innocent people out whilst they were about it!
-
Which given latest reports seems unlikely.
Of course, but it explains something of the mindset as to why people won't easily relinquish the right to bear arms.
-
Of course, but it explains something of the mindset as to why people won't easily relinquish the right to bear arms.
It does, something which needs to be addressed.
-
... all of the talk that gets reiterated elsewhere from the US is about the 'right to bear arms', which is a right in other places that don't seem to shout about it in the same way.
This is an institutionalised misrepresentation of the Constitution. There was no standing army and so the founding fathers considered that if the populous owned their own guns they could be easily organised into a militia.
-
What a terrible situation. And then that ghastly Trump comes along with prayers asking god to comfort people. Why doesn't he wonder why the God - which I do wonder, cynically, If he pretends to believe in - allowed this to happen.
-
I bet Trump is disappointed that the terrible massacre doesn't appear to be related to Islamic terrorism!
-
Horrific incident. Just a thought though about the numbers. Every day on average 93 Americans die from gunshots. The Las Vegas incident measured on a one-day basis (59 deaths) was a 63% increase on normal expectations. Over a week it was a 9% increase; a month, 2.4%; a year, 0.17%.
In other words, in terms of the underlying issue of gun-related killings on an annualised basis the statistical impact of Las Vegas is negligible. If, say, the 59 deaths were spread across the year the daily increase would barely register. Understandably it's the huge concentration on this incident that's brought to the fore again discussions about gun control in particular, but every day 93 American who got up in the morning won't go to bed in the evening.
-
Apparently Hawaii has strict gun control laws and has 2.6 deaths/100,000 population.
-
When our eldest daughter was training to be a primary school teacher in the early 90s, she did part of her teaching practise in the US. One of the school rules stated that none of the children were to bring their rifles to school with them! :o
-
In the past the Hollywood films quite obviously glamorised smoking, as a part of promoting the product, we also hear about product placement within the film making industry and various manufacturers pay largish sums to gain as much exposure of their products as possible, I doubt they would be paying for these things if they didn't sell the goods placed.
When I look at all of the various films around today where the actors are striking their, mostly macho, poses with guns and it's not just the odd film here and there, even films like 'Star Wars' where the ray guns are a substitute, I suppose I could be accused of imagining things if I was to think there were some N R A funding the glamorising of guns and the use thereof within the U S film industry?
I don't say glamorising guns is the major part of the Americans problem with guns but I'm sure it's a part of their problem that shouldn't be ignored.
ippy
-
I don't say glamorising guns is the major part of the Americans problem with guns but I'm sure it's a part of their problem that shouldn't be ignored.
Well we get to see all the same films as they do. Why don't we have the same gun problems?
-
Well we get to see all the same films as they do. Why don't we have the same gun problems?
No culture of widespread gun ownership and nowhere near as easily available, presumably.
-
No culture of widespread gun ownership and nowhere near as easily available, presumably.
YEAH, cover your arse with your 'presumably' you wuss, the only person I have any respect for on this board is jeremyp, at least he says it as it is !!!!
-
Run along Wally, the grownups are talking.
-
Well we get to see all the same films as they do. Why don't we have the same gun problems?
Yes and that's why I said I thought it may well be a part of their, the Americans, problem, as far as I know just for starters it's a five years plus prison sentence if a U K citizen is found by the authorities to have in their possession a hand gun without the appropriate licence and as Shaker says differing cultural reasons between the U K & the U S too.
ippy
-
No culture of widespread gun ownership and nowhere near as easily available, presumably.
I agree, so the films glamorising guns are probably not responsible for the situation in the USA or at least only a small part of the problem.
-
Yes and that's why I said I thought it may well be a part of their, the Americans, problem, as far as I know just for starters it's a five years plus prison sentence if a U K citizen is found by the authorities to have in their possession a hand gun without the appropriate licence and as Shaker says differing cultural reasons between the U K & US too.
ippy
My understanding of the 2nd Amendment is that the general populace are permitted to bear arms in the absence of a well-regulated militia. "A well-regulated militia" is not, AFAIK, a phrase ever defined so I have to assume that it means a standing army ... which the US has. So that would seem to do away with the need for private ownership of firearms, surely?
-
My understanding of the 2nd Amendment is that the general populace are permitted to bear arms in the absence of a well-regulated militia. "A well-regulated militia" is not, AFAIK, a phrase ever defined so I have to assume that it means a standing army
The word "militia" has a specific meaning in the context of the time. A militia was an organised group of civilians called to arms to fight. The one thing it definitely doesn't mean is "standing army" . At the time the second amendment was drafted, there was no standing army of the USA and there was signifiant reluctance from the individual states to allow a federal army.
... which the US has. So that would seem to do away with the need for private ownership of firearms, surely?
In my opinion, the second amendment is obsoleted by the existence of the US Army. A militia is only needed for the defence of the state in the absence of a standing army. However, the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
I think that is one of the most obviously bad decisions they ever made. Why mention the well regulated militia in the amendment if it wasn't relevant? There are people who almost worship the US Constitution, but I have to think it was one of the most appallingly badly drafted legal documents ever.
-
Run along Wally, the grownups are talking.
oh !I love you all really.
I shall be away for a while from tomorrow morning, god has decided he needs to make some repairs to one of his prised creations but forgot to tell me if he wants me with him or if I can continue to annoy folk on here . Anyway, its been a blast, farewell each...
Walter xxxxx
-
In my opinion, the second amendment is obsoleted by the existence of the US Army. A militia is only needed for the defence of the state in the absence of a standing army.
This is exactly where my thoughts were going.
However, the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
I think that is one of the most obviously bad decisions they ever made.
I'm in complete agreement. What an almighty fuckup.
There are people who almost worship the US Constitution, but I have to think it was one of the most appallingly badly drafted legal documents ever.
True; although to cut the Founding Fathers a modicum of slack, they were faced with the invidious task of trying to create a new and independent nation from scratch and trying to put its principles and citizens' rights down in black and white. Not something I'd find easy.
The impression I get from my experience of Second Amendment-idolators is that a radical mistrust of government is a broad and deep stripe in the American psyche - that the guns are needed to be used against elected government if the balloon goes up and they start getting uppity.
It may be that this is a legacy of America's history - the nation started out after all as a union of British colonies ruled by an absent king a long long way away, a rule which was perceived to be oppressive and punitive. To hear some people speak you'd think that they've never actually outgrown this and that armed revolution against the government is only one bad bill away.
This possibly also explains the phobic horror in so many quarters of universal healthcare.
-
True; although to cut the Founding Fathers a modicum of slack, they were faced with the invidious task of trying to create a new and independent nation from scratch and trying to put its principles and rights down in black and white. Not something I'd find easy.
No and probably they thought they were being perfectly clear. But once you lose the context of the times, the meaning can be lost.
The impression I get from my experience of Second Amendment-idolators is that a radical mistrust of government is a broad and deep stripe in the American psyche - that the guns are needed to be used against elected government if the balloon goes up and they start getting uppity.
I agree. I like they way you use the adjective "elected". There seems to be some disconnect between voting and the consequences of you vote. Probably, in the USA your vote means less than in any other Western democracy in the sense that both the Democratic and Republican parties are pretty corporate.
-
No and probably they thought they were being perfectly clear. But once you lose the context of the times, the meaning can be lost.
I agree. I like they way you use the adjective "elected". There seems to be some disconnect between voting and the consequences of you vote. Probably, in the USA your vote means less than in any other Western democracy in the sense that both the Democratic and Republican parties are pretty corporate.
Perhaps the difference can be explained by Hanlon's Razor ("Never ascribe to deliberate malice that which can be explained by bungling incompetence"). For as much as Britons grumble and grouse about the government - all governments - I don't think it's a widespread belief that they're actively, sinisterly malicious. Useless, yes; clueless, yes; deliberately downright evil, not really. In America it seems to be widely held to be the opposite; there's very much a sense that government (frequently preceded by the word big) is the enemy of the individual and his (needless to say, God-given) rights. I'm not convinced that Britons typically think that way. In rare and isolated examples, possibly - the mooted introduction of compulsory ID cards, for example - but not as a rule.
And then there's manifest destiny - America was/is a nation stolen from the indigenous people who had inhabited the land for millennia. Settlers had to grind their way west and doubtless felt in need of protection from those who were less than delighted about having their land and culture taken from them.
-
Apparently he was a millionaire and some of the weapons he had are only available at a high price.
-
Apparently he was a millionaire and some of the weapons he had are only available at a high price.
This sort of thing (which routinely happens in tragic cases such as this) pisses me off no end:
A former neighbour, Diane McKay, 79, told the Washington Post the couple always kept the blinds closed at home.
"He was weird," she said. "Kept to himself. It was like living next to nothing.
"You can at least be grumpy, something. He was just nothing, quiet."
Now even being a quiet neighbour is a point of criticism ::)
-
Well the most important thing is that Laura Robson is safe.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/41468025
/sarcasm
I'm not sure that sarcasm is in the best possible taste after an appalling tragedy like this.
I'm back. by the way - I will try to behave from now on.
-
I'm not sure that sarcasm is in the best possible taste after an appalling tragedy like this.
I'm back. by the way - I will try to behave from now on.
I'm not sure that a fluff celebrity piece was in the best possible taste after an appalling tragedy like this. Hence the sarcasm.