• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Another shooting in Murica

scaramanga said:
I think the argument is that it's likely to be quicker, cheaper and more effective to tackle the mental health issue than the gun one.
Click to expand...
So setting up a huge mental health care system, capable of detecting and treating all persons with mental issues in a population of 350 million, is cheaper and more cost effective than filing a law that forbids owning semi-automatic weapons? Right.... Please show the maths!
 
I guess everyone is too scared to say that most prisoners are on the spectrum and nearly all shooters are. GHod forbid we ask about why autism is so prevalent and why the shooters are on spectrum and taking psychiatric drugs.

On the positive side there are only 78,694,222 people in America taking psychiatric drugs. (Maybe more now - those are 2014 figures), But at least lots of drugs and guns are being sold. Someone is making money from this misery.

And as Scara says - we need to be fiscally responsible. We need all those Pharma and Arms dealer tax dollars. It is a pity about all the dead poor people but they will soon be tomorrows chip paper. And Big Pharma and all the Arms dealers can get on with making the big money and being fiscally responsible.

(Oh finally before Scara jumps to the defence of big pharma and the arms trade - I am not suggesting that all autistic people are murders - I am saying big pharma made some people on the spectrum murders and criminals with their drugs and the arms dealers made it very easy for them to get the guns to commit these crimes)

And when some decent politicians try to do something Scara, the alt-right and the NRA work very hard to discredit them.

But as someone else pointed out, they are v good GHod fearing folk who are praying for those murdered while worshipping.
 
I agree with @braineclipse , they should tackle both gun control and mental health. I don't think either are likely whilst big money is allowed to dominate politics though -- health insurers will make sure that healthcare provision remains inadequate for poorer Americans and the gun lobby will ensure that the legislation doesn't turn against their business interests. Those on the right will be duped that it is about their freedom.

And even with some miracle occurring that does mean a change in gun control legislation, it will take many years and a huge culture shift to limit these kind of mass shootings because of the sheer number of firearms circulating in the USA. They are 'enjoying' the fruits of years of disastrous policies right now.

Still, I'm sure Trump will sort it...
 
r-u-s-x said:
I am sure this pleb is on a wind up but he is very good at it, after the Aurier thing just let it ride.
Click to expand...
Indeed - my first reaction to JPBB's post was to correct the wrongs... then I realised all of it was wrong... then I realised he is just trolling the board again. Utter tripe. Do not engage.
 
Trump and Scara want to solve this problem by spending trillions of dollars with their Big Pharma mates on very drugs that cause theses problems in the first place.

And then they wants to kee the NRA and the Arms industry happy by not taking away the weapons that allow them to commit these awful crimes.

And then to add insult to injury they are “fiscally responsible” by avoiding tax by using offshore funds.

Meanwhile poor Americans are massacred in their 10.000s.
 
JPBB said:
Trump and Scara want to solve this problem by spending trillions of dollars with their Big Pharma mates on very drugs that cause theses problems in the first place.

And then they wants to kee the NRA and the Arms industry happy by not taking away the weapons that allow them to commit these awful crimes.

And then to add insult to injury they are “fiscally responsible” by avoiding tax by using offshore funds.

Meanwhile poor Americans are massacred in their 10.000s.
Click to expand...

But Americans don’t care about them, their poor!
 
Kandi1977 said:
So setting up a huge mental health care system, capable of detecting and treating all persons with mental issues in a population of 350 million, is cheaper and more cost effective than filing a law that forbids owning semi-automatic weapons? Right.... Please show the maths!
Click to expand...
Filing a law should be cheap. It won't be, because the NRA has pretty deep coffers and will fight tooth and nail to stop it happening.

If, by some kind of miracle (and I genuinely can't see how it can happen within decades) such a law gets passed, precisely how would you enforce it? As has already been discussed, the guns that you want to remove from the system are the ones that will not be given up. So what's the next step? House to house searches? There is no way to reduce the number of guns in the US that won't cost billions of dollars and take decades. A functioning mental health system might be as expensive and it might take as long, but at least then you're tackling the cause and not the symptom, along with all the other benefits of a functioning mental health system.
 
it has to start with baby steps, make
it harder and harder to buy new ones

that’s what the nra are fighting as they know where it leads, but the all or nothing argument has traction
 
Kandi1977 said:
All progress starts by small steps! If you want to achieve something, you have to start somewhere.
Click to expand...
There is no small step progression between gun owners who don't want their guns (the ones who will hand them back if the law changes) and the gun owners who want to keep their guns (the ones who won't).

There have been gun amnesties in the US before - California has done it at least once. What happens is that the people who inherited guns and never really wanted them hand them in and the ownership of guns becomes concentrated amongst those who you would least want to own them.

Passing a law instead of an amnesty will move further along that line, but there's still a very clear break between those that would hand them back and those that obtained them illegally or believe they have a GHod given right to own one.
 
scaramanga said:
Filing a law should be cheap. It won't be, because the NRA has pretty deep coffers and will fight tooth and nail to stop it happening.

If, by some kind of miracle (and I genuinely can't see how it can happen within decades) such a law gets passed, precisely how would you enforce it? As has already been discussed, the guns that you want to remove from the system are the ones that will not be given up. So what's the next step? House to house searches? There is no way to reduce the number of guns in the US that won't cost billions of dollars and take decades. A functioning mental health system might be as expensive and it might take as long, but at least then you're tackling the cause and not the symptom, along with all the other benefits of a functioning mental health system.
Click to expand...
Do you really believe the brick you are writing, or are you just a wind up? Because you are so far out and wrong on so many levels that it's scary! I've come to the conclusion that you must be a wind up, so I won't be adding more to this. If not, then GHod help you (and America), because it's precisely the views you have, that have gotten Americans into the deep brick they're in!

Just to add some context, should we just give up and legalize all drugs, because if you really want to, you can get hold of it. And stop making cars safer, because people still die in traffic. That's what you are saying.
 
Kandi1977 said:
Do you really believe the brick you are writing, or are you just a wind up? Because you are so far out and wrong on so many levels that it's scary! I've come to the conclusion that you must be a wind up, so I won't be adding more to this. If not, then GHod help you (and America), because it's precisely the views you have, that have gotten Americans into the deep brick they're in!

Just to add some context, should we just give up and legalize all drugs, because if you really want to, you can get hold of it. And stop making cars safer, because people still die in traffic. That's what you are saying.
Click to expand...
Yes, we should legalise all drugs - and then punish any drug-related crime heavily.

There is no (serious) impediment to making cars safer - that's a really poor analogy. There is a general public will to make cars safe, as long as it can be done without ruining the looks and performance. There is no such public will for guns, which means any new laws will not have the intended effect. Until or unless there is a public desire for change, the laws will be as good as pointless (to use your example, look at the war on drugs) - all the time centrist moderates believe they have the right to bear arms there will be no chance of the law succeeding.
 
scaramanga said:
Yes, we should legalise all drugs - and then punish any drug-related crime heavily.

There is no (serious) impediment to making cars safer - that's a really poor analogy. There is a general public will to make cars safe, as long as it can be done without ruining the looks and performance. There is no such public will for guns, which means any new laws will not have the intended effect. Until or unless there is a public desire for change, the laws will be as good as pointless (to use your example, look at the war on drugs) - all the time centrist moderates believe they have the right to bear arms there will be no chance of the law succeeding.
Click to expand...
Polls show that there is public will for stricter gun control, just not political will.
 
scaramanga said:
Yes, we should legalise all drugs - and then punish any drug-related crime heavily.

There is no (serious) impediment to making cars safer - that's a really poor analogy. There is a general public will to make cars safe, as long as it can be done without ruining the looks and performance. There is no such public will for guns, which means any new laws will not have the intended effect. Until or unless there is a public desire for change, the laws will be as good as pointless (to use your example, look at the war on drugs) - all the time centrist moderates believe they have the right to bear arms there will be no chance of the law succeeding.
Click to expand...
Again, you are completely wrong! As @r-u-s-x states, there is a majority for stricter gun control, and it has been that way for many years.
and "There is no (serious) impediment to making cars safer" - Really??? For one, It's incredible expensive, and initially there was no reason for car makers to make safe cars. So why did they bother then? I know the answer, but I'm pretty sure you don't.
 
Kandi1977 said:
Again, you are completely wrong! As @r-u-s-x states, there is a majority for stricter gun control, and it has been that way for many years.
Click to expand...
There clearly isn't enough will, because politicians who do not support gun control are still being voted for.

Kandi1977 said:
and "There is no (serious) impediment to making cars safer" - Really??? For one, It's incredible expensive, and initially there was no reason for car makers to make safe cars. So why did they bother then? I know the answer, but I'm pretty sure you don't.
Click to expand...
That cost just gets passed on to the consumer. There was no public outcry about increased safety, there were not millions of people clinging to their dangerous cars saying things like "From my dead limbs". It's an entirely different and irrelevant scenario.
 
awesome dawson said:
Public will....., only amongst the democratic (i.e. not in charge) non gun owners.
Click to expand...
As long as its over 50% of the public who cares about the party? Anyway the Republicans seem to be on the fence:
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/11/gun-control-vegas-polls-243647

But the poll also finds some less-likely groups are closely split. Forty-nine percent of Republican voters support stricter gun control laws, and 45 percent oppose them. Among voters who said they supported Donald Trump in last year’s election, 46 percent are in favor of stricter gun laws and 48 percent are opposed.

....
A 55 percent majority of gun owners back new restrictions, while 41 percent oppose them.

...

Other proposals earning majority support: requiring all owners to store their guns in a safe storage unit (77 percent), creating a national database for each gun sale (76 percent), requiring a three-day waiting period for gun purchases (76 percent), banning assault-style weapons (72 percent), banning high-capacity magazines (72 percent), prohibiting Americans from carrying guns at schools and on college campuses (69 percent), limiting Americans to one firearms purchase per month (69 percent), limiting ammunition purchases (69 percent) and banning firearms from all workplace settings (59 percent
 
scaramanga said:
If there were enough public will there would be political will.
Click to expand...
Not to take it off course but you have argued in other posts against the current economic system and that it is not the peoples will as there is a whole host of other factors they choose - at least be consistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back