I am glad...

Hmack posted:

Florestan posted:

Yet, the political opportunists pop up like nasty weeds with their wisdom..........

What is even more appalling is that with a great number of tragedies as of late not one word of sympathy from anyone on this UK centric - anti-American and dominated forum (that I have seen).  Just noting a few, I am speaking of three massive hurricanes that recently levelled, devastated or flooded states and islands, earthquakes in Mexico and other worldwide events of note.  It is tragic and horrific what many have gone through, if they survived.

What utter rubbish you write. You obviously read and hear exactly what you want to hear. The sympathy of all of us is with those who have been directly affected by this tragedy. You are obviously completely blinkered by your ridiculous assertion that most of us who contribute to this forum are "Anti-American". You also obviously did not fully read my post when I stated that "Focus today should be on helping those affected by this awful tragedy".

I have visited the United States (by choice) over 20 times in the past 25 years on vacation and to visit American friends, and will continue to do so. I certainly do not choose to do this because I am anti-American. I have also personally visited many of the countries in the Caribbean (including the US Virgin Isles, St Marten, Turks & Caicos Islands, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic and Trinidad & Tobago) and was utterly horrified by the impact of recent storms on these lovely Islands and the livelihoods of the people who live there. How dare you imply that I, or any others on this forum feel otherwise.

I  live not too far away from Dunblane (in Scotland), where some 20 to 25 years ago a crazed gunman entered a school and shot and killed many very young school children, so I know full well that events of this sort can occur anywhere in the world. However, our Government reacted to this event by tightened existing gun control law significantly in order to attempt to prevent an act of this sort occurring again.

Contrary to your assertion, I do not consider the question of control of the sale of semi-automatic and automatic to be 'political' in any respect at all. Neither is my assertion that it is lunacy to allow the free distribution of these types of weapon with little to be related directly to the right of US citizens to bear arms. It is simply a matter of common sense and humanity, nothing more, and if you choose to read more into this then I question your motive. Tell me, are you in favour of the open sale of automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles?

I contend that you are the political opportunist on this thread. 

Full automatic guns are not easily obtainable in the USA. They are extremely expensive and require a federal permit to transfer ownership.

Huge posted:

keep to the subject of the argument;

What’s the point in arguing when you know the person you’re arguments is never going to accept your arguments, no matter how logical they are.

Don’t you have any records to listen too.

Kevin Richardson posted:

Full automatic guns are not easily obtainable in the USA. They are extremely expensive and require a federal permit to transfer ownership.

But many semi automatic weapons (including as the AR15) are very easily modified to achieve full automatic operation.

Adam Meredith posted:

Florestan

 

There is something to defending yourself and your family or to help some stranger.  Perhaps, in Britain you just put your hands in your pocket or run?

 

I would add - I'm glad not to live in a country were a large proportion of the population live in a state of fearfulness and poorly directed anger. Oh, and have easy access to guns. 

In this instance you may take it that I mean America. 

I'd concur with that. One reason that I don't want to live in the US is the gun-culture. I'm not fearful of being shot personally (as I avoid guns, that probability is very small - even in the US) but I don't like the attitudes and politics of it.

fatcat posted:

Huge posted:

keep to the subject of the argument;

What’s the point in arguing when you know the person you’re arguments is never going to accept your arguments, no matter how logical they are.

Don’t you have any records to listen too.

Touché. 

Florestan posted:

 

Crime is everywhere.  Have some empathy.  Because you were never affected by it does not mean you never will be or that it doesn't exist in every country to varying degrees.  

Crime is NOT everywhere. We live in the safest period of human history.

Florestan posted:

winkyincanada posted:

winkyincanada posted:

"Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year"

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

This is perhaps not surprising, given the number of armed people roaming the US. There are 147 times as many armed civilians as there are police. Do you feel safer?

Let's do some more maths. The US's 800,000 police kill about 1000 people per year (a pro-gun site claims 11% of these are innocent, but let's set that aside for now). What this effectively means is that the average police officer draws their weapon and kills someone only every 800 years, on average.

OK, so by your stats,  the armed citizens kill 2000 criminals every year. 37% of the populace of 300 million is armed.  Let's just say 10% of these people consider their guns as a means of self defence and would potentially shoot to kill (to exclude gun owners who have guns solely for hunting, rather than self defence). This means that there are about 11 million armed citizens ready to take out criminals if required. This means the average gun owner who has a gun for self defence would shoot and kill a criminal once every 5,550 years on average.

I'd contend that a frequency rate of once each 5,550 years is indeed "vanishingly small". The case that one should get a gun for self defence on the basis that one could kill a criminal if required is VERY weak. (Having a gun and using it as a deterrent against is admittedly much more frequent, but still pretty rare)

I note that gun owners do deliberately and accidentally  shoot and kill themselves and other non-criminals at a rate of about 30,000 people per year.

Winky, with some sarcasm I was showing you that your statement that implied citizens so rarely ever step in to serve justice.  I

But it IS rare. Just because citizens intervene more often in total than police is meaningless when you consider that there are orders of magnitude more citizens than there are police. That police intervene in active crimes rarely is entirely as expected. They simply aren't there. I stand by my calculation that if I bought a gun for "self defence" (or to defend others) I'd get a chance to kill a criminal with only every 5,000+ years. That's pretty rare in my book.

Huge posted:

Florestan,

I made no assertion that you were "defending the gun toting lunatics", again you misquote me and twist my actual words for your own purpose.  What I said was "Florestan you are an apologist for a crazy policy.", and that is a statement with an entirely different meaning.

There was one instance in the past where I misinterpreted your words - and for that I apologised.  You on the other had denigrated me several times and did not apologise.

Again you seek to deflect attention from an uncomfortable truth that threatens you entrenched position by raising a topic that's completely irrelevant to the point under consideration.

If you want to argue against gun control either disprove my statistics or show why 500 times the death rate is a similar order of problem.  You tried to equate the two I've shown the flaw in your argument - your move.  If you want to be taken at all seriously keep to the subject of the argument; rather than trying to deflect it onto other unrelated areas.

Hage, don't be mad.  I am not aware of the exact details in the past.  If this is outstanding I will not waste time before making this right.  I am sorry for any misunderstanding or comments I made previously that were inappropriate (x 2).   

As to your statistic I will not contest it.  My view on them though made me think it is irrelevant to a degree as I still believe that given my past illustrations that crime is crime.  Just choose your weapon.  For instance, homicides are low compared to all other crimes including rape.  Saying crime committed with a gun is high when comparing a country with legal guns and one with gun control only shows one side.  Is it not reasonable to conclude that if we could snap our fingers and remove all guns from the US tomorrow that crime rates will still exist in the US just as they do in the UK?

So instead of more homicides by gun you will have an increase in homicides by knife, hammer, hands, feet, baseball bat etc.?

Why is crime on the increase in the UK (even with gun control)?

Your statistics want me to believe that the gun and its prevalence or availability is the cause of crime.  I just believe that while having lots of weapons is never a good thing, crime existed before guns and will exist even if gun control advocates remove every gun from the world.

^ Sorry for typo, meant Huge.

Florestan posted:

winkyincanada posted:

winkyincanada posted:

"Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year"

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

This is perhaps not surprising, given the number of armed people roaming the US. There are 147 times as many armed civilians as there are police. Do you feel safer?

Let's do some more maths. The US's 800,000 police kill about 1000 people per year (a pro-gun site claims 11% of these are innocent, but let's set that aside for now). What this effectively means is that the average police officer draws their weapon and kills someone only every 800 years, on average.

OK, so by your stats,  the armed citizens kill 2000 criminals every year. 37% of the populace of 300 million is armed.  Let's just say 10% of these people consider their guns as a means of self defence and would potentially shoot to kill (to exclude gun owners who have guns solely for hunting, rather than self defence). This means that there are about 11 million armed citizens ready to take out criminals if required. This means the average gun owner who has a gun for self defence would shoot and kill a criminal once every 5,550 years on average.

I'd contend that a frequency rate of once each 5,550 years is indeed "vanishingly small". The case that one should get a gun for self defence on the basis that one could kill a criminal if required is VERY weak. (Having a gun and using it as a deterrent against is admittedly much more frequent, but still pretty rare)

I note that gun owners do deliberately and accidentally  shoot and kill themselves and other non-criminals at a rate of about 30,000 people per year.

Winky, with some sarcasm I was showing you that your statement that implied citizens so rarely ever step in to serve justice. 

Wow. I just saw a statistic that says that two-thirds of US gun-owners have their gun with self-defence as the goal. My estimate of 10% was way too low. So 70 million armed citizens ready and able to take down criminals. But they only get about 2,000 of them per year (must try harder!). What this means is that if I bought a gun for self defence I would (on average) only shoot and kill a criminal with it about once every 35,000 years! The idea that citizens using guns to kill criminals is anything other than vanishingly rare is simply ludicrous.

Adam Meredith posted:

 

 

I would add - I'm glad not to live in a country were a large proportion of the population live in a state of fearfulness and poorly directed anger. Oh, and have easy access to guns. 

In this instance you may take it that I mean America. 

As someone who has lived in America for 65+ years I would like to point out my experience.

A large proportion of the population does not live in a state of fearfulness and poorly directed anger. The people who "live in a state of fearfulness and poorly directed anger" are in the vast minority. The question of the easy access to guns is promoted by the NRA, gun manufactures and some private organizations in the United States. 

The majority of people that I know do not own a gun, a personal choice. The majority of people I know are not looking to abolish the rights of a US Citizen to bear arms. The majority of people, actually everyone that I know personally, would like to see the government ban assault style weapons, semi-automatic and automatic, along with large capacity magazines and certain ammunition from being sold to the public. That is why I truly believe it is just a matter of time before the pressure will come to bear for the politicians to enact the law. It may not be in my life time but somewhere along the line we can not continue to fall back on a law written at time where the capacity was single shot muskets and apply it the weapons of mass destruction available to individuals today.

With that said, I have been fortunate to travel and live in several states around the country from the time I was in the military, relocating for work purposes and traveling for business. My experience is that there are many different lifestyles and cultural norms in the United States. For change, time takes time.......

Changing peoples political views in a forum is just not going to happen. If people want change they have to keep working for it and not bitch about it. No need to get mad, just keep working on the objective and keep moving forward.

JMHO - YMMY

Max_B posted:

Bob the Builder posted:

this country has a great tradition of standing up to bullies and of coming to the aid of those in need.

 

Does this apply to when Tony Blair accepted the fake documents from USA to attack Iraq without a word of perplexity or rejection, and when British people come in flocks to help us in Lampedusa, along with French, German and of course Americans, with the thousands of desperates who land daily in the world's indifference?

Nothing personal, but please let's connect brain with dignity before doing proclaims.

M

Max I was in fact talking about individuals not the British government past or present but as you have rightly stated our Government acted shamefully over Iraq I was on of the million or so that got of my arse and marched against it in London in 2003.

Also before you claim humanitarian status for Italy during the migrant crisis I suggest you take a peek at the Amnesty International website occasionally.

MDS posted:

Max_B posted:

Bob the Builder posted:

this country has a great tradition of standing up to bullies and of coming to the aid of those in need.

 

Does this apply to when Tony Blair accepted the fake documents from USA to attack Iraq without a word of perplexity or rejection, and when British people come in flocks to help us in Lampedusa, along with French, German and of course Americans, with the thousands of desperates who land daily in the world's indifference?

Nothing personal, but please let's connect brain with dignity before doing proclaims.

M

Max, I think Bob the Builder was talking about ordinary members of the public fighting back at terrorists as an example to refute Florestan's assertion. Nothing more.  

Thank you MDS quite right.

Huge posted:

Kevin Richardson posted:

Full automatic guns are not easily obtainable in the USA. They are extremely expensive and require a federal permit to transfer ownership.

But many semi automatic weapons (including as the AR15) are very easily modified to achieve full automatic operation.

Not legally but point understood. I just get the impression people outside the USA believe anybody can just go to a store and buy an automatic weapon.

That 'bump' device added to semi-automatic weapons the shooter had (12 of them in his room equipped with a Bump) in Vegas allowed hundreds of  rounds per minute to reign down on the crowd below. It is clearly semantics when someone wants to argue that he did not use a weapon with automatic capabilities.

Florestan posted:

Hage, don't be mad.  I am not aware of the exact details in the past.  If this is outstanding I will not waste time before making this right.  I am sorry for any misunderstanding or comments I made previously that were inappropriate (x 2).   

As to your statistic I will not contest it.  My view on them though made me think it is irrelevant to a degree as I still believe that given my past illustrations that crime is crime.  Just choose your weapon.  For instance, homicides are low compared to all other crimes including rape.  Saying crime committed with a gun is high when comparing a country with legal guns and one with gun control only shows one side.  Is it not reasonable to conclude that if we could snap our fingers and remove all guns from the US tomorrow that crime rates will still exist in the US just as they do in the UK?

So instead of more homicides by gun you will have an increase in homicides by knife, hammer, hands, feet, baseball bat etc.?

Why is crime on the increase in the UK (even with gun control)?

Your statistics want me to believe that the gun and its prevalence or availability is the cause of crime.  I just believe that while having lots of weapons is never a good thing, crime existed before guns and will exist even if gun control advocates remove every gun from the world.

Hi Florestan,

No need for apology for things past.

I'm not trying to persuade you that guns are the cause of crime - you really are clearly FAR too intelligent to ever believe that.
I also have no wish to insult you by leaving anyone with the impression that I thought I could lead to believe that.

I was merely putting a counter argument to your previous post that seemed to attempt to draw parallels between gun crime in the USA and terrorism in the UK.

As you rightly surmise crime is caused by criminal people not by any type of equipment (a gun, a tool or any other weapon) - it's an increase in the number of criminally inclined people that leads to more crime.  However the consequences of crime can be correlated to the types of weapon people carry.  This is why in the UK, if you carry a weapon, then in law, it is assumed that your purpose for carrying it is your intent to use it.

So gun control and the overall crime rate have no connection.  Gun control however does affect the death rate from violent crime - it does so by reducing the availability of guns, but to reduce the availability of guns, first you need gun control!

As an aside, here's an observation on which I would actually value a reasoned opinion, from anyone who defends the second amendment, (including yourself as you are clearly capable of very rational thought, and I would find an explanation interesting as I genuinely don't understand the current position in the light of the wording of the second amendment).

Given the wording of the second amendment, why are military type weapons, such as fully automatic weapons, restricted?  To do so contradicts the clearly stated purpose of the amendment, which applies to the keeping and bearing of arms due to "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,".  So this amendment applies to a militia for the security of the State, and therefore applies to the defence of the people in times of military conflict.  So, all personal military weapons should be allowed, including automatic weapons and shoulder fired anti-tank weapons as these are the types of weapons that will be required for a civil militia to be an effective combat force in the modern world.  Clearly the second amendment is already being infringed by control of automatic and other military grade weapons.
So it seems to me that really only two positions truly correspond with the purpose and letter of the second amendment...
1  All personal weapons of military use should be permitted to all citizens, completely unrestricted.
2  All personal weapons of military use should be permitted to be owned, but kept in a local barracks armoury and available as required for militia duties as defined by a consensus of the local people.

Three cheers for Paul Ryan on 'bump stocks'. It's not much but it's a start. It at least conveys the impression that Congress is prepared to do something against the vested interests of the gun lobby libertarians.

Christopher_M posted:

Three cheers for Paul Ryan on 'bump stocks'. It's not much but it's a start. It at least conveys the impression that Congress is prepared to do something against the vested interests of the gun lobby libertarians.

Yeah, it's maybe a start. But already, automatic and quasi automatic weapons are not a major contributor to total gun deaths. This won't have any measurable effect on the overall level of gun violence and deaths in the US. More cynically, I'd contend that this is a "there, there" from the gun lobby to the rest of us who actually don't want to see 30,000 deaths per year continue.

winkyincanada posted:

Christopher_M posted:

Three cheers for Paul Ryan on 'bump stocks'. It's not much but it's a start. It at least conveys the impression that Congress is prepared to do something against the vested interests of the gun lobby libertarians.

Yeah, it's maybe a start. But already, automatic and quasi automatic weapons are not a major contributor to total gun deaths. This won't have any measurable effect on the overall level of gun violence and deaths in the US. More cynically, I'd contend that this is a "there, there" from the gun lobby to the rest of us who actually don't want to see 30,000 deaths per year continue.

On this one Chris, I'm rather inclined towards winky's assessment.

When I heard this news, I thought this was no more that a superficial act, designed to give the impression  to the American and international public that Congress was giving consideration to something effective. Perhaps it will happen. But it is one very small step and I don't see it making any meaningful dent in the 30k deaths pa.

winkyincanada posted:

Christopher_M posted:

Three cheers for Paul Ryan on 'bump stocks'. It's not much but it's a start. It at least conveys the impression that Congress is prepared to do something against the vested interests of the gun lobby libertarians.

Yeah, it's maybe a start. But already, automatic and quasi automatic weapons are not a major contributor to total gun deaths. This won't have any measurable effect on the overall level of gun violence and deaths in the US. More cynically, I'd contend that this is a "there, there" from the gun lobby to the rest of us who actually don't want to see 30,000 deaths per year continue.

Winky, 

Everything sounds good in a world desperately seeking politically correct moves but for clarity you should also anticipate the following issues or points concerning bump stocks.  Again, I bring up these points not because I support any of this but solely in the effort that much of this is obvious if you think about it.  This is a complex problem that won't be solved by making one or two surface moves just for optics and increasing government control.

 -  Note that Barack Obama's ATF in 2010 were the ones that approved bump stocks for sale
 -  Today, banned or not, anyone could manufacture this component on their own.  Even with a 3-D printer.
 -  Yes make it illegal but let's be honest and also be aware that those who want to create a Las Vegas type of massacre will never be stopped by any law or any government's effort to stop these things by putting in legal roadblocks.
 - Repeating of ideas I have presented over the past days still remains.  Stricter gun control does not necessarily lead to less gun violence.  Cities like Chicago prove this.  Countries like UK and France also prove this.

In regards to your 30,000 gun deaths number I think it would serve everyone better if you put this into perspective.  For 2013, the number was 33,636 and of that only 11,208 were homicides.  Roughly two-thirds of the 33,636 were due to suicides,  505 deaths were due to accident and 281 undetermined.  If we could further see how many of the 11,208 homicides were connected to gang or drug violence you could accurately see how many homicides were possibly avoidable due to gun death (and assuming these murders would not have happened by another means.)  Out of 325M people, actual homicides not related to gangs/crime or suicide) this is a small number.  You are good with statistics so maybe you can illustrate how many centuries would pass before you would be affected?  More likely you will get raped or mugged.

On the other hand and for comparison, in 2015, there were 90,185 rapes and 327,374 robberies.  I believe these numbers are usually underreported?  My own assessment still remains that the most effective strategy against crime is not so much on the tools of the trade but on the actual individuals (ie. man / woman as I have already stated).  If focusing on guns as the problem is a solution then removing penises from all men is a similar solution to reduce rapes.  Why would we deprive everyone of their rights and freedoms due to a very small group a bad people?  This is where living in a free society obviously is not always perfect or ideal.  

The only natural question for me is still that I don't believe a bigger government with a million more laws and rules would have changed one outcome for what happened in Las Vegas or any other similar incident that has ever happened.  Believe me, I hate any and every crime and those who commit them.  If I thought just saying what everyone is saying is the solution I would follow.  It's OK anyway to implement and stricter laws won't hurt anything in this regard but I am afraid that even after new laws are created for this and / or gun control implemented we will all find that from time to time these same incidents will re-occur and they will get worse each time because bad guys learn from each one how to do it better.  We are fooling ourselves to think otherwise.

Unlike Adam, I do have empathy for anyone who goes through some tragedy or experiences crime at the hands of others.  I can't imagine what you have to have in your heart if you aren't or cannot be empathetic for others?  Perhaps some first hand experience would cure the attitude for the lack of empathy?

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Christopher_M posted:

Three cheers for Paul Ryan on 'bump stocks'. It's not much but it's a start. It at least conveys the impression that Congress is prepared to do something against the vested interests of the gun lobby libertarians.

Yeah, it's maybe a start. But already, automatic and quasi automatic weapons are not a major contributor to total gun deaths. This won't have any measurable effect on the overall level of gun violence and deaths in the US. More cynically, I'd contend that this is a "there, there" from the gun lobby to the rest of us who actually don't want to see 30,000 deaths per year continue.

On this one Chris, I'm rather inclined towards winky's assessment.

When I heard this news, I thought this was no more that a superficial act, designed to give the impression  to the American and international public that Congress was giving consideration to something effective. Perhaps it will happen. But it is one very small step and I don't see it making any meaningful dent in the 30k deaths pa.

In a country that is incapable of passing any meaningful legislation in a bi-partisan manner, getting a single gun control item discussed is a first step, a wedge in the door to get it open. A small agreement, a small success can open the way for additional work on gun control and perhaps other legislative items down the road. 

There is way to much 'all or nothing' rhetoric from the left and right and the political parties in the United States has got to learn to move to the center and compromise to be inclusive of all citizens. 

JMHO - YMMV

Florestan posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Christopher_M posted:

Three cheers for Paul Ryan on 'bump stocks'. It's not much but it's a start. It at least conveys the impression that Congress is prepared to do something against the vested interests of the gun lobby libertarians.

Yeah, it's maybe a start. But already, automatic and quasi automatic weapons are not a major contributor to total gun deaths. This won't have any measurable effect on the overall level of gun violence and deaths in the US. More cynically, I'd contend that this is a "there, there" from the gun lobby to the rest of us who actually don't want to see 30,000 deaths per year continue.

Winky, 

Everything sounds good in a world desperately seeking politically correct moves but for clarity you should also anticipate the following issues or points concerning bump stocks. Why do I need to anticipate anything? Again, I bring up these points not because I support any of this but solely in the effort that much of this is obvious if you think about it.  This is a complex problem that won't be solved by making one or two surface moves just for optics and increasing government control.

 -  Note that Barack Obama's ATF in 2010 were the ones that approved bump stocks for sale So what? Why is this worth mentioning?
 -  Today, banned or not, anyone could manufacture this component on their own.  Even with a 3-D printer. Yes, but it's harder than buying one online
 -  Yes make it illegal but let's be honest and also be aware that those who want to create a Las Vegas type of massacre will never be stopped by any law or any government's effort to stop these things by putting in legal roadblocks. I don't care whether they are legal or not. They aren't a major problem. I am concerned for the mental health of someone who would want on, though.
 - Repeating of ideas I have presented over the past days still remains.  Stricter gun control does not necessarily lead to less gun violence.  Cities like Chicago prove this.  Countries like UK and France also prove this. So what?

In regards to your 30,000 gun deaths number I think it would serve everyone better if you put this into perspective.  For 2013, the number was 33,636 and of that only 11,208 were homicides.  Roughly two-thirds of the 33,636 were due to suicides,  505 deaths were due to accident and 281 undetermined.  If we could further see how many of the 11,208 homicides were connected to gang or drug violence you could accurately see how many homicides were possibly avoidable due to gun death (and assuming these murders would not have happened by another means.)  Out of 325M people, actual homicides not related to gangs/crime or suicide) this is a small number.  You are good with statistics so maybe you can illustrate how many centuries would pass before you would be affected?  More likely you will get raped or mugged.Inl There are about 1000x as many people in the US as there are annual robberies by your numbers. Therefore, an average person is robbed each 1000 years on average. Limiting rapes to female victims, it works out that the average female is raped every 1800 years by your numbers. Agree that the statistics are likely underreported. Please don't interpret these statistics as my demeaning the terror and suffering of the victims of these crimes.

On the other hand and for comparison, in 2015, there were 90,185 rapes and 327,374 robberies.  I believe these numbers are usually underreported?  My own assessment still remains that the most effective strategy against crime is not so much on the tools of the trade but on the actual individuals (ie. man / woman as I have already stated).  If focusing on guns as the problem is a solution then removing penises from all men is a similar solution to reduce rapes.  Why would we deprive everyone of their rights and freedoms due to a very small group a bad people?  We shouldn't. Similarly, why should be break apart families, disproportionately kill and incarcerate and/or limit the freedoms of a subset of people because the colour of their skin makes us fearful? This is where living in a free society obviously is not always perfect or ideal.  

The only natural question for me is still that I don't believe a bigger government with a million more laws and rules would have changed one outcome for what happened in Las Vegas or any other similar incident that has ever happened.  Nor do I. Do you have any suggestions of suspicions regarding the causes for the extraordinarily high rates of gun deaths in the US?  Believe me, I hate any and every crime and those who commit them.  That's too general for me. someone breaking the law in defence of civil liberties, or to bring attention to an injustice would not incur my wrath.  If I thought just saying what everyone is saying is the solution I would follow.  It's OK anyway to implement and stricter laws won't hurt anything in this regard but I am afraid that even after new laws are created for this and / or gun control implemented we will all find that from time to time these same incidents will re-occur and they will get worse each time because bad guys learn from each one how to do it better.  We are fooling ourselves to think otherwise.

Unlike Adam, I do have empathy for anyone who goes through some tragedy or experiences crime at the hands of others.  I can't imagine what you have to have in your heart if you aren't or cannot be empathetic for others?  Why do you assume I have no empathy? Perhaps some first hand experience would cure the attitude for the lack of empathy? There's nothing I need "curing" of that I know of.

Getting accurate and meaningful statistics seems to me to be difficult. The following was abstracted from an American news site a few years ago, the figures look reasonable to me....

The gun homicide rate in England and Wales is about one for every 1 million people, according to the Geneva Declaration of Armed Violence and Development, a multinational organization based in Switzerland.

That is based on a population of 56 million, and about 50 to 60 gun killings annually. In the USA, by contrast, there are about 160 times as many gun homicides in a country that is roughly six times larger in population. There were 8,124 gun homicides in 2014, according to the latest FBI figures.

After a mass shooting at a school in 1996, the British government pursued legislative bans on assault rifles and handguns and tightened background checks for other types of firearms. As of 2013, a total of 200,000 guns and 700 tons of ammunition were taken off British streets. Military-style weapons and most handguns were banned.

seakayaker posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Christopher_M posted:

Three cheers for Paul Ryan on 'bump stocks'. It's not much but it's a start. It at least conveys the impression that Congress is prepared to do something against the vested interests of the gun lobby libertarians.

Yeah, it's maybe a start. But already, automatic and quasi automatic weapons are not a major contributor to total gun deaths. This won't have any measurable effect on the overall level of gun violence and deaths in the US. More cynically, I'd contend that this is a "there, there" from the gun lobby to the rest of us who actually don't want to see 30,000 deaths per year continue.

On this one Chris, I'm rather inclined towards winky's assessment.

When I heard this news, I thought this was no more that a superficial act, designed to give the impression  to the American and international public that Congress was giving consideration to something effective. Perhaps it will happen. But it is one very small step and I don't see it making any meaningful dent in the 30k deaths pa.

In a country that is incapable of passing any meaningful legislation in a bi-partisan manner, getting a single gun control item discussed is a first step, a wedge in the door to get it open. A small agreement, a small success can open the way for additional work on gun control and perhaps other legislative items down the road. 

There is way to much 'all or nothing' rhetoric from the left and right and the political parties in the United States has got to learn to move to the center and compromise to be inclusive of all citizens. 

JMHO - YMMV

I don't disagree with what you say. Every journey starts with a that first, small step.

Hopefully, the powers that be, will take it.

 - Repeating of ideas I have presented over the past days still remains.  Stricter gun control does not necessarily lead to less gun violence.  Cities like Chicago prove this.  Countries like UK and France also prove this.