My heart goes out to everyone in Texas.
This shooting and killing of innocent children is so wrong.
My heart aches for all of their families & those teachers also.
Continue prayers for the injured.
Yes. But the question is, when we will take action to reduce these mass shootings?
I agree. People should certainly pray if they think it has value. It's essential that we take our own steps to deal with Earth's problems, however, including dealing with the aftermath of this horrible tragedy and preventing it from occurring again (or at least significantly reducing the chance of its reoccurrence).
These children and their loved ones, and all that helped in this horrific tragedy have my prayers coming their way. It's a time to put all our attention on them and their now sorrow. Brenda, thank you for posting this thread. You in my view have pointed out where we should at on this day just send prayers to all that are grieving. I am with you, what is needed today are prayers and letting these families know we care, we respect their grief. Thank you...
Those that are grieving need time to have a quiet time to accept what has happened, and get through the sad tasks of putting their children to rest. They need to see the nation grieves with them. At this point, they don't need the deaths of their children overshadowed by politicians that are talking about gun control, and vying for votes.
Sad to hear this news.
Sending bundles of prayers and love❤️
The shooting is terrible and Americans has a right to own guns that evolved with their Constitution. But granting a gun license to teens is no longer common sense. A person owning a gun for hunting or self defense is a good idea. Does that translate to killing an innocent human being? No. This is area America has to look into.
This post has turned into a discussion on what needs to be done, instead of thoughts and support for those families.
It's great to put our minds together & I hope someone can find the perfect solution.
In the meantime....these precious families are hurting.
Like the family of Irma Garcia (48) ~ one of the teachers who died in this tragedy.
Her husband Joe Garcia suffered a heart attack two days later.
Together, the couple had four children: Cristian, 23; Jose, 19; Lyliana, 15; and Alysandra, 12.
What can we possibly do to help any of these families?
I agree that families and loved ones need space, a quiet time to gather composure and feel the warmth of others' prayers, and support. Just knowing we all care, and realize their loss. It's all about honoring these children and the sorrow their loved ones are going through. Prayers of support do give comfort.
I agree these families need time to grieve. Time to know we are there supporting them.
We can't change laws overnight...but we can show our compassion.
Many have lost the ability to understand that in times such as this people need time to grieve. They are caught up with the emotion that something needs to be done. It shocks me that more don't realize we have been going around and around for many years, getting nowhere. So, in my view, we have time to do all the blaming and offer solutions in the days to come, not a few hours after this tragedy occurred.
I appreciated your thread's sentiment.
Thank you. My sentiments exactly.
My heart goes out to everyone who is touched by this heartbreaking tragedy.
Please know there are people here for you.
I hope those that pray ask forgiveness if they elect people that ignore the problem. That there is heartache caused by the guilt of supporting those that choose guns over the lives of children.
The best thing we can do for these families is enact a change so they can know that they were the last families this will ever happen to.
Brenda, I can understand the cause of Joe's heart attack. He loves Irma to the core of his being. Again, with four dependent children, it would be harder for him to raise them alone. Let's continue to pump prayers for the family to God. During the Obama years it happen age limit to own a gun was raise to 18-23. But it did not solve the problem. Why not make it 40 years upward, and if that fail, raise it to 50 up? Critically, this is the wyrk of law makers. So pressure must be brought to make them have restless days and nights.
I can understand him having a heart attack...it is just too much to handles losing the love of your life in this manner.
But now those pour children have nonpatents & the youngest is 11.
We need to think about these families first.
'We need to think about these families first'. Brenda, then, what should we do? Thank you.
I honestly don’t know what we can do to help.
There are lists for monetary donations, blood donations and legal assistance which I will post a few of them.
There are several listed on the internet.
But I was thinking more along the lines of a simple card EXPRESSING our compassion.
Robb Elementary School
715 Old Carrizo Road
Uvalde Texas 78801
CITY OF Uvalde, Texas
101 E. Main Street, Uvalde, Texas 78801
P.O. Box 799, Uvalde, Texas 78802
If anyone has any ideas, please share.
Crowdfunding platform GoFundMe set up a page with verified fundraisers put together by family members of shooting victims and nonprofit organizations.
The Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District created a bank account at First State Bank of Uvalde where people can send funds directly to shooting victims and their families. Funds can be sent electronically through Zelle using the email email@example.com or through the mail at the address 200 East Nopal St., Uvalde, Texas 78801. Make checks payable to the “Robb School Memorial Fund.”
The City of Uvalde set up a separate fund to which people can mail checks payable to the “Robb School Memorial Fund” to P.O. Box 799, Uvalde, Texas 78802.
The South Texas Blood and Tissue Center and University Health San Antonio are asking for blood donations to help supplement survivors of the shooting. People can schedule an appointment with the center here or with University Health here.
These are excellent suggestions, Brenda! I've seen posts on the forum saying that we should help people in Uvalde and have thought to myself that though the posts are kind they are also useless without more specific information. You have given the information that's needed.
Thank you...I think any kind gesture would be appreciated.
Brenda, thank you for all these information. I pray many good samaritans in Texas respond according to their ability. I add my prayers of intercession for the sorrowing victim family. Thanks again.
Previous prayers don't seem to have had much effect, unfortunately.
Violence in any shape or form is violence. Humanity and love should reign. I'm sending many prayers. May God keep everyone safe and secure. Ameen!
May the globe shine with the light of peace; that is all we need to illuminate this planet.
It's becoming all too common now. Why is it so easy for anyone to get a gun in the US?
Because the NRA lines the pockets of politicians
I don't want to get into the politics of it all, but Republicans have so far failed to convince me on this pressing matter.
Republicans answer to school shootings is to arm teachers. They don't trust us enough to teach a history curriculum but they want to put guns on our hips?
The only connection the NRA has to any mass shooting is in the delusional thinking of those on the left.
Gun control? Look at the places that have the strictest gun control measures and you will find the highest rate of gun violence. Chicago, New York, California, etc. You can't legislate away mental illness.
How many members of the NRA have been involved in mass shootings? I think the number stands at zero.
Some old leftist drill. Get emotional about things that are proven to not work by claiming they do work and then punishing responsible gun owners.
Idiotic emotional responses does not solve problems, it only makes things worse.
There is no reason for an 18 year old to be able to buy an assault rifle and high capacity magazines without a background check or permit.
You need to make your comparisons, not state by state but our country against others.
The US has much more firearm violence than its developed peers.
One reason for this difference is the abundance of guns in America. According to a 2007 survey, the US led the world in the number of civilian-owned firearms with 88.8 guns per 100 people, while second-place Yemen fell far behind at 54.8 guns per 100 people. And the research, compiled by the Harvard School of Public Health's Injury Control Research Center, has repeatedly found a link between a higher number of guns and higher levels of gun violence.
We can and need to do better.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … -uk-canada
"There is no reason for an 18 year old to be able to buy an assault rifle and high capacity magazines without a background check or permit."
Do you even know what an "assault" rifle is? I've been around guns for decades and nobody can really give a correct answer. I seen 22s with scopes and magazines used to hunt squirrels. Is that an assault rifle?
If he legally purchased a gun in Texas, and according to news reports he did. This person had to show valid identification, fill out a federal Firearms Transaction Record, also referred to as Form 4473. This form asks some questions about a person's eligibility to own a firearm and a person's identity. Then a background check is performed on the spot, through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). It ensures a person is eligible to purchase a firearm. Due to federal laws, the individual who is purchasing the firearm must be present.
Age should matter. If the United States was attacked you would see 18-year-old firing guns, even 50 mm guns. They operate some of the most lethal weapons on the planet.
We don't have a gun problem as much as we have a mental health problem. A lousy parenting problem and more.
There was a time when mass shootings didn't occur in the United States. Why was that?
From the family of the creator of the AR-15:
Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.
This weapon was designed to be a tool of war, never intended for civilians.
And as far as mental health goes, I'll be waiting to see Republicans put the money where their mouth is. They are the first to oppose any spending in this area. Governor Abbott of Texas actually slashed their mental health funding in that state just last month.
"AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47"
Those are automatic weapons and are illegal for anyone to possess. Do you know of any legal weapons you would consider an "Assault" weapon?
There was a time when we did not have mass shootings and there was more gun ownership than there is today.
I wonder what changed? I'd say certain elements of society.
The AR-15 is illegal to possess? Odd statement.
Second, why do you accept that your Second Amendment rights should be severely restricted on planes? Why is that scenario perfectly acceptable to you? What's the difference?
Third, so many of these mass shooters are using body armor. Why not limit that to law enforcement, the military, and the knights of the round table only?
Fourth, if it's not the gun, it's can't be the bomb or the nuke. So why are we trying to keep nukes away from certain countries? Are members of the GOP claiming that certain leaders of other countries are mentally ill? How do they know? Why do we regulate and track bomb making materials very strictly? Why the double standard?
Interesting meme but most mass shooters use handguns.
I don't like the exception on planes but it's not worth the fight to change it
So, you are going to tell private citizens who live in dangerous areas they are not permitted to buy body armor for personal protection because they're used by mass shooters?
Actually, like the gun, the bomb or the nuke can't hurt anyone without people involved. Left alone, they hurt nobody.
"So, you are going to tell private citizens who live in dangerous areas they are not permitted to buy body armor for personal protection because they're used by mass shooters?"
No one said that you could not buy it, but the purchase is reported to law enforcement as a possible "red flag".
I don't want anyone armed on a aircraft if he or she is not law enforcement personnel, that is just common sense.
"Actually, like the gun, the bomb or the nuke can't hurt anyone without people involved. Left alone, they hurt nobody."
That is easy to say, but the reality is that they are not left alone, are they?
'Interesting meme but most mass shooters use handguns.'
Solid attempt to deflect from your statement that 'those are automatic weapons and are illegal for anyone to possess.' I believe the meme more than contradicts your 'expert' opinion about weaponry.
You don't like the plane exception, but you appear willing to accept it. What's the difference between that and other restrictions you are unwilling to accept?
The body armor idea is a less severe restriction than one that affects second amendment rights and might actually give armed security a chance to take down an active shooter before they enter the premises. In both Texas and Buffalo, the shooter was met by security and could not stop them. This option at least makes the security option more than just one for show.
And yet, we heavily restrict and prosecute those in possession of the bomb and pro-gun people accept those restrictions. Again, why the double standard of accepting those restrictions on bombs and not guns?
'I wonder what changed. I'd say certain elements of society.' I would love to wonder too. Please do dig some more and tell us. thanks.
"There is no reason for an 18 year old to be able to buy an assault rifle and high capacity magazines without a background check or permit."
Do you even know what an "assault" rifle is? I've been around guns for decades and nobody can really give a correct answer. I seen 22s with scopes and magazines used to hunt squirrels. Is that an assault rifle?
If he legally purchased a gun in Texas, and according to news reports he did. This person had to show valid identification, fill out a federal Firearms Transaction Record, also referred to as Form 4473. This form asks some questions about a person's eligibility to own a firearm and a person's identity. Then a background check is performed on the spot, through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). It ensures a person is eligible to purchase a firearm. Due to federal laws, the individual who is purchasing the firearm must be present
Ok, Mike, so who dropped the ball? How did this obviously troubled youth manage to legally acquire a weapon so quickly and easily?
I think that a reasonable waiting period of time would help.
I think those who saw his Facebook post stating that he was going to shoot up a school and did nothing might bear some responsibility.
"Abbott said the gunman wrote about his intentions on Facebook. A spokesman for Meta, Facebook’s parent company, said the gunman’s private one-to-one messages were discovered after the shooting.
Abbott said that in the first of three messages, about 30 minutes before the school shooting, Ramos wrote, “I’m going to shoot my grandmother.”
Shortly after, he wrote, “I shot my grandmother.”
And finally: “I’m going to shoot an elementary school.”
He allegedly sent similarly chilling text messages to a girl he met online describing how he had just shot his grandmother and was going to shoot up an elementary school."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/uvald … uxbndlbing
You say “Gun control? Look at the places that have the strictest gun control measures and you will find the highest rate of gun violence.” That sounds illusional to me - Look at the rest of the world where gun control measures are much stricter than in the USA, and the rate of gun violence in those countries (the rest of the world outside of the USA) is far, far lower than in the USA.
Arthur, friend, welcome to the discussion. Where have you been to? I try emailing you two days ago, but my gmail is out of reach. Thanks.
Hi Miebakagh, we've been on a week's holiday in Durham, north England.
Welcome to home. Stay safe with the family.
Quite true. Now look at the number of guns in various countries and compare their homicide rates. No correlation between the two. The conclusion is that it isn't guns that is the problem; it is the people. For whatever reason the people of the US are prone to violence more than those of other nations. This is rather simple logic; correlation does not equal causation.
Of course, if the goal is to prevent bodies with bullet holes, rather than bodies in general, you are correct; take away the guns and no more bodies with bullet holes. At least from law abiding people as only criminals (and murderers) will have guns to produce those bullet holes with.
No, there is no direct correlation if you try to make a direct comparison, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a relationship. The flaws in trying to make a simple comparison between different countries is that other factors will affect the results; nevertheless a simple comparison between the UK (where we don’t have guns) and USA shows the homicide rates in the USA is far higher:-
• According to Wikipedia the homicide rate in the USA is 6.3 per 100,000 population, whereas in the UK it’s only 1.2 per 100,000 population.
• According to the UN the homicide rate in the USA is 5.3 per 100,000 population, whereas in the UK it’s only 1.2 per 100,000 population.
Australia is an example of where guns were restricted in 1996; prior to the restrictions homicide rates in Australia ranged between 1.73 & 2.21 per 100,000 population (over a 6 year period); since then the homicide rate in Australia has steadily declined, so that now it’s down to just 0.89 per 100,000 population.
Although there may not be a direct correlation between the level of guns in circulation in a society and the level of homicides; for people outside of the USA it does stand to reason that there is a relationship and as such the more guns that are freely available the more violence there is going to be.
As regards your last point “take away the guns and no more bodies with bullet holes. At least from law abiding people as only criminals (and murderers) will have guns to produce those bullet holes with.” - That maybe true for the USA but in countries like the UK even criminals and murderers don’t have guns; even the vast majority of police in the UK don’t have guns.
In Britain (excluding Northern Ireland) there have been a total of just 19 massacres in the last 50 years, with a total fatality of just 512 in 50 years – How does that compare to the USA?
This was an eighteen-year-old! Not old enough to go to a bar and buy a beer but old enough to buy semi-automatic rifles. Something is terribly wrong and all the well-meaning prayers offered afterward are not going to help families that will be tortured by their memories for their entire lives.
According to the Constitution, an American can own a weapon because a well-regulated militia is (was) necessary. What is well-regulated here? Nothing!
Sadly it happens in many parts of the world. Happened twice in Peshawar, Pakistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Pesh … l_massacre
In 2019, a gunman opened fire in a New Zealand mosque at the local time of Friday prayer and livestreamed the slaughter on Facebook. He streamed Live for 17 minutes non-stop.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … ebook.html
New Zealand government quickly sprung into action, launching a buy back scheme for guns.
It will be a lot harder to change anything in the US, however, as the change needs to be made in their constitution.
The Texas school shooting is horrific. I feel so bad for the parents and the children who lived but are now terrified. We have got to make some changes to keep children safe.
I am praying for all of the people affected. I can't imagine what happened to that shooter for him to hate people, but he should have been locked up for things he wrote on social media.
It's been a rough day, Brenda. I have a range of emotions, already raw from the massacre in my hometown of Buffalo. But to hear of babies and teachers killed took the grief and exhaustion to another level. It was the last straw. I'm glad I was already scheduled to be off this week. I've been processing with other fellow therapists about how to take care of ourselves. As we remember the victims of Texas and Buffalo, let us remember first responders, police officers, hospital staff, counselors, and of course, the little ones who will forever have those images seared into their psyches. Sigh. All I can do is sigh.
My thoughts are with you & your hometown.
It's hard to wrap my head around the why...
There is no explanation.
I know others automatically go towards gun control, but my thought is that if someone wants to do this...they will anyway.
Maybe next time it will be a bomb.
The thinking of people is deranged...we need to being back good old values.
The United States outstrips anywhere else in the world in terms of gun ownership, gun-related homicides and public mass shootings. It has 120 firearms per 100 people, more than twice as many per capita than war-torn Yemen, the next highest country on the list.
Despite having 4 percent of the world's population, the U.S. made up 31 percent of all public mass shootings globally between 1966 and 2012, according to a 2015 study by Adam Lankford, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Alabama.
Sadly we are outpacing the world here in America.
Numb. Totally numb.
This is the 362nd time this has happened in the U.S. since January 2000. Let that sink in; 362 school shootings involving injury or death in just over two decades. Each followed by an outpouring of thoughts and prayers.
If prayers worked it seems these atrocities would have stopped; instead they are increasing in frequency.
Action is needed. Americans need to turf out politicians who are owned by the gun lobby and install legislators prepared to take on the NRA.
Every country has people with severe mental health problems and violent, dysfunctional families but the United States is the only one where this kind of carnage happens so frequently. America is the only nation in which assault weapons and other similar lethal firearms are readily available. Think that might be a factor?
Pray if you wish, but understand that that alone will not change a darned thing.
I couldn’t agree more, Rupert. My heart goes out to the victims and their families, but something concrete needs to be done to stop this continuing.
I agree 100%. Even God, I believe, has never asked to simply pray and relax. Along with prayer, action is also required.
So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin. James 4:17
I agree. What is the right thing???
I believe, the right thing to do is to educate people about what is right and what is wrong. We need to learn the difference between the two. And if someone is guilty, he should not be released under any circumstances; it is critical to reach and cut the roots of trees rather than the branches. Just my opinion!
I do believe in prayer.
The problem is...there is free will & we can't stop someone from doing these horrible things.
I agree that purchasing guns should not be so easily done from the internet, but taking away our guns isn't the answer either.
I am putting the entire world into question, not just the United States. How many people in the world have legal access to firearms? (Licensed guns) Is there any data?
We keep data here in the United States.
When one legally purchases a gun...you give them all your information...including your driver's license number and copy of it.
The gun is then registered under your name.
Yes, but what about those purchased on the internet? Does the government keep data on online shoppers? I'm curious if they're also available on the dark web in the United States. They are in many parts of the world. That, I believe, must be stopped. As far as I know, governments are unable to control and track the data of the dark web.
I'm nit certain how it works on the internet, but there are alot of different sites.
Most do say you have to pass background check & have waiting days. Then you actually pick up guns at a local store that sells guns ~ will hold it there for you.
It should be much harder to get a gun than it is now in real life. If new requirements are established, as they should be, some guns should be surrendered.
The internet allows way too many...but also people can make guns on 3D printers.
This is scary.
Yes, that's horrible but the only country where 3D printing of firearms is allowed is the United States.
https://3d-print-times.com/basics-of-3d … -it-legal/
Like anything else...it doesn't matter to some if its allowed...it onky matters if they can make a profit.
You can't own a gun so easily here in Spain. This is included in the Spanish constitution under article 149.26 where it is said that the Spanish government has exclusive competence control over production, sale, possession and use of firearms and explosives. The Legislation on the use and ownership of firearms in Spain is probably one of the most restrictive in Europe. It doesn't mean that you cannot own a gun here in Spain but it is quite restrictive.
It is possible to obtain firearms licence for hunting (shotguns, rifles and assault rifle versions) without too much problem.
With regards to hand guns, there is a possibility to obtain a licence and purchase but the applicant has to become member of the Spanish federation of olimpic shooting, and pass several tests. The gun cannot be carried around unless on the way to the shooting venue and by law they have to be kept in a safe.
https://belegal.com/questions/showQuest … -in-Spain-
Why is it so easy to obtain a gun over there, though? Don't they understand that if a mentally weak/unstable person gets access to these weapons, it will be mayhem?
I don't think anyone is calling for guns to be taken away from people. A bill has passed the house almost 2 years ago that calls for universal background checks but cannot get past the Senate. There's no reason for this other than too many of our politicians are in the pocket of the NRA.
Rupert, its a pity that this mass shooting is very regular. On a second note, I submit prayer do works. The thing is that at the moment the guy is about to strike, no one is on their knee praying agaist gun violence. But if America, will pray dai5y or weekjy to God against that happening again, they'll be a respite.
Some form of action is needed to make guns more difficult to access for those likely to cause harm. The massacres are becoming more frequent and more deadly.
Then there's all the shootings and killings that aren't so largescale. They are so commonplace, they don't even make the news headlines, but kill more people when they're all added up.
Prayers and comfort in the aftermath is fine, but the main aim should be prevention, to protect the lives of innocent children and others.
John, I believe that having such restrictions on the use and ownership of guns is a good thing.
You may feel fine about that in Europe but I do not feel safe with only the police and criminals able to own guns. Where I live (interior of Brazil) it takes hours for the police to respond (unless it is the weekend, but that is okay but they will be sure to come on Monday if the roads are not too bad). If a criminal does show up and decides to rape your wife and children or steal everything you own, you have to take care of yourself.
If you are too poor to own a way to defend yourself, too bad. Gun control is supported by law enforcement and criminals.
That's a sad situation, Dr Mark. Thank you for bringing this up. After reading your response, I researched about the Gun control in Brazil. According to the information on internet, a person must be at least 25 years old to own a gun. It is illegal to carry a gun outside a residence and that you must have a gun license, which costs R$88,00 and pay a fee every ten years to renew the gun register. According to Wikipedia there are around 17 million firearms in Brazil, 9 million of which are unregistered. Brazil has the second largest arms industry in the Western Hemisphere. Approximately 80% of the weapons manufactured in Brazil are exported, mostly to neighboring countries; many of these weapons are then smuggled back into Brazil. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I believe there should be some limitations, such as how many guns a family can own. Or maybe you can use a gun under such circumstances? As we all know, more than half of the world's population, primarily the young generation, is suffering from various psychological problems. Anxiety disorders are the most common type of mental illness worldwide. I believe that having such easy access to a death tool at home all the time is also dangerous. People who suffer from depression and anxiety, I believe, are extremely sensitive and can be harmful to both others and themselves.
The rules for owning a gun in Pakistan (my home country) are similar to those in Spain, but many people own unlicensed firearms. About 5 years ago, my dad's cousin, who was only 39 years old and suffering from depression, shot himself dead with his own gun at home while drunk in front of his wife and two children. This is also a reason why I believe it is dangerous to have easy access to a gun.
Do you have mobile police stations or security alarm systems in Brazil? We have them in Spain and Pakistan..
I am not sure who invented that number but it is horribly incorrect, the actual fee is about 100 times that which makes legal gun ownership out of the hands of the working poor.
It is by no means out of the hands drug dealers and kidnapping gangs.
In areas like the favelas (slums) it is much worse than I described since if you call for the police they will never show up. The drug dealers do not allow the police to enter their neighborhoods and since they are all armed with submachine guns the police obey their orders.
There are some mobile police stations in areas of cities like Rio, mainy for US and European tourists. They are not there to help the poor citizens that need access to a means of protection.
Dr Mark, I'm very sorry to hear that. That is, certainly, a sad scenario. Citizens, in my opinion, should be protected as it is a fundamental human right. The information you provided regarding drug dealers is equally horrifying; it seems like criminals are more powerful than the law and authorities.
There have always been, and always will be those mentally challenged individuals, so there is no legislative cure for that. The most scary part in all that being, that many psychotics are otherwise acting pretty normally, even quite intelligently, all until they snap and do their horrible act.
It most certainly takes a twisted mind to kill innocent children, there is no political or religious fanaticism behind it.
More of the standard rightwing whining and BS, I see.
The idea of turning all schools and school grounds into armed camps with teachers strapped with pistols and armed guards with assualt weapons, as a typically conservative a solution, is quite inane. If we do it for the schools, we better do it for the post offices, libraries, churches, etc.
Under such a scenario, there would probably be a greater aggregate of fatalities due to accidents, etc, then all the periodic massacre type assaults combined. The idea that these educators/school teachers will be gunslinging Wyatt Earp types who can prepare themselves instantly against an assailant who has the advantage of surprise and heavy weaponry is a fantasy. The "good gun, bad gun" analogy is just more BS to entertain the feeble minded.
Then we have the cowards, Abbott and Cruz talking about God and prayers, instead of practical solutions.
Conservatives in their nervous fears and insecurities feel that everyone want to take their precious guns. Well, it is just a fantasy, as there are more guns in America then people, so such a possibility is remote from any standpoint.
They talk about containing the mentally ill. Well here is the other part of the fantasy, without background checks it is difficult to identify these people before they can buy a gun. A retrograde state like Texas that make it easier to buy a gun then to buy a chocolate malt, should recognize and comes to terms with this. Thank God, that I wisely decided not to settle there.
I say, in keeping with the 2nd Amendment, you all can have your guns. But, in compromise with the Left, which will be necessary as we will be harboring a grudge with the Right over this and other issues this fall, background checks and waiting periods should be required. How do you determine a person who wants a weapon to be mentally Sound without one? If you are serious about addressing mental illness as being the solution and you want to go beyond mere mumbo-jumbo, a tangible remedy must be employed.
Prayers are great for making those who are doing the praying feel better. Especially with around 30% of the country unaffiliated to any religion.
Some measure of action to prevent this from happening to any other family would likely be a more profound gift.
What would those measures be? Are they something new or something that has been tried before and failed?
For civilian body armor purchase, yearly mental health check ins by members of the ATF would be a starting spot. Like Credence noted, no problem owning it, but like guns, we need to identify the whack jobs more often.
I also believe in age restrictions on gun purchases. We don't let people drink alcohol or even rent cars until certain ages. If someone is 18 and really wants that experience, they still have the option to join the military. Heck, that would be a great recruiting tool for our armed services. Want the good weapons, come serve. They get expert, supervised training on how to be responsible gun owners. Win-win.
Background checks seem acceptable to the majority of Americans.
Lastly, prosecute illegal carry laws in major cities. Get more aggressive with hiring and flood the streets and amp up identification and prosecution. Send a message like NYC did to make their city more safe pre-2000. Gun violence is not just a mass shooter issue as the right always points out.
Start there and see if they make a dent.
"yearly mental health check ins by members of the ATF"
If only the government could be trusted. Doing this would be used as a tool to crush political opposition. The IRS has been used to do this many times. Who is going to give the members of the ATF yearly mental health checks?
Yes, 18-year-olds being able to operate some of the deadliest firearms on the planet in the military proves age doesn't matter. There are many responsible gun owners who are 18 years old.
There are background checks required to purchase a firearm today. You ever purchase one? Living in New York to purchase a gun you must
Be 21 or older;
Have a license to carry or own a handgun; and
Have a background check performed by a licensed firearms dealer.
So, background checks don't seem to stop anything.
"prosecute illegal carry laws in major cities. Get more aggressive with hiring and flood the streets and amp up identification and prosecution."
I completely agree with you. I would add that there should be extra effort to enforce the gun laws currently on the books. Chicago has some very restrictive gun laws, they don't enforce.
I also wonder how to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. Guns that are stolen, smuggled into the United States, etc. Background checks, gun bans, etc. don't work with people who don't pay attention to the laws.
My point was that if you choose to own the body armor, make it yearly to have ATF check in with those people to look for mental health red flags. Like I noted, it's a small change that doesn't impact 2nd Amendment rights because we're talking about the body armor and not the guns.
And no, being 18 and operating deadly firearms in the military does not prove what you think it proves. The reason being that those 18 year-olds get massive safety training and are supervised by older, more experienced soldiers for years of operating that weaponry. Joe Schmo 18-year old bullied computer geek won't have the same level of expertise or respect for a weapon as a trained solider. Having served, I'm shocked you'd even put those two things on the same level.
Again, your info is a little off. You have to be 21 to purchase a license for a handgun, but no license is needed for a shotgun or rifle. So that age is 18 to buy those weapons.
I believe in the right to own guns and protect yourself and others.
Even my pastor is a concealed carry gun holder.
It's sad that life is this way, but each person has a right to defend themselves.
But there are so many bad loop holes...like when local police go to a home with a warrant for one thing, such as drugs...they cannot investigate another ...even if they actually see a gun they can do nothing because the warrant does not specify that item.
So we need to untie the hands of law enforcement. Make it easier for them to stop guns in the wrong hands.
No reliable gun owner has a problem with waiting periods or background checks. We'll even take classes if need be.
All common sense. Nothing too controversial in there and something for both sides.
I agree with your comment about making it easier to stop guns reaching the wrong hands. Background checks, training, and perhaps rules about what gun types can be bought would be good as well. Perhaps the stage when people don't feel the need for a personal gun will eventually be reached, but it seems that in some areas this is going to take a long time.
My fear is that no changes will be made to the gun situation and that once the news about the current tragedy has faded, another tragic event will happen.
All I know is that something has to change. These mass shootings are becoming all too regular. So sad, and also maddening.
Sorry, K2khan but prayers don't seem to be helping much.
We should not put all of the blame on prayers, but I agree that action is also required. Prayers and actions must go hand in hand.
God has never asked us to simply pray and relax. The following Hadith (words of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) ) explains it very well.
“Whosoever of you sees an evil action, he must change it with his hand.(by force) If he is not able to do so, then (he must change it) with his tongue. (By speech) If he is not able to do so then he must know it is evil within his heart and this is the weakest (manifestation) of faith.”
[Muslim – Kitab Al-Iman (Book on Faith), hadith 49/78]
I like your first paragraph. I’ve seen similar suggestions from some Christians. First people pray, then they act. The prayer provides spiritual help or psychological support, depending on a person's beliefs, and the person provides the action that’s needed to help the situation.
You are making some good points, Valeant.
Thanks, buddy. Weird how they sound so simple, and then you've got a GOP Senate who won't even allow debate on any changes.
Sad to note that the Senate will ignore or refuse debate to change gun control.
I really need to know how the second amendment covers this sort of nonsense.
Add this to the hypocritical stance file:
To those in the general public screaming “Arm the teachers! Give the teachers guns!”…let me get this straight…
You don’t trust us to teach our content - there are so many bills going to state legislatures undermining the expertise teachers bring to the field. We need to publish a year’s worth of lesson plans because you don’t believe we’re actually teaching, right?
You don’t trust us when we say your student is the reason they’re failing when they are skipping class, aren’t submitting assignments, are playing both sides of the field and are dropping the ball, but it must be the teacher’s fault, right?
You don’t trust us to hold your student accountable for their behavior, standing firm on commitments and expectations, because it’s the teacher asking too much, right?
You don’t trust us to discipline students when they act out or abuse the system, because they’re precious little angels, and we’re the problem, right?
But you’ll trust us, no…EXPECT us to take a bullet for them when the system - when, at this point, not if - fails them.
And NOW you’re saying you trust us, trust me, to add firearm safety and defensive firearm training to my plate? You don’t trust me to execute a lesson plan but you’ll trust me to execute an intruder?
Incredible teachers are leaving the field every day. Phenomenal teachers are barely hanging on as they go through our day to day. Accredited programs and universities all over the country are closing their education programs because no one is enrolling.
When your kids, or grandkids, nieces, and nephews are being taught by actual undertrained people who are the only option to hire, will that make you happy? I mean…at least they’ll have guns…right?
And today's funny post on the political hypocrisy in the United States:
https://www.tiktok.com/@jarretberenstei … _webapp=v1
He said it well: "Banning only works when it's something I don't like". Books or guns, Big gulp or abortion, alcohol or marijuana - it only works when it's something I don't like.
Unsaid but plain; if it's something I don't like then it should be banned.
Oh I got the point all right. I just turned the same thought the other direction.
Like I said, you missed it, badly. Simply about the belief that bans work or don't. Only one party is flip-flopping like a fish out of water on that belief.
LOLOLOLOL Out of all the possible answers to school shootings liberals support just one. One that they have worked on for decades while watching the death toll rise, one that they now wish to push again. While we again watch the death toll rise.
To disarm America. That's it - ban guns from Americans.
Oh well, at least they don't flip flop - they're consistent in their failure. If it doesn't work do it again, hoping for a different result. What is the short term for that concept again?
Solid attempted deflection from the fact that you missed the point of the humor.
As to your major falsehood about liberals supporting just one possibility to stop children from dying, that's such a far-fetched lie it's time to move on and deal with posts that deal in reality.
Really? What else have liberals proposed? Armed guards in schools? Fortifying schools to whatever is necessary? Arming teachers?
As far as I have heard not one of those are considered by liberals; all are just beyond comprehension that anyone would even mention such evils, let alone propose we do them. What about you - what have you heard liberals seriously proposing that does not involve keeping guns away from people?
Do you really not know any of the other proposals currently already in the Senate?
It's so hard to have a conversation with you when you are this uninformed on a topic such as this. Not even worth it. Go do some research and come back so you have some idea of the other things liberals have put forth. I'm not your teacher.
The whole idea is that we need to identify the people that guns are to be kept away from or with good police work identify at risk perpetrators that already have them.
There have been plenty of proposals here that did not speak of confiscating guns. They would make sense to any reasonable person except those that expect to buy an AK over the counter at WALGREENS as easily as I buy my toothpaste.
I tell you now that teachers by an overwhelming majority do not want to be security guards and it is outside their job description. Fortifying schools as an idea is to be in adjunct to getting control on process of keeping weapons away from those not legally allowed to possess one.
In the wake of this carnage, all proposals need to be considered. Just how much more blood need to to be spilt why so many of you remain intractable to any sort of adjustment, saying that none of it will work. You are willing to try all the ideas from the conservatives not knowing if they will work.
I can see 1 armed guard in a school, but turning it into a fortress is not going to solve anything but make it more dangerous for everyone.
Well, Wilderness, as if you have not noticed, in the face of the recent bloodbaths, sometimes it is necessary to keep guns away from certain people. But asking you to use to see a subtle nuance, it does not mean all the liberals are trying to take your guns away.
I think it is time for the United States to outlaw firearms in residential areas. Guns do not provide protection; rather, they provide criminals with the ability to utilize them to carry out their terrible intentions. It is my opinion.
It is your opinion, but is it a well researched one, based on facts, statistics, etc. or just a gut feeling?
One is useful to make changes, the other useful only for controlling others to satisfy feelings without need for results.
There is also the small question of just how to remove guns from the hands of those criminals; laws have never succeeded in stopping a determined criminal from doing what they want.
Wilderness, very well put. You mean once a person is empowed by the law to own a gun, it become hard to take it away by the same law in the USA? I found that very odd.
Are drugs illegal in the US? Yes, of course. Then doesn't that mean that no one has those illegal drugs? No, of course not; tens of thousands of criminals do.
Law abiding people will abide by the law and not own a banned gun. Criminals don't care what the law says and will do as they wish.
The end result is that you have taken the means of defense from the law abiding people that would never kill anyone and left the criminals that DO kill with their weapons.
Something like that in your last parag applis to Nigeria, my country years ago. On the coming again of democracy, with retired military general Olusegun Obasanjo as president, the police ask every law abiding person owning guns to sorrender their weapons. Critically, it seems those with a criminal bent, don't hand over, or they went to acquire the more deadly. AK-47s! It's then that the police realised that the criminals has better guns than they riffles. The trend still persists especially in the Northern parts of the country, where the Army, is now battlng those out law elements.
My experience in the UK is different to Miebakagh’s in Nigeria in that in Britain neither criminals nor police generally carry deadly weapons; so ‘law abiding people’ (who are unarmed) are much safer in our homes and streets. In fact, to use excessive force to defend yourself in Britain is a criminal offence e.g. shooting an intruder in your home in Britain is likely to end up with you being prosecuted for murder, and the jury is likely to find you guilty.
Ah, the law! Is a mysterious thing. Seems only to protect, the criminals and the unlawful. Ah, those who make the law, are criminal bent. The lawful are not even safe in their house, Nor in a Castle, or market shed. A criminal can walk into a Castle anytime with a hand gun. Your life or your money? Making the law an ass hole!
Yep the ‘law’; sometimes the law is an ass, but in this respect e.g. that one should use reasonable force only in self-defence, as a Brit, I think (for Britain) the law is right.
Under British law self-defence and the prevention of crime originates from a number of different sources:-
• Defence of the person is governed by the common law. Common law being unwritten laws (supported by the courts) e.g. traditions and common practices who’s origin is not always known because that’s the way it always has been, accepted traditions that can sometimes date back over a 1,000 years.
• Defence of property however, is governed by the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
• Arrest and the prevention of crime are governed by the Criminal Law Act 1967.
One example of a rather bizarre Common Law in England was ‘Market Overt’ (Marché Ouvert) which was common law dating back to medieval times whereby if you bought goods in ‘good faith’ in an open air market in England during the hours of daylight then you would automatically have legal ownership of the goods, even if it later transpired that those goods were stolen! That law was abolished in English law in 1995, but it still applies in Hong Kong and British Columbia?
The most famous case of a home owner being found guilty of murder and imprisoned in Britain is that of a farmer who in 1999 using an illegal firearm shot and killed a 16 year old intruder – as outlined in the video below:-
In bringing the verdict the jury had three options:-
* Not Guilty
* Man slaughter, or
Obviously it was highly unlikely the jury would find him not guilty, but of the other two choices the jury decided on a majority of 10 to 2 that Tony Martin was guilty of murder.
Tony Martin Shot Two Burglars Killing One at His Remote Farm Bleak House https://youtu.be/kjMqq8xVkus
In Nigeria, if you bought a stolen property, its still yours whether you know it as stollen or not. Even a theif had the right to the stollen items before the law until proven otherwise. But that part of the law that enforce self-defence is as the British system. Nigerians laws and status were framed after the British system. Nigeria, was a former British colony. 'Ah the law, is a terrible thing. 'With two outstretch arms, 'knight Sword in one, and a balance in the other. 'And eyes scarfed with a thick cloth, 'To do justice to him that come with a clean hands? 'But found him guilty!'
Burglars caught in the act
Well, In only knowing the details, as presented in your link, that's certainly a foreign concept to me: You can keep it.
GA, then can you tell us how Americans can view it in a Federal or State sense? Or both? You even sound a little poetic, come on. GA tell us.
I can tell you how this American views this example.
A criminal made a choice to invade another person's home with the intent to steal something.
The owner gets to make the same choice to stop the invasion and theft.
No law should demand that the owner stand back and let it happen. It's as easy as that to this American.
Federal and state views on this vary, for specifics just Google the ones that interest you.
I am very thankful I live in Florida and have a right to Defend my home and my property.
I am very thankful I live in a County where the Sheriff's office encourages its community to own guns and protect themselves and their homes.
The Florida Stand Your Ground law is based on the “castle doctrine.” The idea is that an individual who is legally occupying a place (i.e. their home or car) has the right to use force if faced by an intruder/threat in order to protect themselves.
Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law aims to protect individuals who discharge a firearm or otherwise harm another individual in their attempt to protect themselves when they believe they are under threat. Under the law, there is no duty to retreat.
Before the law was enacted, when a person was under threat and afraid for their life, they had to take reasonable measures to remove themselves from the situation. This is called a “duty to retreat.” If the threat didn’t abate after that, then they could use force if necessary to protect themselves.
By removing the duty to retreat, the Florida Stand Your Ground law aims to make it easier for Florida residents to protect themselves and their families.
I have trained my family, my wife and one of my sons, on how to properly use a handgun, I have taken them to the range on several occasions, they each have a pistol they are familiar with.
I have alarms, cameras and motion sensor lights around the property. Anyone invading my home will be caught on camera, will set off an alarm (verbal notification when at home, to the security company when we are away which contacts the police if I do not answer their call).
I do not rely on weapons alone for safety and protection of my family and property, but I have no interest in leaving it up to others to protect me or my family.
Ken, thank you.
Wow, all that sounds rather excessive to me; over kill!!!!
Firstly, I don’t know how to use a gun, nobody I know knows how to use a gun, and in Britain criminals (including burglars) do NOT carry guns – You can keep your guns, as a Brit I feel much safer without one.
I don’t have any alarms or motion sensor cameras on my home; and none of my family or friends to either – we feel secure enough without them; it’s not as if such crime levels (burglaries) are that high, and mostly they are opportunists, so it doesn’t take much to deter them.
However, security lights are more popular in Britain, they tend to be deterrent enough in most cases; and most people I know (including myself) do have security lights; albeit the prime reason we’ve got security lights is so that our front drive lights up when we come home in the dark e.g. so that we can see to open the front door; and at the back it lights up our back garden when during nigh time we nip down to our food store at the end of the garden for supplies!
Your make American sound a far more dangerous place to live than Britain – Is it really that unsafe and dangerous in America that you have to defend yourselves with guns, or is it that Americans are more fearful and or paranoid about the dangers?
It is basically the same in Australia. Most burglars don’t carry weapons, i have never owned a gun, and only ever had one break-in in my life where they stole car keys and ultimately our car.
The only security we have is sensor lighting, and have never felt in danger. If I ever needed to use a weapon in self-defense I have golf clubs at the front and back doors. But we have similar ‘reasonable force’ laws as Britain.
Basically the only deaths by shooting here is between crime gang members shooting each other, very rarely does it involve normal citizens.
Well lets look at our experiences shall we?
I've travelled the world a bit, I've seen former highly civilized areas turned into warzones.
I've seen what organized crime can do to families here in America that become a target of their ire.
I've seen meth junkies that required an entourage of police to take down because they had lost their minds and gone on a violent crime spree of theft and murder.
Yes, you live on an island so its not like you have to worry about Mexican drug cartels moving into your neighborhood.
Yes, your country has one of the strongest, stable economies in the world, and its not likely you have to worry about civil unrest taking hold of the UK or desperation making crime a matter of survival.
You don't have tens of millions of immigrants crossing your southern border, and while the majority of those people are decent human beings looking for a better life, some of them are the most depraved individuals from the most inhumane parts of the world.
Yes, you could almost say you live on an island, in safety of a strong economy and stable society, which has been that way for so long you don't believe there is any threat to it... or you.
I know the world better than that... I don't walk around in a haze of self delusion.
Well Ken, I suppose you’re going to argue that Australia is in the same boat as Britain because Australians live on an island? See the comment made by Jodah above.
We might live on an Island, with a strong economy and stable society; as you say. But what is true for Britain is largely true for the EU too e.g. you don’t see the gun violence in the EU, and with the exception of Sweden, nor do you see the level of gun ownership in the EU that you see in the USA – and even then Sweden is a far more peaceful and less violent nation than the USA.
Until recent decades the mafia ruled Italy, and in 2015 Europe had a mass migration of over 1 million refugees because of the Syrian war. And in Britain we had a civil war in Northern Ireland (The Troubles) from 1968 to 1998, which spilled over into mainland Britain; with a loss of life of over 3,500 people during the 30 years of terrorism.
We may not get civil unrest in Britain, but like the rest of Europe we get our fair share of riots in Britain; far more than you get in the USA – especially in places like Bristol (where I live). Demonstrations and protests occur all the time, and too numerous to count; but actual riots, we’ve had 11 in Bristol since 1793, 5 in my life time – the last one being the “Kill the Bill” protests in March 2021, where my fellow Bristolians stormed the police station and burned several police vans.
'Kill the bill' protest in Bristol, England: police vans set alight and officers injured https://youtu.be/vl7zVmo_n9Y
And don’t forget the poll tax riots that swept across Britain in 1990, which resulted in the poll tax being abolished and Margaret Thatcher (then Conservative Prime Minister) resigning.
When you say you have tens of millions of immigrants crossing your southern borders; that’s not in one year; that’s more like over ten years e.g. you had 1.66 million migrants in 2021, compared to 200,000 entering the EU, and about 28,300 into Britain.
So we don’t live in an ideal world, but in Britain, Australia and the EU, things are far more peaceful and seemingly safer on this side of the pond than in the USA; and that I think is in part due to the difference in laws and a different in attitude towards gun violence and violence in general.
I will give you Britain and Australia, and one part of that as noted is because you are island nations.
EU on the other hand I had proven had serious issues in another post and provided many links to the more recent massacres.
Also as you noted the Swiss have plenty of weapons and have no issues with them, so there is that, it isn't the weapons or access to them that is the problem, it is something else.
So to the point of your original statement that you inferred it ludicrous that I go to such lengths of protection.
I DO live in a country that has a lot of weapons, I DO live in a country that has a lot of crime, drug abuse, that is inundated with millions of migrants every year, some of them far more violent and dangerous than you could imagine because they hail from violent, dangerous parts of the world.
One other thing while I'm thinking about it, I wonder how you want to quantify Ukraine?
It's a dangerous world out there, not all of us are lucky enough to live on an island in the safety of a stable society/economy.
The Swiss have a gun culture, but they also have a training culture. We have a gun culture without the necessary training on how to be a responsible gun owner.
It'd be like if we just handed car keys to kids without ever letting them practice with someone who knew how to drive. That'd be pretty dumb. People who cannot prove they are good enough to drive do not get a license.
Too bad we do not have the same standards for something so lethal as guns. Our gun culture is completely irresponsible in so many ways. That's something we can easily change.
If this is true why is the liberal thrust always to take away weapons rather than require that owners be trained?
It's not, it's just your latest, and stubbornly repetitive, inaccurate perception of what liberals 'always' want. Again, go look at what liberals have proposed. Educate yourself so you don't sound so foolish.
And then when you've done that, maybe debate the merits of the suggestion instead of deflecting to your own misguided perceptions.
Why? You'll just claim that anything you don't like is wrong.
You know as well as I do that some liberals have made it known that they want ALL guns gone. You also know that liberals have tried for decades to limit the number of guns in society, and have done it without end. You know that some cities have declared that guns are illegal there - the courts shut that down, but they tried, and that's the point.
In my view, liberals easily forget that America and Americans are individualistic. Collectivism is not in many Americans' nature.=, especially citizens of Conservative nature.
In my view, Liberals seem to suffer from some sort of denial. They find it acceptable to deny the fact that people use guns to kill, but it’s not the gun.
(I have used the word liberal, to denote not all liberals, but some)
And there is a nice confession. That many conservatives in this country only think of themselves, the individual. Then claim to be these great patriots. Selfishness is the farthest thing from patriotism.
It's not denial to believe that there are many citizens who should not have access to guns. It's already a standard. Liberals are all for responsible gun ownership for home protection. But the current setup of our laws leads to irresponsible ownership and allowing access to anyone who wants a gun to have it. Even those who want to kill for the sake of killing. That's just stupidity.
Your last paragraph and sentense has the key to gun control and responsible ownership.
Anyone reading my comment should be smart enough to read the comment I was responding to. Here is the comment and my response.
"If this is true why is the liberal thrust always to take away weapons rather than require that owners be trained?
In my view, liberals easily forget that America and Americans are individualistic. Collectivism is not in many Americans' nature.=, especially citizens of Conservative nature.
In my view, Liberals seem to suffer from some sort of denial.
They find it acceptable to deny the fact that people use guns to kill, but it’s not the gun.
(I have used the word liberal, to denote not all liberals, but some)
I was clearly answering Wildrnesses question, offering my view, of why I feel why liberals may feel it better to take away guns than train gun owners. Sharing what I feel is a common mindset I personally feel liberals possess.
I truly feel liberals have a very hard time with individualism. I see many having a hard time comprehending anyone's views but their
I shared my view, as you did in your comment. Which you have the right to. You may not like my view, but it is what I believe.
Not sure what you mean by a "confession"/ I answered a question with my own personal view.
We both expressed our opinions of what we believe are faults of either liberals or conservatives. Not sure we need to say much else here.
For once I am in complete agreement with you.
Did you know decades ago they actually had rifle marksmanship classes in some high schools?
Not everyone should have a weapon, not everyone wants a weapon, but those who do should be well trained to use whatever it is they own.
"We have a gun culture without the necessary training on how to be a responsible gun owner. "
You are absolutely correct. At the gun shop I use they offer over 30 different gun courses. There are a few strongly recommended to people who purchase guns no matter what skill level.
Too many times people of all ages purchase a gun without knowing how to take it apart, clean it, and put it back together. They don't know basic maintenance. Most people don't know how to site a rifle or gun. They don't know how to safely clear gun jam. This lack of knowledge is a recipe for a bad accident. They don't even know their state's laws when it comes to storing their gun, etc.
People can purchase a gun at the gun shop and then go through the classes to learn about the gun they just bought. When they're finished is when they can be considered a responsible gun owner.
The problem is that gun classes teach how to keep the gun in good repair, safe operating practices, marksmanship, perhaps safe storage, etc.
They do not teach people not to intentionally go out and shoot other people. That remains the domain of the psychiatrist, yet it is the one thing that might help our violence problem.
Please elaborate Ken, on your accretion that the WU had serious issues, and massacres? The UK my no longer be part of the EU, but we are on its doorstep (Britain and France are only separated by 20 miles of sea); and for the past almost 30 years we’ve spent a lot of time in northern Europe, touring it on holiday annually, plus day trips. So without further details I don’t see the picture you’re trying to paint?
Valeant has picked up on your point about Sweden; and as stated above it’s not just gun ownership but also a fundamental difference in gun culture, plus other variables that you’re referring to.
I didn’t say or mean to infer that it is ludicrous for you to go to such lengths of protection; I was questioning whether America is such a dangerous place to live – And you seem to be answering in the affirmative!
As you say, to quote “I DO live in a country that has a lot of weapons,….”; and you go on to list other dangers which to varying degrees is common worldwide, including the UK and the EU – but surly one of the main factors is that you “do live in a country that has a lot of weapons” – Perhaps a good reason to start thinking about tightening gun controls in the USA?
Yeah, I know it’s a dangerous world out there, having lived through 30 years of the civil war in Northern Ireland, plus all the riots we get in Britain, I’ve had a little taste of it first hand; but for all that I don’t live in fear, and make my home a fortress, and arm myself to the teeth, like many Americans do – it’s secure enough where I live that security lights are more than enough deterrent, and I don’t have any weapons, and feel all the more safe for it.
Ukraine is under invasion from Russia, what do you expect me to think about that?
Friend, as regarding your last paragraph, just go for a cup of coffee expresso or black tea, if that suits you.
Good idea Miebakagh; I don’t like tea, and I drink coffee the British way with milk, my favourite being either coffee made with 100% milk (no water) or cappuccino – no sugar.
I don't know that Americans view it that way. I think there are an awful lot of Americans that would require that you leave by the back door and let the thief do as they will. And if police DO arrive they must do nothing at all that will endanger the thief.
Wilderness,.I'm wondering. Would you explain more.
Some of those Americans you speak of would see your comment as sarcasm. I don't.
GA, is that how you Americans are Policing your country? Is that how you Americans should Police the world, making it a sarcasm scenario? That, remind me of something that smells awful, when you Americans drop Small Boy and Big Boy, 2,000 feet above the air that destroy Horishina and Nagasaki, Edit: you're excepting yourself. Good, but you as an America still has duty.
Theorizing that 'an awful lot of Americans' actually believe something so ridiculous seems to be par for the course with today's far-right who have no idea what people truly believe.
You made me work to go find that exchange to get its context, so you get to see some cut & paste.
That you think the idea that conservatives, even [C]onservatives, would think that is what I would call ridiculous. Then you compound that by tagging it to "today's far-right who have no idea . . ."
You folks that give us that "ridiculous" idea tell us, every time, that this is what you truly believe.
Please, go ahead and quote the 'awful lot of Americans' who think that they do not have the right to defend their homes. That you can defend something so stupid loses you much credibility.
No worries, I can go to Walmart and buy some more.
I agree, and on the way out offer the thug coffee and doughnuts. And tell them to leave some for the officers that will slow roll, and come in after they have collected what they had hoped to find.
I found this very ridicruous! Theives came to steal and the victim not only let them do as pleased, but fete them with do nuts and creamy hot coffee? Omg!
Yeah, British culture and attitudes are different to the way Americans think and their culture; and just as you (as an American) prefer the American way, then I (as a Brit) prefer the British way – each to his own.
However, for clarity, British law does NOT “demand that the owner stand back and let it happen”, British law is quite specific in your right to use ‘reasonable force’, but is quite clear that excessive force is NOT reasonable – using a gun on unarmed burglars is excessive force.
I don’t know about American society but in Britain most (almost all) burglars are unarmed, and if interrupted during the burglary almost invariably tend to flee rather than fight e.g. most burglars in Britain are opportunists, and are just as scared of you, or of getting caught, than you are of them!
Thank you for that part explaining excessive or unreasonble force.
Does British law categorize "reasonable" force by the capabilities of the victim? Would the frail grandmother's allowable reasonable force be different from the Special Ops soldier's? Could she use her cane legally? Could the special Ops soldier also use a cane when it could be a deadly force in his hands?
Under British Law:-
Generally the more extreme the threat, the more force you can lawfully use.
There’s no specific definition of ‘reasonable force’ - it depends on the circumstances. If you only did what you honestly thought was necessary at the time, this would provide strong evidence that you acted within the law. https://www.gov.uk/reasonable-force-against-intruders
Ultimately it’s for the court to decide e.g. your fate would be in the hands of your fellow juniors. The questions they are likely to be asked by the judge in order for the jury to determine whether you acted in self-defence would include:-
• Was there a need for you to use force in self-defence?
• What was their size/build compared to yours?
• When did you stop using force?
• Was the force you used malicious?
Under British Law; if your action was over the top given the circumstances this could be deemed as ‘grossly disproportionate force.’ Also if you continue to use force when you’re no longer in danger (e.g. kicking or punching someone who is unconscious, or running after them with the intent to cause harm), then you are no longer acting in self-defence. You could face prosecution yourself if it can be proven that your actions were malicious or a calculated act of revenge.
Under British Law; your aim should be trying to remove the danger and bring things to a safe conclusion.
For example: In R v Lindsay in 2005, the defendant, who picked up a sword in self-defence when attacked in his home by three masked intruders armed with loaded handguns, killed one of them by slashing him repeatedly. The prosecution case was that, although he had initially acted in self-defence, he had then lost his self-control and demonstrated a clear intent to kill the armed intruder. And on Appeal of his conviction for using excessive force with a sword to kill an armed intruder (who had a hand gun), the Court of Appeal confirmed an eight-year term of imprisonment for manslaughter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defe … nglish_law
Thanks, that example is also nuts. 3 assailants with guns against one guy with a sword . . . and you guys determined he overreacted. That's not how I would see it.
Its probably unthinkable. I've heard things along these lines while studing administrative laws, so as to be induct into the Administrative Officers Class cadre. We laugh at these law 'nuts'. @Nathanvilli(Authur): Were these sound natural reasonings that can be aptly consider as inalienable and natural justice? In Nigeria, which has the same common law and status based on colonial experience, such cases of murder or maslaughter can be easily taken out of the courts system and the trial disposed off by family elders, if it happen that both parties, defedant and prosecutors wants it.
Yep I know GA Anderson; two different cultures, two different attitudes.
It wasn’t the fact that one guy with a sword took on three guys, each with guns, and won the fight by killing one and scaring the other two away; it was the fact that he’d continued slashing at one of the assailants rather than stopping as soon as the assailant had been rendered harmless.
If in self-defence he’d killed the assailant with just one or two strikes of the sword, then it would have been self-defence – no prosecution; but it’s the fact that he continued slashing at the intruder long after the intruder had been rendered harmless that (under British Law) makes it manslaughter; and potentially murder.
No doubt you’ve seen the video where in Britain a granny uses her handbag to successfully attacked three robbers who were armed with sledge hammers; and in this case she’s a hero because she didn’t use excessive force. If you haven’t seen the video, here it is again; and it’s a good laugh to watch: https://youtu.be/ySBxMMidbEg
In seeing the video above, there is no way I can imagine anything similar happening in America; in America it would be far more violent, with possible loss of lives.
I understand that the details add an important perspective. Your details paint a picture I probably wouldn't argue with, but I do argue with your adaptation of the concept.
Your earlier note of the guy with the shotgun is a better example of my perspective. In my experience, shotgun birdshot is a non-lethal load, so if that was used then I don't see the intent as excessive.
Shooting in 'a direction' in a dark room is dumb and reckless, but coming from a frightened, (or angry), homeowner is not excessive to me. Yet the construction of your law allows it to be accepted as murder.
It could happen in the U.S. too, but it would be hard to disprove legitimate self-defense unless there is a hacked-apart body or a shot in the back from 50 yards-type details.
GA Anderson; I guess it’s ‘degrees’; in Britain we have less ‘tolerance’ for what we consider excessive force than you have in the USA e.g. the farmer had an illegal gun (automatic 5 year minimum prison sentence under UK Law), and he didn’t fire just once, but three times, once when the burglars were at the bottom of the stairs hitting the 16 year old in the legs, and twice when they were trying to escape through a window, hitting the other in the leg and the 16 year old burglar in the back (the fatal shot).
Bird shot or not, it’s still a lethal weapon (as proven by the fact that it killed the 16 year old); and the fact that he fired three times, twice when they were fleeing, is excessive. To shoot someone in the back when they are fleeing is NOT self-defence.
Weapons possession offences are taken extremely seriously under UK law and often carry a prison sentence. And quite rightly so in my opinion, as it helps to make Britain a much safer place.
UK law recognises three categories of offensive weapon:
1: Objects made to use for causing injury to a person e.g. knives, pepper sprays, knuckle dusters and nunchucks etc.
2: Objects adapted for such a purpose, i.e. to cause injury to a person. This includes items that would otherwise be incapable of causing injury but have been changed so that they now can e.g. a sock containing a snooker ball, a sharpened stick or a sharpened snooker cue, or a water pistol filled with acid etc.
3: Objects not made or adapted but are carried with the intention of causing injury to a person e.g. a cup of bleach carried with the intent of throwing it into someone’s face to cause injury, sharpened nail scissors or a baseball bat, screwdriver or hammer etc.
In 1 & 2 above, just being in possession of such weapons is an automatic offence that carries a prison sentence; the prosecution does not have to prove intent. For item 3 above, the prosecution does have to prove ‘intent’.
Yes Miebakagh, I’ve heard of the system in some countries whereby families can decide the fate of the defendant e.g. settling up with financial payment to the aggrieved family etc. rather than it being dealt with by the courts. I would feel uncomfortable with such a system, but if it suits the people of Nigeria then I guess it’s a system that works to your satisfaction!
Is that just a blanket outlawing of guns?
No one is allowed to own a gun?
What is the punishment going to be for the roughly 100 million Americans or so that refuse to turn in their weapons?
This would have to come from the Federal level, what do you think should be done to the States that refuse to make them illegal?
There were States that fought the lockdowns, fought the mandates to be vaccinated or lose your job, I imagine for some states you would have to force this upon them, literally, through military occupation and seizure from house to house.
I'm having trouble with notifications for this one.
It tells me I have one...but doesn't take me to the new one
I have the same problem when the comments become deeply buried in the layers in the sub levels; I just have to keep a mental note of where the top levels are and then drill down to the required sub-levels. I bit of a pain at times, but I've got used to it.
Its a pain trying to sort through them.
I use chronological order instead of threaded, all the responses and replies are on one level—sorted by most recent. It sounds like you are using threaded order.
Thanks for the tip, it seems quite cool, and potentially useful at time; although in comparing the two I prefer the threaded order when it works, switching to chronological when posts are deeply buried may well prove useful.
When Christopher Columbus discover America, guns was not well known by the primitive local aboridgins. The weapons the locals mostly used were knives, bows, and arrows. Critically, the gun powder was late in coming with the unwanted criminals from Europe. Now, America has more guns than any other country, that is a threat to her citizens. Seriously, guns in America, or any other country is not an issue. The people are. The laws of the land is a militating factor likewise. To attemp to visit and amend the law to present reality, for example, does not make much sense to most people, say in America. Is the saying those who live by the gun dies by the gun now true? No. It's the innocent and children that are dying.
Gun! Gun!! Gun!!! Gbum! So, its part of America culture? Gods own country? I think that front hole, long or short where the hot lead spew out, equates to an ass hole? You Americans that I've come to know and like (many years ago, I was nikname. 'America' are terrific. God save America!
by Mike Russo 5 years ago
Our thoughts and prayers are with you and the victims is not enough to stop these senseless killings.
by Jinet Marte 9 years ago
What is going on in this young people's minds that pushes them to perform such deadly acts of violence? School and mass shootings have become some deadly sort of grim "tradition" in this world. Alarming disposition of today's youth to just decimate other young and adult people. What's...
by JAKE Earthshine 4 years ago
ALARMING Republican Failure of National Security: So what happened to all that 'Law and Order" crap ?? Until the law finally catches up with Mr. Trump, which we pray to God that happens very soon, WHY not get off the personal twitter machine and PAY Attention to critically important issues...
by Susan Holland 9 years ago
Do you believe the horrific school shootings are being used as an excuse for gun control?Are there other factors that should be focused on to help prevent other tragedies? Parenting? Discipline? Positive and negative reinforcement? Mental health care? Is it the guns or the people that...
by ga anderson 11 months ago
Could a 21-year-old minimum-age requirement to buy semi-automatic weapons help stop school shootings?Data says the average age of school shooters is 18. It also says the majority of them passed background checks and purchased their guns legally.Could changing the min. age to 21 reduce the...
by Cindy Vine 6 years ago
Do high school shootings happen as a result of teenagers being bullied and then having enough, drugs, violence on television or are they just psychopathic?
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|