Why Anerica's gun problem is so unique

This is really interesting and very well-explained - it's only 7 minutes long

People should watch this as it explains everything

I would have thought it was fairly obvious that if people can have guns legally, there will be more shootings. Re suicide, it doesn't require much planning to shoot yourself, unlike other methods, so I would expect it to be the method of choice in the USA.

But it was the whole breaking down everything and seeing, that the US have a bad bad problem with having the right to bear arms

eddie wrote:But it was the whole breaking down everything and seeing, that the US have a bad bad problem with having the right to bear arms

Yes, but don't they already know that?

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:But it was the whole breaking down everything and seeing, that the US have a bad bad problem with having the right to bear arms

Yes, but don't they already know that?

There is a very belligerent counter-messaging campaign trying to convince people that more guns are the solution, or in many cases even trying to intimidate anti-gun violence groups:

The sudden appearance of about 40 armed men outside a Dallas-area restaurant this weekend was the latest confrontation between an open-carry gun-rights group and a mothers group advocating gun control that was meeting inside.

Police monitored the incident at the Blue Mesa Grill in Arlington, Texas, but took no action because it is legal to carry long guns openly in Texas.

"We are aware that a group did gather in a shopping area in Arlington Saturday," Tiara Ellis Richard of the Arlington Police office of communication said in an e-mail to USA TODAY. "Officers were notified and arrived at the location. There were no issues that we are aware of, and no arrests occurred."

One of four women who were meeting Saturday tried to file a police complaint on Monday but failed because she was told that no law had been violated, a spokeswoman for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense said Monday.

Shannon Watts, founder of the national gun control organization, said the mothers were holding a private meeting — not a rally — at the restaurant. She founded her group in the wake of the killings in Newtown, Conn.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/11/moms-demand-action-open-carry-texas-guns-rifles/3497895/

Thanks Ben

@Rags yes but it's the real break down that I found fascinating?
Must be just me then lol

eddie wrote:Thanks Ben

@Rags yes but it's the real break down that I found fascinating?
Must be just me then lol

Tbh, I watched it the other day and forgot to comment at the time, so I only commented on the bits I remembered.

Anyway, it seems obvious to me that of course some people will say that more guns are needed - to counteract the threat posed by those who already have guns. If people think they might be shot by a burglar, for example, they're going to get a gun themselves.

There would have to be an enormous mass move to disarm everyone, and I think it's gone too far for that now.

Raggamuffin wrote:I would have thought it was fairly obvious that if people can have guns legally, there will be more shootings. Re suicide, it doesn't require much planning to shoot yourself, unlike other methods, so I would expect it to be the method of choice in the USA.

Yes, there will be more shootings.  But is that a bad thing?

First, we need to understand that love of guns is a RW thing in America.  In a poll taken in January of this year by PollingReport.com, 82% of Democrats favor more control of guns, while only 36% of Republicans favor less control, and 47% of Republicans think things are just fine.  http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Second, so why do the RWers like guns?  Here's a hint...it has something to do with liking people dying.  RWers still believe in good guys/bad guys, which is a sub-set of the reward and punishment metaphor...a highly RW pattern of thought.

"When guns are outlawed, only bad guys will have guns," is an old RW adage.  Notice it introduces the notion that people are "bad"?  That is part of the RW focus on 'people as bad' thesis: all people are bad, but only those who keep their impulses in check deserve to live.  It's a sub-set on RWers hating all people.

Yes, the people who want to limit restrictions on guns, and thus see more guns out there, do want to see more shootings.  They don't view that as a particularly bad thing.  At best, it is culling the herd, and at worst...for them, proverbially, it leaves more for 'me'.

It goes beyond that, Raggs. Imagine if you were trying to get into a state capitol building and were confronted with this sight:



We're supposed to have the right to engage in public discourse in the U.S., but then we get these fanatics showing up and frightening people away.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I would have thought it was fairly obvious that if people can have guns legally, there will be more shootings. Re suicide, it doesn't require much planning to shoot yourself, unlike other methods, so I would expect it to be the method of choice in the USA.

Yes, there will be more shootings.  But is that a bad thing?

First, we need to understand that love of guns is a RW thing in America.  In a poll taken in January of this year by PollingReport.com, 82% of Democrats favor more control of guns, while only 36% of Republicans favor less control, and 47% of Republicans think things are just fine.  http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Second, so why do the RWers like guns?  Here's a hint...it has something to do with liking people dying.  RWers still believe in good guys/bad guys, which is a sub-set of the reward and punishment metaphor...a highly RW pattern of thought.

"When guns are outlawed, only bad guys will have guns," is an old RW adage.  Notice it introduces the notion that people are "bad"?  That is part of the RW focus on 'people as bad' thesis: all people are bad, but only those who keep their impulses in check deserve to live.  It's a sub-set on RWers hating all people.

Yes, the people who want to limit restrictions on guns, and thus see more guns out there, do want to see more shootings.  They don't view that as a particularly bad thing.  At best, it is culling the herd, and at worst...for them, proverbially, it leaves more for 'me'.

The RW people have a point though. In the UK, it is generally the bad guys who have illegal guns.

Is it a bad thing if there are more shootings, you ask? Hmmmm, that's a difficult one ...

Who will/can/be brave/clever to alter the American Constitution on their right to bear arms.?

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Thanks Ben

@Rags yes but it's the real break down that I found fascinating?
Must be just me then lol

Tbh, I watched it the other day and forgot to comment at the time, so I only commented on the bits I remembered.

I am guilty of that too.
I can come back in the middle of a debate I'd had earlier and totally forget what I'd been saying

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tbh, I watched it the other day and forgot to comment at the time, so I only commented on the bits I remembered.

I am guilty of that too.
I can come  back in the middle of a debate I'd had earlier and totally forget what I'd  been saying

Yes. I suddenly thought - ooooh, I meant to comment on that gun thread.

That girl was really good but a bit fast on the 'draw'. lol

I holidayed 8 weeks in Vegas, I was invited as a guest to a private gun club in the desert where I was allowed to train with private hand gun enthusiasts, Henderson Police, CIA, FBI and other law enforcement departments, I was given a VIP welcome and rules explained but I was never left alone with a gun.
The rules were strict, if you stepped out of line you were out.
You were not allowed to unholster your weapon unless you were in front of your first target which was in a mock housing area with pop up people, some were police, woman and baby, man with gun, you had to make sure you shot the correct people, the baddies, this was all against the clock.
Upon leaving the area you had to walk back to the start holding the barrel of the gun.
Everyone obeyed the law.
Incidentally I got a pat on the back for my first attempt at this type of shooting.

When it was over and everyone gone home I was allowed to stay with my two hosts, they showed me how far a hand gun bullet could travel, it was quite unbelievable, you could the sand/dust fly up a longlong way away, you coulees the bend in bullets travel when the wind caught it.

Incidentally, before they would let me on sight I had to show I was in possession of a minimum of 10 litres of drinking water.

All of these people held several guns, some automatics, one had a machine gun , another had a Gattling gun, another had a armed Sherman tank.

One of my hosts was a USA pistol firing champion who was sponsored and practiced shot 30,000 free bullets in practice prior to a match, I used his bullets.

How do I know these men would never do anything bad with their weapons, I don't.

I raised the gun ownership and they said, "no president dare upset the right to bear arms".
I wonder.

Stormee wrote:That girl was really good but a bit fast on the 'draw'. lol

I holidayed 8 weeks in Vegas, I was invited as a guest to a private gun club in the desert where I was allowed to train with private hand gun enthusiasts, Henderson Police, CIA, FBI and other law enforcement departments,  I was given a VIP welcome and rules explained but I was never left alone with a gun.
The rules were strict, if you stepped out of line you were out.
You were not allowed to unholster your weapon unless you were in front of your first target which was in a mock housing area with pop up people, some were police, woman and baby, man with gun, you had to make sure you shot the correct people, the baddies, this was all against the clock.
Upon leaving the area you had to walk back to the start holding the barrel of the gun.
Everyone obeyed the law.
Incidentally I got a pat on the back for my first attempt at this type of shooting.

When it was over and everyone gone home I was allowed to stay with my two hosts, they showed me how far a hand gun bullet could travel, it was quite unbelievable, you could the sand/dust fly up a longlong way away, you coulees the bend in bullets travel when the wind caught it.

Incidentally, before they would let me on sight I had to show I was in possession of a minimum of 10 litres of drinking water.

All of these people held several guns, some automatics, one had a machine gun , another had a Gattling gun, another had a armed Sherman tank.

One of my hosts was a USA pistol firing champion who was sponsored and practiced shot 30,000 free bullets in practice prior to a match, I used his bullets.

How do I know these men would never do anything bad with their weapons, I don't.

I raised the gun ownership and they said, "no president dare upset the right to bear arms".
I wonder.

A president could take on the 2nd amendment, but it's a very difficult thing to amend the constitution.

wikipedia wrote:Amendment proposals may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either:
A two-thirds (supermajority) vote of members present—assuming that a quorum exists—in both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress; or
A two-thirds (supermajority) vote of a national convention called by Congress at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states. (This method has never been used.)
All thirty-three amendment proposals that have been sent to the states for ratification since the establishment of the Constitution have come into being via the Congress. State legislatures have however, at various times, used their power to apply for a national convention in order to pressure Congress into proposing a desired amendment. For example, the movement to amend the Constitution to provide for the direct election of senators began to see such proposals regularly pass the House of Representatives only to die in the Senate from the early 1890s onward. As time went by, more and more state legislatures adopted resolutions demanding that a convention be called, thus pressuring the Senate to finally relent and approve what later became the Seventeenth Amendment for fear that such a convention—if permitted to assemble—might stray to include issues above and beyond just the direct election of senators.
To become an operative part of the Constitution, an amendment, whether proposed by Congress or a national constitutional convention, must be ratified by either:
The legislatures of three-fourths (at present 38) of the states; or
State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (at present 38) of the states.