| |
mirabelleswalker
My president has 6-pack abs.
PeaNut 175,521
November 2004
Posts: 11,021
Layouts: 14
Loc: Here today, gone to Morocco.
 |  Posted: 12/28/2012 5:15:36 PM
Apparently Brits lack reading comprehension skills as well. That is not what I said. I was discussing how the US has many differences regarding our population size, demographics, and cultures, not to mention the reasons behind the framework for our government than the UK and that is why what works in the UK for gun control laws will not work here in the US. You went on and on about no your immigrants bring all kinds of the very same situations to your country that we face so you "know all about illegal immigrants" etc. I said they aren't illegal immigrants if they are from another EU country and your country gave up some of its sovereignty to be a part of that organization. You went all crazy at the suggestion that someone outside of your country would think they know better than you about their nation's laws and courts and told me to mind my own business because I don't know what I'm talking about and I said, "ditto- you don't know the laws and courts of MY country so stop preaching that what is right for the UK regarding gun control is simply what the US must do."
I am not British, but as I understand it much of the illegal immigration there is from SE Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. |
|
|
Simply_Lovely
PeaFixture
PeaNut 463,295
April 2010
Posts: 3,444
Layouts: 3
Loc: New York City
 | Posted: 12/28/2012 5:20:03 PM
PEAple -- if you ignore her she might leave the thread!! You say she needs to have the last word and yet you all keep responding!! Let her have the last word, it's not like you'll actually manage to change her mind or educate her on the issues.  |
 
Meow! | |
|
|
dottyscrapper
PeaAddict
PeaNut 311,985
April 2007
Posts: 1,132
Layouts: 0
Loc: UK
 | Posted: 12/28/2012 5:20:37 PM
You went all crazy at the suggestion that someone outside of your country would think they know better than you about their nation's laws and courts and told me to mind my own business because I don't know what I'm talking about and I said, "ditto- you don't know the laws and courts of MY country so stop preaching that what is right for the UK regarding gun control is simply what the US must do."
Wow ! good job you don't teach English......that sentence is one of the longest I've come across.
| |
|
gar
Whoopea!
PeaNut 172,235
October 2004
Posts: 12,675
Layouts: 0
Loc: England UK
| Posted: 12/28/2012 5:38:54 PM
Classy Mrs T! It took longer than usual for your true colours to show this time!
Now please - go ahead and add the last word. You're welcome to it
.................................
|
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen Roberts
| |
|
|
wren*walk
PeaAddict
PeaNut 481,431
September 2010
Posts: 1,822
Layouts: 0
 | Posted: 12/28/2012 5:56:16 PM
So whoever possessed it was committing a felony. But the way your post comes off, you make it sound like they are protected under the 2nd Amendment. They are not. They are illegal, at least in California where this one was turned in. I have no idea if they are legal in any of the other 49 States.
I'm really glad to hear they are illegal somewhere at least.
But the bigger point was that in my opinion, the second ammendment is not without limitations. And for good reason. And believe me, there are people out there who believe it is when it comes to the right to bear arms.
| |
|
momofkandn
PeaAddict
PeaNut 159,041
July 2004
Posts: 1,046
Layouts: 0
Loc: Maryland
| Posted: 12/28/2012 6:17:33 PM
But the bigger point was that in my opinion, the second ammendment is not without limitations. And for good reason. And believe me, there are people out there who believe it is when it comes to the right to bear arms.
And judging from this thread alone, I would say that it is a very small minority that support no limitations to the 2nd amendment. Most people support gun control in some fashion. Disagreements arise when terms like "ban all assault weapons" are thrown out there without specific definitions as to what is meant by an assault weapon. Disagreements also arise when all the blame is placed on the gun and nothing is proposed to prevent the violent tendencies of the person wielding the gun.
I think most people fall somewhere down the middle in this issue. I don't consider the NRA the mouthpiece for all gun owners, just like I don't consider PETA the mouthpiece for all animal rights activists. Both organizations have become extreme in their views and I don't feel they represent the majority of the people at all. | |
|
wren*walk
PeaAddict
PeaNut 481,431
September 2010
Posts: 1,822
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 12/28/2012 6:28:43 PM
Disagreements also arise when all the blame is placed on the gun and nothing is proposed to prevent the violent tendencies of the person wielding the gun.
Because the mental health argument is a red herring. There is no way to predict who will "go off".
There IS a way to control the guns and arms available out there.
| |
|
Nightowl scrapper
Intl Assoc of Epic Length Posters - USA Chapter
PeaNut 103,889
August 2003
Posts: 24,976
Layouts: 0
Loc: Colorado
 | Posted: 12/28/2012 6:32:55 PM
Because the mental health argument is a red herring. There is no way to predict who will "go off".
There IS a way to control the guns and arms available out there.
How do you propose to control the guns and arms available out there? If you can't predict who will 'go off', and don't want to try, how do you keep those people from obtaining guns, while still following the 2nd amendment? |
"Until you put a thought into words, clearly and precisely, it is not a thought at all. It is a kind of fog rolling around inside the skull."
| |
|
|
momofkandn
PeaAddict
PeaNut 159,041
July 2004
Posts: 1,046
Layouts: 0
Loc: Maryland
| Posted: 12/28/2012 6:38:17 PM
There IS a way to control the guns and arms available out there.
Residents of Chicago and DC might disagree with you there. They have the strictest gun laws in the US and still have huge issues with both gun and other types of violence.
What law would have taken the gun out of Lanza's hands? We could make it illegal for someone to own a firearm if they share a residence with someone mentally unstable? We don't know that Lanza was mentally unstable. And even if he was diagnosed with mental illness, who decides that he might be unstable enough to be violent. There are many people out there with mental illness that are not violent. And what if he didn't actually reside with his mother? He still could have gotten the guns from her. So other than banning all guns to everyone, what could have been done? Even banning all guns doesn't make them go away. There are plenty of illegal guns in Chicago and DC.
We can go around and around here and still get nowhere. We all want to take the gun out of Lanza's hands and prevent this tragedy. We do. We also want to get rid of all the illegal guns. But none of us is sure what laws we could enact that would accomplish that. I haven't seen one proposal from either side that I think would work to prevent another tragedy. Including police in every school. Its frustrating. But we just have to keep thinking.
| |
|
dynalady
My soul is fed with needle and thread
PeaNut 25,620
December 2001
Posts: 20,161
Layouts: 49
Loc: Sweet Home Chicago
 | Posted: 12/28/2012 6:44:03 PM
If you can't predict who will 'go off', and don't want to try, how do you keep those people from obtaining guns, while still following the 2nd amendment?
What do you mean by *don't want to try*? People are against even having to register ownership of guns, can you imagine instituting a mandatory psychological test for ownership? Even is it would work, which I doubt, it would never go through.
You do what you can to keep guns and after market products that have no purpose except to kill more people faster out of the hands of civilians. You can argue with the term assault weapons all you want. I don't give a shit what tag is put on them. Everyone knows what kind of weapons are being discussed. You want to shot holes in a piece of paper, take down Bambi, defend your property against wildlife and criminals, fine. You want to play games with weapons like that used in CT, not fine. There is no reason or justification for owning those weapons. |
   
"I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts
| |
|
|
wren*walk
PeaAddict
PeaNut 481,431
September 2010
Posts: 1,822
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 12/28/2012 6:47:17 PM
How do you propose to control the guns and arms available out there? If you can't predict who will 'go off', and don't want to try, how do you keep those people from obtaining guns, while still following the 2nd amendment?
Night Owl, it is not as you put it "don't want to try". The fact is there is NO WAY to do it.
I've worked in mental health including a secure state psych hospital. If you consult the literature on this subject, and listen to any of the experts who get trotted out whenever a mass killing occurs, they all the same thing. You simply cannot predict who will kill.
There is no brain patterning, no blood test, nothing to show up on any sort of a scan, no psychological test or anything else that will tip you off and allow you to prevent someone from going off and killing others for no rational reason. Believe me, there is a huge literature out there on this. You might have some disparate but observable behavior red flags that have been documented to occur in sociopathic or psychotic individuals, but that alone is not a strong enough predictor to prevent these incidents.
Yes, we need improvements in mental health care, we need it badly. But even with the best mental health care system in the world, there is simply no way to finger the person in advance, who is the one, or who is the next one, who is going to go off and do unspeakable harm to others. Most seriously mentally ill people go their whole lives without hurting anybody. They are far more likely to hurt themselves. But better mental health care in general? I'm all for it because the state of it today is dismal. And perhaps with greater availability of services and less stigma, somehow those homicidal nuts will comes under adequate care before acting out.
I just don't believe it is the answer to the current problem with gun violence.
| |
|
jonda1974
The new Rhinestone Cowboy
PeaNut 107,564
September 2003
Posts: 8,477
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 12/28/2012 6:57:43 PM
Thanks Dotty for the explanation.
But even with the best mental health care system in the world, there is simply no way to finger the person in advance, who is the one, or who is the next one, who is going to go off and do unspeakable harm to others.
Your post just proves the point, that gun control is simply a placebo to make us feel "safer" just as the screening at the airport.
If there is no way to stop these people. Then all that will change with gun control is the weapon of choice. |
|
|
jonda1974
The new Rhinestone Cowboy
PeaNut 107,564
September 2003
Posts: 8,477
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 12/28/2012 7:00:47 PM
There is no reason or justification for owning those weapons.
Actually there is. They are used for sport. Including the Olympics.
And I agree with you that the founders left a way for our constitution to be updated with the changing times. It isn't by reinterpreting the intent of the content. It is by adding an amendment. |
|
|
wren*walk
PeaAddict
PeaNut 481,431
September 2010
Posts: 1,822
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 12/28/2012 7:04:44 PM
If there is no way to stop these people. Then all that will change with gun control is the weapon of choice.
But unlike you, I believe the weapon of choice makes all the difference in casualty numbers and the potential for carnage. And it is the weapon of choice that has been controlled in other cosmopolitan western nations, and it has worked. It has paid off. Less people are dying.
| |
|
Nightowl scrapper
Intl Assoc of Epic Length Posters - USA Chapter
PeaNut 103,889
August 2003
Posts: 24,976
Layouts: 0
Loc: Colorado
| Posted: 12/28/2012 7:12:33 PM
What do you mean by *don't want to try*?
Since Wren said that the mental health concern is a 'red herring' I inferred that she was utterly dismissing the mental health component.
As for having no way of knowing that someone is going to go off, are you talking mass shootings or even killing one's family members? While no one can predict the future with certainty, I have a hard time believing that there is nothing that indicates a higher risk of violence. Are you saying that with thousands of people receiving outpatient or inpatient care, they walk out of the hospital and their mental health caregivers are without exception totally and utterly surprised when they go buy a rifle at Walmart and go home and blow away the family?
While I understand that the liability is great, and the mechanisms are likely non-existent for the dr to take steps to prevent the tragedy, thus it is safer from a liability standpoint to say "well, no one can know for SURE", it surprises me greatly to hear that there is really no clue whatsoever and the psychiatrist treating someone for serious mental issues, who refuses medication and is paranoid or discusses violence, is as amazed as any member of the general public that he walked in and shot his boss. |
"Until you put a thought into words, clearly and precisely, it is not a thought at all. It is a kind of fog rolling around inside the skull."
| |
|
|
wren*walk
PeaAddict
PeaNut 481,431
September 2010
Posts: 1,822
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 12/28/2012 7:31:22 PM
Are you saying that with thousands of people receiving outpatient or inpatient care, they walk out of the hospital and their mental health caregivers are without exception totally and utterly surprised when they go buy a rifle at Walmart and go home and blow away the family?
No. You are confusing "surprise" with the ability to PREDICT, who out of the MILLIONS of mentally ill in this country, will be the ones to walk into Walmart. Where they can (so easily) obtain a deadly weapon. And then go blow away their family.
And then again, yes, I'm sure some of them would even cause surprise among their caregivers if they were to do that. Because the majority of their clients probably express no overt violent tendencies. Or have not harmed people previously.
But nobody is trying to say there are not clients who cause those types of concerns. Just that out of all the mentally ill people out there, whether in care or not (important distinction btw), there is no way to predict who will go off. Rally. Unless they tell you. And in a few (exceedingly rare) cases, they do tell you.
| |
|
Nightowl scrapper
Intl Assoc of Epic Length Posters - USA Chapter
PeaNut 103,889
August 2003
Posts: 24,976
Layouts: 0
Loc: Colorado
| Posted: 12/28/2012 7:37:01 PM
But nobody is trying to say there are not clients who cause those types of concerns. Just that out of all the mentally ill people out there, whether in care or not (important distinction btw), there is no way to predict who will go off. Rally. Unless they tell you. And in a few (exceedingly rare) cases, they do tell you.
And are there mechanisms in place to thwart easy access to firearms (like at home, or in a store) for those who cause those types of concerns? No you can't predict with certainty, but from what I'm reading and hearing discussed, the mechanisms for basic alerts regarding patients exhibiting behavior that gives rise to concern, are not there. Should that not be a piece of the puzzle that is addressed? No, we may not find the next James Holmes in time, but if a professional had a very strong concern about the next James Holmes, is there a good procedure to manage him/her and provide protection to the public? |
"Until you put a thought into words, clearly and precisely, it is not a thought at all. It is a kind of fog rolling around inside the skull."
| |
|
|
wren*walk
PeaAddict
PeaNut 481,431
September 2010
Posts: 1,822
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 12/28/2012 7:41:14 PM
While I understand that the liability is great, and the mechanisms are likely non-existent for the dr to take steps to prevent the tragedy, thus it is safer from a liability standpoint to say "well, no one can know for SURE",
Quite frankly, this is BS and shows you don't really know what you are talking about.
The liability in psych is to NOT act when a person threatens to hurt themselves or others. And I and many others in psych wish it would be toughened up to encompass longer committal periods and even vauger threats, which clients make while denying actual harm is intended.
I don't think you will find many people in the field who don't agree with me that mental care in this country is pretty dismal and this is one of the things we want. Not less power. But when someone vocalizes a threat to harm themselves or others, the only people who would ignore it are people who have no place in mental health. That is an unequivocal in psych: you have the duty to act, and the law demands you do so.
| |
|
wren*walk
PeaAddict
PeaNut 481,431
September 2010
Posts: 1,822
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 12/28/2012 8:00:58 PM
No, we may not find the next James Holmes in time, but if a professional had a very strong concern about the next James Holmes, is there a good procedure to manage him/her and provide protection to the public?
No! This is a good point.
I'm curious to know more when the trial begins about the care of Holmes, since he was apparently under the care of a psychiatrist. But this is what I am agreeing with you about as far as the general care of the seriously mentally ill: Yes, we need better and more comprehensive care for them.
My impression of Holmes is that he appears to be a schizophrenic who was off his meds. His behavior and appearence was exceedingly bizarre and should have raised red flags. So I do have serious questions about his health care and how that was all going and why no one was on top of it. I can only imagine he had not been previously threatening in his behavior.
But that opens up the whole other question of comprehesive mental health services, which if they were the norm, would probably start to bring people like Holmes under the type of care they need.
"If" he had threatened himself or others, then he needed to be committed. (But I'm not second guessing anyone here, because we can't know that he did). But even if he didn't, his obviously bizarre behavior should im my opinion, warrant some type of intensive intervention or even tcommittal for treatment. And I know there are those who will not agree. Because it then becomes a terrible balancing act between the rights of the individual and the wider rights of society, when a person is not overtly posing a threat.
| |
|
IleneTell
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 434,842
August 2009
Posts: 2,427
Layouts: 651
| Posted: 12/28/2012 8:08:27 PM
Doctor-patient confidentiality is very strict. Unless he went to his doctor or therapist and told them what his plan was, and what means he had to carry it out, there wasn't much they could have done. | |
|
wren*walk
PeaAddict
PeaNut 481,431
September 2010
Posts: 1,822
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 12/28/2012 8:14:27 PM
Doctor-patient confidentiality is very strict. Unless he went to his doctor or therapist and told them what his plan was, and what means he had to carry it out, there wasn't much they could have done.
It's not even so much about confidentiality. It is that they generally don't tell their caregivers in the first place. Most of them actually know the ropes very well and know that would have them committed.
There are things that can be done IF they go tell their doctor about it. But how many do that? When they go off, they go off. Just like when they act out in the hospital setting...there is gerally no warning.
| |
|
IleneTell
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 434,842
August 2009
Posts: 2,427
Layouts: 651
| Posted: 12/28/2012 8:22:04 PM
Usually the limits of confidentiallity are well explained before treatment starts, so they know exactly what they can and can't say. | |
|
Nightowl scrapper
Intl Assoc of Epic Length Posters - USA Chapter
PeaNut 103,889
August 2003
Posts: 24,976
Layouts: 0
Loc: Colorado
| Posted: 12/28/2012 8:24:37 PM
"If" he had threatened himself or others, then he needed to be committed. (But I'm not second guessing anyone here, because we can't know that he did). But even if he didn't, his obviously bizarre behavior should im my opinion, warrant some type of intensive intervention or even tcommittal for treatment.
This is what I'm sort of getting at in the statement that you really didn't like above.
Will we ever know if he actually exhibited behavior to his psychiatrist that 'should' have triggered action on her part? Or will the liability be too great if she admits "yeah, I should have realized when he... and done...". Medical drs can't always foresee or stop a medical error, and I believe it is hard to admit after it happens when they DID screw up when it means someone's baby died during birth.
But how much more problematic would it be to admit that you saw something in a James Holmes or Jarred Loughner and didn't act? We're not talking just a malpractice insurance payout, we're talking some really horrific repercussions, legal and personal.
I'm just musing, not pointing fingers,or trying to stir up a hornet's nest, but wondering about the accuracy of data in studies you are aware of that indicate, no, you can't really tell, there wasn't a darned thing that indicated high potential.
I'm afraid you're going to take this the wrong way, but logically I wonder if the truthfulness is totally there when researchers try to go back and find some kind of clue. |
"Until you put a thought into words, clearly and precisely, it is not a thought at all. It is a kind of fog rolling around inside the skull."
| |
|
|
jonda1974
The new Rhinestone Cowboy
PeaNut 107,564
September 2003
Posts: 8,477
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 12/29/2012 12:53:06 AM
But unlike you, I believe the weapon of choice makes all the difference in casualty numbers and the potential for carnage. And it is the weapon of choice that has been controlled in other cosmopolitan western nations, and it has worked. It has paid off. Less people are dying.
And this is where we just agree to disagree. Because we cannot directly compare the results of other countries to how it would affect in this country, the dynamics are different, the cultures and laws and history are different. I need to do some more research to see whether less people really are dying, or if less people are dying by guns, but deaths by other means have gone up to replace those numbers. |
|
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,776
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
 | Posted: 12/29/2012 1:39:15 AM
One of the mass killings happen right across the street from where I worked at the time.
A man went into the building went to the offices of a law firm and killed 8 people injured another 6 and killed himself.
I'm sorry, Krazy. That's a terrible experience.  |
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
sunny 5
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 472,024
June 2010
Posts: 2,176
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 12/29/2012 1:50:25 AM
I believe Feinstein was the mayor when the law firm shooting happened. she helped pass gun control measures first in CA, then in the senate. she also became mayor when George Moscone was killed by Dan White, with a gun he snuck into city hall. | |
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,776
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
| Posted: 12/29/2012 2:29:39 AM
walk into Walmart. Where they can (so easily) obtain a deadly weapon
Just how easy is it to walk into Walmart and obtain a deadly weapon?
(And by deadly weapons, you pretty clearly aren't referring to knives.) |
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
Skybar
Perfect Peaing
PeaNut 188,727
January 2005
Posts: 24,097
Layouts: 0
Loc: AZ desert
| Posted: 12/29/2012 9:56:18 AM
Surely the motive is to deal with the gangs, rather than allowing the law abiding citizens to be armed for their own protection because you can't control the gangs? Or are you admitting that the gangs are now beyond the law and allowed to roam free. I'm not suggesting that controlling gangs and criminals will happen overnight but it is something to consider.
who's 'dealing' with gangs? how's Chicago doing with that? how many young people have been killed there by other young people in 2012?
are you suggesting they should be locked up? why? (ask this admin)
it won't happen 'overnight'? lol!
Dotty - from day 1 i said the major issue was the gangs and criminals, and I don't think the government is doing enough to solve it. (Perhaps it's because they are too busy fighting a losing war on drugs and dictating what a woman should do with her uterus.) In some areas they are roaming free. It's horrific. And I agree with you, it needs to happen, NOW.
I have a feeling you voted for the government that isn't doing anything about it...
they aren't 'busy' fighting a war on drugs - for sure! They are 'busy' helping it explode in this country.
they also aren't dictating what anyone should do with their uterus. They ARE busy dictating that others PAY for what YOU do with YOUR uterus. and dictating many, many other things - in violation of our constitution.
Here is what I found out later. A good friend of mine knew this guy and had for years. He could never understand why he did what he did. He said he was the type of guy that would give you his shirt off his back. Up until that day or shortly before that day you could call him a responsible law abiding gun owner.
according to your 'friend' anyway. Those who knew Adam Lanza said they wouldn't have expected him to do what he did either. and he didn't own ANY guns.
And that is the problem with shifting the blame for what is happening to mental illness. How does one know when a "responsible law abiding gun owner" is going to snap and start shooting innocent people?
how about all of those 'responsible' car owners/drivers. Licensed anyway. Those who drive after drinking. They can legally drive - and legally drink.
How many people have been killed by drunk drivers this past year? or even just injured? Time to ban vehicles!
|
"A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education."
- President Theodore Roosevelt
On June 28, 1787, as Governor of Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin hosted the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, where he moved:
"That henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning."
Franklin wrote April 17, 1787:
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin wrote his epitaph:
"THE BODY of BENJAMIN FRANKLIN - Printer. Like the cover of an old book, Its contents torn out, And stripped of its lettering and gilding, Lies here, food for worms; Yet the work itself shall not be lost, For it will (as he believed) appear once more, In a new, And more beautiful edition, Corrected and amended By The AUTHOR."
| |
|
|
gar
Whoopea!
PeaNut 172,235
October 2004
Posts: 12,675
Layouts: 0
Loc: England UK
| Posted: 12/29/2012 10:32:26 AM
But unlike you, I believe the weapon of choice makes all the difference in casualty numbers and the potential for carnage. And it is the weapon of choice that has been controlled in other cosmopolitan western nations, and it has worked. It has paid off. Less people are dying.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this is where we just agree to disagree. Because we cannot directly compare the results of other countries to how it would affect in this country, the dynamics are different, the cultures and laws and history are different.
Jonda, although it might not be possible to compare with 100% accuracy the results in different countries do you not think there's enough evidence to even consider it? Maybe with adaptations even? I realise you, in America, have your particular set of circumstances but all countries have that.....the UK is not the same as Australia or even countries that get lumped in together as Europe have huge differences between them in terms of culture, history, borders, laws etc.
I'm just wondering why it can work for so many other unique and individual countries with vastly differing situations but not for you.
|
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen Roberts
| |
|
|
Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,094
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County
| Posted: 12/29/2012 12:18:18 PM
Time to ban vehicles
Here is the problem with that old arguement. We need, I repeat, need vehicles to get from point a to point b.
With very few exceptions, and I mean very few, we don't need guns.... | |
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,776
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
| Posted: 12/29/2012 2:32:46 PM
I realise you, in America, have your particular set of circumstances but all countries have that.....the UK is not the same as Australia or even countries that get lumped in together as Europe have huge differences between them in terms of culture, history, borders, laws etc.
I'm just wondering why it can work for so many other unique and individual countries with vastly differing situations but not for you.
Simply put? The horse is out of the barn.
As well as Americans and Brits get along, we still celebrate breaking British tyrannical rule over us. How many British citizens have that same view of our War of Independence?
We do not have the same perspectives at all.
Britain is 'surveillance society'.
It predicts that by 2016 shoppers could be scanned as they enter stores, schools could bring in cards allowing parents to monitor what their children eat, and jobs may be refused to applicants who are seen as a health risk.
"We have more CCTV cameras and we have looser laws on privacy and data protection," he said.
"We really do have a society which is premised both on state secrecy and the state not giving up its supposed right to keep information under control while, at the same time, wanting to know as much as it can about us."
The report coincides with the publication by the human rights group Privacy International of figures that suggest Britain is the worst Western democracy at protecting individual privacy.
The two worst countries in the 36-nation survey are Malaysia and China, and Britain is one of the bottom five with "endemic surveillance".
Americans are much less willing to agree to this. For many of us, this is a generational value that has been passed down from the time of the first settlers to America, who came here at great personal risk expressly to escape the overbearing British government's role in their lives.
The very fact that Great Britain is still so involved in the personal lives of its citizens isn't a great lure to us to emulate your security methods.
|
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,214
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 12/29/2012 3:51:54 PM
+1000. PLEASE stop lecturing Peas from other coutries. You just look foolish. It's pathetic-and embarrassing.
They could stop lecturing US peas regarding our gun-control laws. It goes both ways. It has been repeatedly explained that the US culture and foundations of government give us an entirely different view of government involvement in our lives and why our 2nd Amendment was originally included in our Constitution. Yet we are still being lectured on how we just need to ban guns just like the UK and Australia have done. If its uncalled for and foolish for American peas to lecture foreign peas on their country's laws and choices, it would then be uncalled for for the international peas to lecture us on our laws and choices. | |
|
dottyscrapper
PeaAddict
PeaNut 311,985
April 2007
Posts: 1,132
Layouts: 0
Loc: UK
| Posted: 12/29/2012 5:38:22 PM
For many of us, this is a generational value that has been passed down from the time of the first settlers to America, who came here at great personal risk expressly to escape the overbearing British government's role in their lives.
By far the main reason at the beginning was religious conflict. The Catholic Church had become so intense in it's power, the nation was in religious turmoil under James 1 who thought he answered to no one but God.
Then you had the puritans, who also wanted their religious say by trying to simplify the alternative protestantism of the Anglical Church. They were both as bad as each other. Both sides thought they had God on their side.
Economic instability was also another reason together with the excitement at the idea of Capitalism.
Seems like they might think that they might have jumped from the fireplace into the fire, when you ask which country has more of religion intruding into their lives in the 21st centuary.
The very fact that Great Britain is still so involved in the personal lives of its citizens isn't a great lure to us to emulate your security methods.
No one is asking you to emulate our security methods. Suggestions were made together with explainations of the results that, not only us, but other countries such as Canada and Australia have tried, where the methods proved successful.But each time any of us either suggest something or explain something we're rediculed as if we have no idea what we're talking about and we're on a mission to change your whole way of life! Nothing is further from the truth. We're sharing an experience but if one doesn't want to learn about that experience that's fine. Please do not expect us to ignore links that are either out of date and unreliable ( the link you had in your post is from 2006) and to strike back with comptemptuous statements that are untrue as some posters on this thread have done.
ETA
The very fact that Great Britain is still so involved in the personal lives of its citizens isn't a great lure to us to emulate your security methods.
You obviously have a different view than we have of how our Government is involved in out lives.
We don't really view having CCTV security cameras covering our cities as an intrusion in our lives. The fact is that it has in some cases eliminated crime altogether and in most cases drastically reduced it and made everyone feel far safer. If that is the price we have to pay so be it, at least we feel safe going about out day to day lives.
| |
|
wren*walk
PeaAddict
PeaNut 481,431
September 2010
Posts: 1,822
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 12/29/2012 6:01:49 PM
The two worst countries in the 36-nation survey are Malaysia and China, and Britain is one of the bottom five with "endemic surveillance".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Americans are much less willing to agree to this. For many of us, this is a generational value that has been passed down from the time of the first settlers to America, who came here at great personal risk expressly to escape the overbearing British government's role in their lives.
The very fact that Great Britain is still so involved in the personal lives of its citizens isn't a great lure to us to emulate your security methods
Agree to what? CCTV? You don't think that isn't already happening here with or without your willingness? There are studies out there telling you have often the average American comes under surveillance in an average day, and i don't have a link, but you might want to look at that.
The cops actually catch a lot of criminals with the help of surveillance cameras, both here and in Britain. I'm not really getting the point of this argument at all.
But the actual question you avoided, was why not at least try tougher gun control,s when the evidence from other westernized nations is that they work? They reduce deaths.
Your answers, "we wouldn't stand it for" and "we are not the same" are just silly answers. (And you do not speak for everyone). You don't know until you try it! There's just no logic behind it. The logic is all pointing in the other direction.
And because you can't answer it, your fall back position is to try and point out that some of those other countries are less desirable somehow. Well, I wonder how the people of those countries feel about that? Maybe, just maybe, they learned that are never really free if they have to worry about being shot to death when going about their mundane everyday acivities. And the pay off was greater than the price, which was to have fewer and less dangerous guns in society.
| |
|
dottyscrapper
PeaAddict
PeaNut 311,985
April 2007
Posts: 1,132
Layouts: 0
Loc: UK
| Posted: 12/29/2012 6:41:05 PM
Leftturnonly - I'm guessing that you didn't take the time to read the PDF Survaillance Report that was attached to the link and chosen quote that you posted in your earlier thread.
Makes very interesting reading, if a little long. You might be interested in what it says though, especially when you point out our Government intrusion into our every day life.
There's one thing for sure we haven't reached this far yet.
degenerative diseases in the United States, and around 70 people with
degenerative brain conditions have now been implanted to enable carers to
locate them easily86. Researchers and technological enthusiasts have also been
implanting themselves with chips for several years87, and at least one chain of
Spanish nightclubs has offered patrons the chance to have cash and access
privileges held on implanted chips88. However a step-change occurred in
February 2006 when a security company on Ohio, USA, implanted two of its
workers with RFID chips to allow them to access company property89. Although
such an invasive procedure was carried out voluntarily, it raises enormous
questions of the integrity of the body and privacy in relation to employers. It is
also not entirely surprising that the call for everyone to be implanted is now
being seriously debated on some technology websites
I can confidently say that there is nothing in that attached PDF report that isn't also carried out in the US each and every day. I stand to be corrected if you can prove otherwise.
| |
|
jonda1974
The new Rhinestone Cowboy
PeaNut 107,564
September 2003
Posts: 8,477
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 12/29/2012 7:25:56 PM
But the actual question you avoided, was why not at least try tougher gun control,s when the evidence from other westernized nations is that they work? They reduce deaths.
If we are going to do that then go through the difficult task of changing the constitution. It deserves at least that much respect rather than trying to find ways to reinterpret it to fit the desired circumstances.
In regards to the question about whether or not they reduce deaths. I would like to do more research on that. I want to truly see if it reduced deaths overall, or if it just reduced gun deaths, but upticked in other types of death and violent crimes. |
|
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,776
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
| Posted: 12/29/2012 9:49:31 PM
They were both as bad as each other. Both sides thought they had God on their side.
As "bad" as each other?
They took their big bad selves across the ocean on wooden ships to be half a world away from those who made their beliefs illegal.
Seems like they might think that they might have jumped from the fireplace into the fire, when you ask which country has more of religion intruding into their lives in the 21st centuary.
You're going to speak for my long-deceased ancestors and their ideas of religious freedom? <SMH>
But each time any of us either suggest something or explain something we're rediculed as if we have no idea what we're talking about and we're on a mission to change your whole way of life!
Gar asked a question. I gave her an answer to her question.
The horse has left the barn. The guns are privately owned. Our federal laws say we have this right and there are millions of Americans who are adamant the laws remain.
We don't really view having CCTV security cameras covering our cities as an intrusion in our lives. The fact is that it has in some cases eliminated crime altogether and in most cases drastically reduced it and made everyone feel far safer. If that is the price we have to pay so be it, at least we feel safe going about out day to day lives.
Good. Happy it's working for you.
I had dear friends about to board a bus a block or two over from the bus that exploded during the terrorist attack there in July, 2005. I'm very glad that hasn't happened again.
Agree to what? CCTV? You don't think that isn't already happening here with or without your willingness?
It's happening here.
Gun owners aren't going to voluntarily agree to be disarmed only to have more surveillance of us all. That's both too intrusive and not enough security to be thought of as a good replacement.
It's not that it isn't working somewhere else, it's that it's not enough of a solution here.
But the actual question you avoided, was why not at least try tougher gun control,s when the evidence from other westernized nations is that they work?
I haven't avoided it. I said right at the beginning of all of these threads that I think that there's room for some tougher regulations, but that you can not disregard these gun owners' adamant stance on maintaining the personal right to bear firearms.
Calling people nasty names and claiming they don't care about dead children guarantees a terrible fight instead of effectively meeting in that huge area in the middle. I asked people to please remember that.
Your answers, "we wouldn't stand it for" and "we are not the same" are just silly answers. (And you do not speak for everyone). You don't know until you try it! There's just no logic behind it. The logic is all pointing in the other direction.
It's silly to point out that we have approximately 300,000,000 firearms in private possession in the US today, and that all of these weapons will not be turned over voluntarily? (And much of my posts have been about why they will not be voluntarily turned over to the government.)
Did the UK, Canada or Australia have that as the baseline when they banned firearms? These are logical questions. The factual answers are not the same. The realistic expectation is that the results will not be the same.
And because you can't answer it, your fall back position is to try and point out that some of those other countries are less desirable somehow.
WTF?
I've been to many other countries. There's much to be desired in many different places.
But we aren't at the same starting points that Canada, UK, Australia, et al were at, and that makes all the difference on what legislation is realistic to expect people to comply with.
Understand. I was answering Gar's question. I like Gar. Why shouldn't I answer her? My answer is my answer. It happens to be shared by a great many people that live near me. Gar doesn't live near me. She doesn't know what people here think until someone tells her.
|
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,776
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
| Posted: 12/29/2012 10:06:41 PM
I can confidently say that there is nothing in that attached PDF report that isn't also carried out in the US each and every day.
I believe I gave you an incomplete thought, and this is going somewhere it shouldn't have gone.
UK doesn't allow citizens to carry handguns. (Sticking to handguns for simplification.) UK police often don't carry firearms, either. The UK has gone to a lot of effort to put in sophisticated monitoring.
Those are 3 separate conditions of your current security. If we were to try to implement those same conditions here....... no amount of monitoring would outweigh the chaos resulting from greatly disarming both law enforcement and the citizenry with our criminal activity.
Apart from that, we also have a population that values privacy very highly. Many of them are gun owners, but not all. While there is a high level of intrusion into our privacy now, under a situation where guns were made illegal, and law enforcement was greatly disarmed, it is my belief that there would be a separate and huge fight over this issue.
ETA - This is part of my response of why I think these measures wouldn't work here.
|
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,094
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County
| Posted: 12/29/2012 10:12:12 PM
The guns are privately owned. Our federal laws say we have this right and there are millions of Americans who are adamant the laws remain.
And there are millions of Americans who want to see these laws and the 2nd amendment restricted. So I believe the correct term is some Americans and not all Americans. | |
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,776
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
| Posted: 12/29/2012 10:16:35 PM
I didn't say all Americans.
|
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,094
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County
| Posted: 12/29/2012 10:45:04 PM
I didn't say all Americans.
You are right. Too many posts implying its all Americans that believe whatever that when one came along that didn't I looked at it but didn't see what was there.
I think its time for bed.... | |
|
gar
Whoopea!
PeaNut 172,235
October 2004
Posts: 12,675
Layouts: 0
Loc: England UK
| Posted: 12/30/2012 4:43:01 AM
But we aren't at the same starting points that Canada, UK, Australia, et al were at, and that makes all the difference on what legislation is realistic to expect people to comply with.
Understand. I was answering Gar's question. I like Gar. Why shouldn't I answer her? My answer is my answer.
And I read your answer, thank you. I do appreciate that your starting point is different from ours.
It is obviously, an extremely complex situation with no simple answer but I do hope that a way forward can be found. I now have more of an understanding of the thinking of some Americans about guns and although I'll never fully 'get it' I respect that it is obviously a deeply held conviction by many.
I'm going to try not to engage in this thread any more having learned quite a bit and having thrown in my two pennyworth.
|
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen Roberts
| |
|
|
lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?
PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,394
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio
 | |
dottyscrapper
PeaAddict
PeaNut 311,985
April 2007
Posts: 1,132
Layouts: 0
Loc: UK
| Posted: 12/30/2012 7:05:28 AM
I believe I gave you an incomplete thought, and this is going somewhere it shouldn't have gone.
UK doesn't allow citizens to carry handguns. (Sticking to handguns for simplification.) UK police often don't carry firearms, either. The UK has gone to a lot of effort to put in sophisticated monitoring.
Those are 3 separate conditions of your current security. If we were to try to implement those same conditions here....... no amount of monitoring would outweigh the chaos resulting from greatly disarming both law enforcement and the citizenry with our criminal activity.
Apart from that, we also have a population that values privacy very highly. Many of them are gun owners, but not all. While there is a high level of intrusion into our privacy now, under a situation where guns were made illegal, and law enforcement was greatly disarmed, it is my belief that there would be a separate and huge fight over this issue.
ETA - This is part of my response of why I think these measures wouldn't work here.
I appreciate and understand what you're saying. Like Gar, I don't think I'll ever " get it" but at no time was I suggesting that our way was the only way.
They were purely suggestions as one of the starting point but you went on to nit pick and answer with incorrect info pertaining to the UK to justify your reasons.Doing so had nothing to do with the point of finding a way forward to arms control or in reducing your crime rates.
I think you've also misunderstood what has been said by whom on this thread. I have never advocated to disarm your Police or to ban guns altogether. I'm not sure where you got that idea from.
I can see no justification for you to add the second paragraph in your answer to make your point. It really wasn't necessary 
We don't really view having CCTV security cameras covering our cities as an intrusion in our lives. The fact is that it has in some cases eliminated crime altogether and in most cases drastically reduced it and made everyone feel far safer. If that is the price we have to pay so be it, at least we feel safe going about out day to day lives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good. Happy it's working for you.
I had dear friends about to board a bus a block or two over from the bus that exploded during the terrorist attack there in July, 2005. I'm very glad that hasn't happened again
I really do sincerely hope that a solution will be found, and soon. Otherwise it will continue and get even worse than it is at the moment.
| |
|
dottyscrapper
PeaAddict
PeaNut 311,985
April 2007
Posts: 1,132
Layouts: 0
Loc: UK
| Posted: 12/30/2012 7:51:59 AM
There is no central police station with monitors watching our every move on public streets.
Oh please lynlam ! We are not a police state for goodness sake. Ordinary towns in Britain don't have a central police station monitoring their every move either.Most of the CCTV cameras ( except traffic ones) are monitored by civilians paid for by the local community taxes and authorised by the community local authority and not from central government. If action need to be taken for any possible criminal activity that is picked up by those cameras, the operators call the police to deal with it.
But the state constantly watching us? Not on your average city street.
Not here either !!! I live in a town with a population in excess of 140,000 at the last count and there is no CCTV camera within 4 to 5 miles south of my home, anywhere! There are no cameras North/East or West for miles and miles, not until I get to the next town which is 20 miles away. There are certainly no cameras in the villages inbetween.
I would have to go unto the centre of the shopping area ( downtown) which is 4 miles away before I would come across a CCTV camera. I live 30 miles outside London so not exactly in the middle of nowhere.
Some of my family live in other towns and villages that have no CCTV whatsoever for miles and miles.
CCTV cameras are mostly in heavily populated city/town centres only and not in residential streets unless those environments have a proven record of crime taking place within that area. Installing CCTV in those kind of situations is a sensible decision and has cut crime down in those particular areas.
If you insist on posting your opinions on what you think is not acceptable to you and the US but are to the citizens of other countries make sure that the facts are correct first.
| |
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,776
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
| Posted: 12/30/2012 12:06:45 PM
I can see no justification for you to add the second paragraph in your answer to make your point. It really wasn't necessary
Dotty, this is the problem with a message board. You are assuming that somehow I'm denigrating you or your country when I am not.
That was a terrible event. Even though it was an ocean away, it personally hit close to home. I am truly glad that there haven't been more there, and if the increase in cameras has contributed to that safety.... YAY!
Your citizens have accepted this security package, which includes banning firearms and disarming police, in a completely different way than ours would. It's one of the differences between who we are as distinct nations. It scares me to think what would happen here in response if this is what a governmental administration tried to enforce here now. I don't say that lightly. The recent political fights are nothing in comparison to what can happen here.
In the wake of such terrible tragedy here, emotions have been running high and on the surface. Terrible things have been said generalizing millions of people into accepting and supporting deranged young men seeking infamy by hunting down defenseless innocents as if they were in an arcade.
The results have been an enormous purchasing of firearms and ammo by the population that believes in the 2nd amendment as it is interpreted today.
Mapchic began this thread in the middle ground. What she listed in her OP as par for the course where she lives would be radical change for where I live. It would be a huge political fight that would become national quickly, yet increasing some of these regulations are where the most realistic changes could be made.
When you start talking about changing our Constitution by reinterpreting our 2nd amendment rights at the same time the division already within the country over such concerns as Obamacare, fiscal cliff, unemployment, national debt, and a surge of military service personnel are being turned back into the general population and thereby also losing their jobs, you are talking about an extremely volatile situation.
Change, change, change, change, change, change. There's a lot of it going on and no one knows where this is leading. Every paycheck is going to take a sudden hit in a couple of days! And now people want change to our basic rights taught to us our entire lives as coming from a power higher than our government by this same government that won't even vote on balancing a budget?
DANGER DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!
|
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,094
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County
| Posted: 12/30/2012 1:07:33 PM
Second - you are ok with allowing 24/7 CCTV surveillance and do not see it as restricting your freedoms, but putting an armed guard in a school somehow does restrict freedoms?
You don't see putting armed guards in the schools as a restriction of our freedoms? Really? What about the freedmom of being secure without armed guards everywhere?
Here is the flaw in the logic of putting armed guards in schools. Ok we sort of take care of the safety of the schools. What about the other places where mass murders have taken place? Put armed guards there as well? Where does it stop?
Care to answer the question lynlam? | |
|
dottyscrapper
PeaAddict
PeaNut 311,985
April 2007
Posts: 1,132
Layouts: 0
Loc: UK
| Posted: 12/30/2012 2:06:07 PM
When you start talking about changing our Constitution by reinterpreting our 2nd amendment rights at the same time the division already within the country over such concerns as Obamacare, fiscal cliff, unemployment, national debt, and a surge of military service personnel are being turned back into the general population and thereby also losing their jobs, you are talking about an extremely volatile situation
I really do understand what you're saying, I really do. It's sad that a country that has lead the world in so many things is in this position now. I don't mean that in any sarcastic way but in a way that it's sad that there is such division between people.
I don't know what the answer is except that I do know that both sides need to give a little on something. Be it more taxes to pay for more Law Enforcement to lower the crime rate, stronger border control....I don't know, something !
A little bit of info  Britain has never unarmed their "modern" police force...they never have been armed since Robert Peel formed the Metropolitan Police in 1829 and the rest of the UK Police Forces were formed in 1857. We do have an armed response unit attached to every Police Force who are called for when needed.There's 43 Police Forces covering Britain. Police Officers on airport duty are now armed but that is only in the last few years because of the terrorist threats.
| |
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,776
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
| Posted: 12/30/2012 2:20:03 PM
That's very interesting!
So, basically what you're saying is that they never wore cowboy hats, stars on their uniforms and pistols on their hips?
Sheriffs' Association of Texas
|
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
dottyscrapper
PeaAddict
PeaNut 311,985
April 2007
Posts: 1,132
Layouts: 0
Loc: UK
| Posted: 12/30/2012 2:27:08 PM
So, basically what you're saying is that they never wore cowboy hats, stars on their uniforms and wore pistols on their hips?
 No, but I think some of ours do think they're now Robo-cops without the helmets since they've changed the uniform though !!
| |
|
