Trump

[Mayhem]

The suicide to homicide ratio isn't too surprising, other countries with fairly high gun ownership such as Switzerland and Finland, the predominant way to top yourself is also blowing your brains out. Just by comparison, the ratio is even greater because there's way less actual gun homicides.

Once you remove suicides and gang/drug related homicide in the US, the actual figures for gun death aren't that crazy. Still high compared to other first world countries, but somewhat more sane looking.

[gravy]

That sounds like a reference to Michael Moore and Bowling for Columbine.

It wasn't intended to be.

I've seen that movie, though, so maybe there's some subconscious influence on my choice of example country there.

His claim in Bowling For Columbine that Canada has more guns per capita than the US is just wrong;

He might have claimed that. I wasn't claiming that.

The US definitely has more guns.

But many countries have a lot of guns, albeit not as many, and the exact expression of violence in "rampage shootings" is just disproportionate in America.

If it were just gun availability alone, then a third of the guns would roughly translate to a third of the school shootings. But that's not what the numbers say.

Worth considering that disproportionately pinning blame on cultural issues also implies de-gunning won't make much difference; an argument I've heard from various NRA proxies.

My take is that there is a cultural issue, possibly arising from the prevalence of guns, but reducing guns will still have a positive impact and worth trying. YMMV

[Misfit]

My take is that there is a cultural issue, possibly arising from the prevalence of guns, but reducing guns will still have a positive impact and worth trying. YMMV

And even if we ignore the violent side, how many of those suicides would have failed without a gun? I'm betting a hell of a lot, and some of those survivors might well have then gotten the help they needed to get better/stay alive.

[ThetaReactor]

More interesting charts on how guns in the US related to the rest of the World and other things.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081

33.5k deaths by guns in the US in 2014 (21.5k were suicides).

Some interesting number-wrangling there. For instance, this:



And the leading statement:

But a majority of Americans say they are dissatisfied with US gun laws and policies, and most of those who are unhappy want stricter legislation.

Which is all technically true. But one could also say "a majority of responders felt that current gun laws were either satisfactory or too strict."

And the previous section, regarding types of firearms used in murders:

Military-style assault-style weapons have been blamed for some of the major mass shootings such as the attack in an Orlando nightclub and at the Sandy Hook School in Connecticut.

Dozens of rifles were recovered from the scene of the Las Vegas shooting, Police reported.

A few US states have banned assault-style weapons, which were totally restricted for a decade until 2004.

However most murders caused by guns involve handguns, according to FBI data.

EVIL SCARY BLACK RIFLES! ...account for fewer murders than blunt objects and bare hands.

I mean, geez, guys. You can't ask for "reasonable gun laws" and then skew all the data toward hysteria. Yes, we need to properly enforce the existing laws so that crazies and assholes don't have guns. I would love to have access to the federal background check database when conducting private sales. But banning "assault-style" rifles didn't do shit to the crime rates when we tried it in the 90s, because AR-15s aren't the problem. You can't just point at the scary bits and hope to accomplish anything. Banning "assault weapons" to fix gun violence is like trying to cure smallpox with makeup. Treating the symptoms might make some people feel better, but it doesn't fix anything in the long-term.

[PFVA]

A shooting at You Tube headquarters

From the # of people being treated in San Fran and

YouTube shooting: Police respond to incident at California HQ

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43635864

It's nt the first i hear of a shooting inside a company of the Bay Area but it's first time i hear of one at a web company

[gravy]

I mean, geez, guys. You can't ask for "reasonable gun laws" and then skew all the data toward hysteria. Yes, we need to properly enforce the existing laws so that crazies and assholes don't have guns. I would love to have access to the federal background check database when conducting private sales. But banning "assault-style" rifles didn't do shit to the crime rates when we tried it in the 90s, because AR-15s aren't the problem. You can't just point at the scary bits and hope to accomplish anything. Banning "assault weapons" to fix gun violence is like trying to cure smallpox with makeup. Treating the symptoms might make some people feel better, but it doesn't fix anything in the long-term.

I think you're right there.

But my take is if you want the low rate of gun fatalities in other countries you need similar control and legislation.

Just banning war weapons will only help reduce the number of deaths in mass shootings; a relatively small proportion of the huge amount of gun deaths in the US.

That all said it'd be an important step towards sanity. The NRA see's this kind of legislation as the thin end of the wedge. They're right.

[Chontler]

an issue I saw with america is that it tries to act like a single country. attitudes in states can vary quite dramatically. but then, if they operated more like europe and each state was a different country there'd be all out war there all the time. it's cuz they are all batshit paranoid. well, not all. I lived there for years and most people I knew didn't have a gun. if they did, it was hidden away somewhere in the house for self defense, or they were just fucking weird about it and used the same excuse. for a lot of that kind, holding a gun was like a shot of cocaine for them - it gave em some misaligned jacked up sense of power - coupled with the paranoia. they were bad people really. there was also the kind that just liked messing about with guns who were ok, or the so-called hunters who were hit and miss. but it's definitely the cocaine types that are the problem and what that gun does to their heads.

The statistics for justifiable shootings are pretty slim - as in the self defense argument. it's like 1 in 34 gun deaths, but that's only vs criminal activity deaths. counting in the suicide and accidental deaths then there's really very little to that argument at all.

[Barney]

To be honest, I'm not at all sure that guns or access to guns is the real problem - as has been demonstrated very recently, there are significant portions of the population that think that the way to respond to real or imagined attacks on their lifestyles/incomes/beliefs is to go kill other people.

Now, every country has a very small minority of people that behave that way - we do here in the UK very occasionally. But in the US it seems that it's becoming almost an accepted method of dealing with your problems and I'm not sure how to fix that.

[Harlequin]

To be honest, I'm not at all sure that guns or access to guns is the real problem - as has been demonstrated very recently, there are significant portions of the population that think that the way to respond to real or imagined attacks on their lifestyles/incomes/beliefs is to go kill other people.

Guns, however, (along with bombs) are particularly effective if one wants to kill many people in quite a short space of time. As any (USAmerican) child knows.

[Barney]

To be honest, I'm not at all sure that guns or access to guns is the real problem - as has been demonstrated very recently, there are significant portions of the population that think that the way to respond to real or imagined attacks on their lifestyles/incomes/beliefs is to go kill other people.

Guns, however, (along with bombs) are particularly effective if one wants to kill many people in quite a short space of time. As any (USAmerican) child knows.

Well, yes - that goes without saying, but I'm wondering what is causing the underlying desire to go out and kill people that seems to affect American society at large?

[KlaxonCow]

I was wondering that also, and earlier hazarded a guess at the Second Amendment itself.

I would stress, as I've done before, that the Second Amendment really, really, really doesn't actually say what the NRA mythology pretends it says.

I mean, after all, let us just note that the second fucking word in the Second Amendment is "well-regulated".

2. A WELL-REGULATED Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Talk about hiding in plain sight. It explicitly says "regulated", for fuck's sake.

So the notion that the Second Amendment somehow opposes all regulation is instantly blown apart by the second fucking word in the text. Which is not only saying "regulation" but "well-regulated", which further implies more than a mere "light touch regulation" as well.

And where the Second Amendment is sparse on reasoning, Section 13 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights - where much of the Bill of Rights was derived from - is much more forthcoming on the logic of it all:

Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Note how similar the wording is here. The Second Amendment is basically the concise version of Section 13, and is a known fact to be derivative from it.

Just look at that last sentence: "that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power".

The civil power is, of course, the government. Of the people and for the people.

This is no defence FROM government. This is a defence OF government.

From standing armies. From a coup d'etat. From warlord-ism and civil war.

That's what the true worry was. Having assembled an army to see off the British, the worry was that such an army - or a division thereof - might decide, in a time of peace, to abuse its military power against this new "government of the people".

So, basically, the mythology surrounding the Second Amendment is verifiably historical horseshit. It's simply not correct. The NRA is bare-faced lying to you.

But, more than that, I don't think you can have a law that says "you have the right to own a potential murder weapon" and for this to not colour the psychology of it all.

Put it this way, if Westminster passed a new human right that "all citizens have a right to own lockpicks and skeleton keys, and no police officer has any right to confiscate those from them" - even if we definitely do still have laws that say "no breaking into people's homes" and "no stealing" - then how would you think this would go on to affect the psychology and levels of crime relating to theft?

At the very least, it's a confusing mixed message. Murder is against the law. Yet it's also every citizen's right - exaggerated to duty by the NRA - to own a murder weapon and be prepared to use it to defend you and yours.

So, as I say, translate that to the law which says it's illegal to breaking into homes and steal shit. Then have a sacrosanct right - enshrined in a holy ancient text - that says "every citizen has the right to own lock-picks". Umm, why do we have a right to lockpicks, if it's not assumed that we'll be potentially picking locks at some point?

[Governmentyard]

A shooting at You Tube headquarters

Vegan terrorism on the rise, it seems.

[Chontler]

I was wondering that also, and earlier hazarded a guess at the Second Amendment itself.

I would stress, as I've done before, that the Second Amendment really, really, really doesn't actually say what the NRA mythology pretends it says.

I mean, after all, let us just note that the second fucking word in the Second Amendment is "well-regulated".

That they declare it as if it's set in stone is what's odd. The clue is in the title. It's a fucking amendment...and not even the first one.

[Mayhem]

I would stress, as I've done before, that the Second Amendment really, really, really doesn't actually say what the NRA mythology pretends it says.

And I would agree with you, even after the Supreme Court ruling in 2008...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_ ... _v._Heller

[TL;DR - The Second Amendment does now mean what everyone mistakenly had taken it mean, that the individual could own a weapon, even when not in a militia]

Thing is, the judge notes issue some provisos that needless to say, most people ignore. The main one being that while the right to bear arms is not infringed, it doesn't mean that WHAT arms people may own cannot or should not be regulated. If the Government doesn't want you to have an assault rifle, then that doesn't infringe the Second Amendment. Effectively the folks shouting "they're coming for your guns!" want is the right for anyone to own any weapon they choose, even ones they sensibly ought not to have access to

[PFVA]

I had the telly on during the news but i was really paying attention. Suddenly i just heard "and the president tweeted everybody was under suspension" and i immediately thought "what's Trump up to now?".

As i started paying attention it wasn't Trump. Oups! It was the president of one of our 3 bigger football clubs that decided to suspend more than half of his team via Tweeter. And guess what the suspension didn't go into effect because Tweeter is not an acceptable manner of suspending players.

The story is, after a game the president of the club went on tweeted that players X, Y, and Z had done nothing, and didn't play, and whatever. Several players answer thru the same media that it wasn't appropriate behaviour of the club president to say that kind of thing thru a social network instead of talking to them in private. Then said president answered that all the ones who had said that were suspended.

Furthermore at the game, where the Tweeter suspended players actually played several people were holding signs against the President of the club. The Presidents of the footbal clubs here are elected by the members so now some want a recall or impeachment.

Football is starting to look like Politics or vice-versa.