Another US shooting - Newtown, Connecticut

[Exe Gesis]

romeoh

There are wackos running around in Australian society, without the proper support services either. And all around the world. It's not an American condition, it's a human condition.

Greater awareness and understanding of mental illness is a fairly new topic. There are still so many flaws and problems with how society considers, treats, mistreats, divorces itself from, even scoffs at it being real, understands how to address it, etc.

It's not a matter of whether there are guns or not. The real issue is mental illness and how to better understand, identify, treat, etc, it.

Already gun laws restrict ownership from the mentally ill etc. There are certain ways it can be tidied up tho, without having to entirely remove all sorts of guns from society. Regardless of the comprising ideas made like removing high-powered semi-automatic guns only and not completely eliminating the 2nd Amendment. Disagree. One step leads to more steps. Really this post-Sandy Hook surge is concerted step being made by these elements in govt to ultimately do away with the bill of rights. You don't understand, but it's very important the many passages in the american constitution related to guarding against govt tyranny, guard against too centralized a power, the diminishment of states, the call even to overthrow forcibly overthrow govt if need be. I am one for loosening gun restrictions, not tightening. Advocate more high-powered civilian militia ownership. Mentally ill, criminals, yes still maintain laws against them.

 

[romeoh]

romeoh

There are wackos running around in Australian society, without the proper support services either. And all around the world. It's not an American condition, it's a human condition.

Greater awareness and understanding of mental illness is a fairly new topic. There are still so many flaws and problems with how society considers, treats, mistreats, divorces itself from, even scoffs at it being real, understands how to address it, etc.

It's not a matter of whether there are guns or not. The real issue is mental illness and how to better understand, identify, treat, etc, it.

Already gun laws restrict ownership from the mentally ill etc. There are certain ways it can be tidied up tho, without having to entirely remove all sorts of guns from society. Regardless of the comprising ideas made like removing high-powered semi-automatic guns only and not completely eliminating the 2nd Amendment. Disagree. One step leads to more steps. Really this post-Sandy Hook surge is concerted step being made by these elements in govt to ultimately do away with the bill of rights. You don't understand, but it's very important the many passages in the american constitution related to guarding against govt tyranny, guard against too centralized a power, the diminishment of states, the call even to overthrow forcibly overthrow govt if need be. I am one for loosening gun restrictions, not tightening. Advocate more high-powered civilian militia ownership. Mentally ill, criminals, yes still maintain laws against them.

What are the 'certain ways it can be tidied up'? Impossible to manage that situation which surely explains why those gun laws restricting the mentally ill are not working. Thus removal of certain weapons and far tighter controls is more likely to be effective.
ps when you advocate more high powered civilian militia ownership, you can't expect reasonable debate, because that is so far from being the solution, it is not funny. ROFL.

 

[Exe Gesis]

romeoh

Didnt suggest it as a solution to address random wacko shootings or mentally ill.

Just letting you know you're talking to someone who advocates per se the loosening of gun restrictions (for the sane and civil) and more high-powered weaponry for a civilian militia concept.

Solution to random mass shootings is in addressing mental health care, better pharmaceutical drug regulations and research, and exploring methods of breaking down societal barriers that create disconnect/indifference between people and between people and the concept of society.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Here's a great example of this whole debate and why you're all wrong.


Replace the word guns with the word cars.
Replace the word shootings with the word speeding.
Replace the words mentally ill and criminals with the words unlawful/underage or blacklisted drivers.

-----

Cars are readily available, legal. Cars serve the purpose of a mode of travel.
To be considered lawful to drive one must pass certain qualifying conditions -- age, road worthy tests, eyesight, not have medical conditions, etc.
There are laws against speeding...the improper use of a mode of travel.
More and more deaths occur from reckless and speeding driving however.
Despite existing and more laws, people still speed, with or without deaths occurring.
But it's a perceived problem, speeding. Needs to be lessened, eradicated (cant eradicate it).
They do not ban cars and force people to travel by bicycle or horse tho.
Never is it part of a serious solution to curtailing speeding.
Instead, they continue to tidy up existing laws/regulations and educate people thru tv/billboard ads safer driving.
Thru fines, increased fines, cameras, more highway patrols, etc.
They do not even ban high-powered sports cars per se from society.
They might bring in regulations forbidding people under 21 from owning/using high-powered sports cars.
Under 21'ers still find ways to use high-powered sports cars tho.
But they still don't prohibit the market for them.
Cars, even high-powered sports cars, owned by responsible adults/parents, can still be accessed by irresponsible, unfit, underage, unlawful children/relatives/friends.
And it happens regularly them accessing it, speeding, with or without deaths.
But they still don't prohibit the market for cars or high-powered sports cars, nor even dream up more stricter rules on car ownership....must be locked at all times in garages with child-safe locks, wheels must be removed at all times when garaged until one is ready to travel, etc.

It's completely irrelevant whether the topic is guns or cars, the same principle must apply in a free democratic nation. Consistency must apply. No hypocrisy. There is no difference in topical content. It's the same issue -- a perceived problem with something, why it happens, etc, and how to remedy it.

----

Don't go saying, but guns are designed to kill, cars to travel. It's irrelevant of the analogy. It's irrelevant to even mention deaths by cars. Highlighting only how speeding per se is a perceived problem of a device called a car, akin to how shootings is a perceived problem of a device called a gun. Could be any other similar topical problem.

There's a device, and a perceived problem that can occur with the improper use of that device, or it falling into the hands of those mentally or otherwise unsuitable to use that device in a responsible non-antisocial manner. And the methods of address are never about prohibiting the device or higher-powered models of the device from the majority of society who are responsible and lawful. But mass re-educating and tidying up reasonable existing laws without stepping over the line of outright prohibition or removal of certain models, without punishing the majority of responsible lawful citizens.

 

[Max zero]

Here's a great example of this whole debate and why you're all wrong.


Replace the word guns with the word cars.
Replace the word shootings with the word speeding.
Replace the words mentally ill and criminals with the words unlawful/underage or blacklisted drivers.

-----

Cars are readily available, legal. Cars serve the purpose of a mode of travel.
To be considered lawful to drive one must pass certain qualifying conditions -- age, road worthy tests, eyesight, not have medical conditions, etc.
There are laws against speeding...the improper use of a mode of travel.
More and more deaths occur from reckless and speeding driving however.
Despite existing and more laws, people still speed, with or without deaths occurring.
But it's a perceived problem, speeding. Needs to be lessened, eradicated (cant eradicate it).
They do not ban cars and force people to travel by bicycle or horse tho.
Never is it part of a serious solution to curtailing speeding.
Instead, they continue to tidy up existing laws/regulations and educate people thru tv/billboard ads safer driving.
Thru fines, increased fines, cameras, more highway patrols, etc.
They do not even ban high-powered sports cars per se from society.
They might bring in regulations forbidding people under 21 from owning/using high-powered sports cars.
Under 21'ers still find ways to use high-powered sports cars tho.
But they still don't prohibit the market for them.
Cars, even high-powered sports cars, owned by responsible adults/parents, can still be accessed by irresponsible, unfit, underage, unlawful children/relatives/friends.
And it happens regularly them accessing it, speeding, with or without deaths.
But they still don't prohibit the market for cars or high-powered sports cars, nor even dream up more stricter rules on car ownership....must be locked at all times in garages with child-safe locks, wheels must be removed at all times when garaged until one is ready to travel, etc.

It's completely irrelevant whether the topic is guns or cars, the same principle must apply in a free democratic nation. Consistency must apply. No hypocrisy. There is no difference in topical content. It's the same issue -- a perceived problem with something, why it happens, etc, and how to remedy it.

----

Don't go saying, but guns are designed to kill, cars to travel. It's irrelevant of the analogy. It's irrelevant to even mention deaths by cars. Highlighting only how speeding per se is a perceived problem of a device called a car, akin to how shootings is a perceived problem of a device called a gun. Could be any other similar topical problem.

There's a device, and a perceived problem that can occur with the improper use of that device, or it falling into the hands of those mentally or otherwise unsuitable to use that device in a responsible non-antisocial manner. And the methods of address are never about prohibiting the device or higher-powered models of the device from the majority of society who are responsible and lawful. But mass re-educating and tidying up reasonable existing laws without stepping over the line of outright prohibition or removal of certain models, without punishing the majority of responsible lawful citizens.

The difference is how easy to misuse the device is and the consequences of misuse.

How often does someone get in a car and kill a large number of people? How critical is personal transport to the functioning of society? Larger vehicles with more limited utility and higher potential risk (trucks, forklifts) have further restrictions and requirements.

Now compare that to a "semi" (4 rounds a second is pretty decent) automatic rifle. How easy is it to kill large numbers of people? How critical is it too the functioning of society?

The semi automatic rifle is far more dangerous and is far less useful to a society then a personal automobile. Makes sense for it to have greater restrictions.

Explosives have both useful and improper uses. They are heavily restricted to a need to use basis due to the danger associated with their use. I see no reasons firearms should not be the same.

 

[Exe Gesis]

The analogy has nothing to do with deaths tho.

The misuse of the car in the analogy is only speeding itself.

Completely replace this topic and title with the following....

"Yet another case of a driver speeding"

Do people come into the thread demanding govt ban the use of cars to stop people speeding? Do they demand govt prohibit the sale of specific high-powered sports cars? Do they demand all cars must be sold with accelerator limiting measures built-in before mass production? Do they suggest people only allowed to use bicycles and horses?

If they did people would laugh at them or they would be met with much resistance in the thread.

People would say....that's not how you stop people from speeding, etc.

Imagine the title was....

"Yet another case of a child (or mentally ill person) accessing his parent's car and caught speeding"

Do people come into the thread demanding all those things again?

People would instead say....that's not how you stop children (or mentally ill) from accessing cars. They would say tighter measures required to ensure the mentally ill from accessing cars. If people suggested.....govt should enforce all car owners to have to garage their cars, under lock, and wheels removed at all times until the car is going to be used.....people would laugh and yell at them for suggesting such a solution to the concept of remedying speeding, or underage/unlawful people from accessing cars to speed in.

Consistency of logic required, regardless the topic/device of debate.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

I don't understand how this is possible. How can an individual consent determine a rule? It's impossible to imagine a situation where everyone is going to agree on evan a single law.

I'm also a little unsure of how the personal liberty argument works. Sometimes there has to be a trade off between personal freedom and the welfare and safety of the citizens, surely.

Various communities based upon shared consensual ideological perspectives.

Do some reading:

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/

Ask me, ""but who will build the roads?", and I will place you on ignore.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

 

[Monniehawk]

Dude.

I think you have me confused for another poster. No problem. It happens.

Apols.
I responded to your specific homicide question in the first instance, but it was H2B's posts that I had been referencing in the latter part of the post.

 

[Monniehawk]

You flatter your country here GG.
The US is a market place first and foremost today and China took precedence quite sometime ago.
WWII saw the US "assist" Australia because it suited their purpose at the time and when resources and priorities changed we were left to our own defence.
Simple luck had it that the Japanese had bigger fish to fry, for if the invasion of Australia was a priority we would have fallen, at least from Darwin to Brisbane.
US assistance to any ally has always and always will be a case of self preservation or promotion.
Not that I have an issue with that philosophy, but don't make the US sound like a global phillanthropist.
Australia's way of life and freedoms are overwhelmingly thanks to the British and our own variation on their democracy.

That all agrees with my experience, although I do share GG's fear of what may emerge in the stead of America.

The decline of Great Britain and rise of the U.S. are simultaneous and synergistic.
In both World Wars, the U.S. held back for over 2 years, and built the foundation of its manufacturing wealth by supplying both sides with weapons and machinery. The cost of supply and the ravages of fighting two wars while the U.S. reaped the benefits, destroyed the heart of the U.K. It built the robust post-war U.S. that would dominate world economies for 50 years. Not so, now. It appears to have lost both its economic and military grunt as well as its moral compass. The death throes are an ugly sight.

That is really the only time the U.S. has "come to our aid". Since then, Australia has rallied in support for the U.S. on many occasions - in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. These and other conflagrations were American battles, not ours. We have repaid the U.S. manifold with many dead. And we also have ceded a number of U.S. military bases from our home soil. Please list the number of Australian bases in the U.S. Or British, or....
I'm grateful that we did have the U.S. as an ally, but it was a marriage of convenience that allowed the U.S. to prosper so.

And the Japanese actually won the war for us!
The dills!
They attacked Pearl Harbour and the U.S. was forced to reply. It made sense that the U.S. would join the Allies against the Axis powers. Good economic, historical and political sense. America traded on that victory (their last in a major conflict, as it turns out!) for half a century. The patina has worn off and we are a little exposed while the next aspiring world power jostles for position.
It may not be that a single nation will rise, but possibly an Orwellian regional/economic coalition could emerge.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

That is really the only time the U.S. has "come to our aid". Since then, Australia has rallied in support for the U.S. on many occasions - in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. These and other conflagrations were American battles, not ours. We have repaid the U.S. manifold with many dead. And we also have ceded a number of U.S. military bases from our home soil. Please list the number of Australian bases in the U.S. Or British, or....
I'm grateful that we did have the U.S. as an ally, but it was a marriage of convenience that allowed the U.S. to prosper so.

Most battles that Australia has participated in since before federation have not been ours.

Australia has only been in direct conflict during the war in the Pacific. Every other action has been in the interests of someone else mostly the British or the Americans.

Also US Military bases are the least of the things we have ceded, we created a 3rd world country for them out of one of our territories, PNG would likely have been a prosperous state of Australia, protected by Australian laws and institutions had we not bowed to pressure and granted it independence which it was ready for or even asked for. For the most part it wasn't an occupied territory, the people of Papua were Australian citizens.

 

[Catfish Alley]

Not so, now. It appears to have lost both its economic and military grunt as well as its moral compass. The death throes are an ugly sight.

I'm interested to get your views on this. The US has taken a hit in recent years but still has the strongest economy and military in the world. Who is overtaking them? European markets have crashed and China have their own economic issues. On the back of manufacturing they will be the biggest economy within 20 years but they are technologically lagging and have a terrible human rights record.

Perhaps it's for another thread. This one has gone from talking about a school shooting to discussing PNG! Anyway, I still think they should just go back to the ban on assault rifles and look at tougher screening. I'm surprised of the interest that Australian's have on this topic. Even in Canada most people think it's their country and they can do what they want. Some tougher restrictions wouldn't go astray though.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Gun enthusiasts who fear of a potential gun ban have purchased 3 years of ammo as Brownells report that most of it was sold in less than 72 hours. It all comes as politicians ask for stricter laws on weapons since the massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school.

http://www.newsoxy.com/world/3-years-of-ammo-sold-in-72-hours-102912.html

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Gun enthusiasts who fear of a potential gun ban have purchased 3 years of ammo as Brownells report that most of it was sold in less than 72 hours. It all comes as politicians ask for stricter laws on weapons since the massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school.

http://www.newsoxy.com/world/3-years-of-ammo-sold-in-72-hours-102912.html

What people fail to realise is that the right to arms is a part of the U.S. constitution.

It is an entrenched right that a majority of the people support, and therefore, none of our business.

 

[Exe Gesis]

When Sandy Hook went down, I said in another place, that gun and bullet sales would only go up markedly, not down.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Bearing arms and bearing automatic weapons are not the same thing.

Anyway, it is slow progress but Los Angeles is still trying to do their bit.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-27/los-angeles-mayor-backs-calls-for-gun-control/4444744

Trading in guns for food. Win/Win I guess.

The gun lobby groups were protesting nearby, and are worried about the country falling into tyranny if they give up their guns. I fail to see the logic. It's not Syria.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

When Sandy Hook went down, I said in another place, that gun and bullet sales would only go up markedly, not down.

But how much of that is down to current gun owners stockpiling more out of fear there will none available sooner or later?

I mean, unless the buyers were teachers, school workers, clergy or anywhere else where they had a no weapon policy, it hardly seems relevant to Sandy Hook.

I don't think parents at every school are planning on sitting in the school car park armed to the teeth every day.

 

[Deathb4dishonour]

Im glad i dont live in America. Just browsing my facebook page and they have been debating why they should or should not ban assault weapons etc.. I cant believe one idiot suggested that every school should have armed guard. What happens if the armed guard decided to go nuts and start shooting people...

 

[Catfish Alley]

Im glad i dont live in America. Just browsing my facebook page and they have been debating why they should or should not ban assault weapons etc.. I cant believe one idiot suggested that every school should have armed guard. What happens if the armed guard decided to go nuts and start shooting people...

You could say the same about a police officer I suppose. If they go down that route I imagine they'd have some very strict screening.

 

[Moo]

What people fail to realise is that the right to arms is a part of the U.S. constitution.

It is an entrenched right that a majority of the people support, and therefore, none of our business.

I don't think there is one poster here who is not aware that it is a constitutional right.

That right however is not defined and to accept it as an open ended right to any weapon is thin edge stuff.

If the majority support some restrictions - better background checks , no gun ownership by felons, ban on assault rifles, magazine limitations ....you could do his and still protect the 2nd Amendment.

Also yes it is their business, however this is a discussion board and I reserve the right to tell all nations when I think they are doing a shit job.

 

[Moo]

Im glad i dont live in America. Just browsing my facebook page and they have been debating why they should or should not ban assault weapons etc.. I cant believe one idiot suggested that every school should have armed guard. What happens if the armed guard decided to go nuts and start shooting people...

You have other good guys with guns standing near by.

Pop quiz - you are going to shoot up a school with an AK 47 ....who is your very first target? Hello security guard.

America needs to worry about funding it's existing education system before it starts adding thousands upon thousands of guards.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

If the majority support some restrictions - better background checks , no gun ownership by felons, ban on assault rifles, magazine limitations ....you could do his and still protect the 2nd Amendment.

The majority don't.

 

[Moo]

The majority don't.

What do you base this belief on?

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

What do you base this belief on?

The existence of the 2nd amendment, the political inability to amend it, and a plethora of polls supporting it's maintenance.

 

[nut]

What people fail to realise is that the right to arms is a part of the U.S. constitution.

It is an entrenched right that a majority of the people support, and therefore, none of our business.

I reckon most would support no tax on beer too....