Guns in America

[DrLove42]

OK, so i'm veering dangerously close to touching the third rail of the internet again but things just need to be said.

Guns in America. I'm not judging whats right and whats wrong and not here to make judgement on the culture

But I jsut don't understand it

While I was in America I heard a chap on the radio (before the Aurora shootings) express his disbelief that there "are still places in the world where you can shoot at people breaking into your house and YOU get punished for it".

And in response to the tragic cases in Aurora (where every weapon bought by that Pyschopath was legal) apparantly gun sales in America are up 43% in the last week (reference (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18980974))

My quote here is that "They want to have the ability to protect themselves and their families if they are in a situation like what happened in the movie theatre.". So the answer is for more people to carry guns in public.

As someone from a country with very few weapons and most of them in the hands of the police, I just can't get my head around it.

[Wolfshade]

I would recommend reading abook called "The Trigger" it is by Authur C Clarke and Michael P. Kube-McDowell

[SotonShades]

Thing is, 90% (probably higher) of Americans who carry guns have probably never fired them whilst underfire themselves. I wouldn't be too surprised to find out that several of the people in the Aurora incident did have weapons on their person, but in their understandable panic weren't aware enough to draw and use them in defence. I'd also put money on there being more casualties had untrained, undisciplined members of the public had started shooting in that situation. Even most trained individuals (such as Police and Military personnel) have trouble openning fire upon a real human for the first time.

I can certainly understand the appeal of having a weapon for protection to some degree, but doubt the practicality. So some extent, it is the same principle as the Military wearing helmets. Those used by most armed forces will stop a pistol or shot gun round at medium to long range, but you'd be lucky for them to stop anything at close range or a rifle round at any range. That said, having them on has a significant affect on the psychology of soldiers which allows them to actually do what they are supposed to.

[Wolfshade]

But the thing is the deterrant to a gun isn't another gun.
If one person has a gun and the other doesn't then the one with a gun has the power and the balance lies with them.
If both people have guns then although the balance of power is equal, it is not as safe as if both people didn't have guns.
The answer to the gun is the anti-gun, a non-offensive weapon that renders the gun useless but cannot be used for offense, then balance is restored. Unfortunately, the anti-gun does not exist.
This sort of theme is explored in the Trigger, I got my copy for 99p.

[Wildeybeast]

It all comes down to completely different public mentalities. In Britain the response to violent crimes is to cry out for the state to ban/restrict the sales of the implements of said violence (handguns, knives, dogs etc) and introduce harsh sanctions for possessing them (just carrying a knife can lead to a five year prison sentence) . In the US it is to tool up on such things and look after yourself. I think it comes down to the image of what the state is for. Here we have a long tradition of the state telling us what to do and are by and large happy to trust it to look after us (hence the welfare state). America is country born out of rebellion against that state and they view individual liberty as being of paramount importance. The state should keep its nose out of your business, no matter how well intentioned it might be - the reaction to Obamacare being a prime example (there is a vocal element of republicans who would rather let poor people die than have the state interfere in the healthcare system). You see it in every element of American society - look at the great American Dream that a man can make something of himself just through the sweat of his brow. That attitude will never change and I don't think people in Britain will ever get it. And personally, I'm glad I don't live in society where I have to own a weapon to make myself feel safe.

[Psychosplodge]

While I was in America I heard a chap on the radio (before the Aurora shootings) express his disbelief that there "are still places in the world where you can shoot at people breaking into your house and YOU get punished for it".


I'm sorry but I think that you find someone in your house at two in the morning and they've left their rights at the door...


I would recommend reading abook called "The Trigger" it is by Authur C Clarke and Michael P. Kube-McDowell

Good book. I would second this.



Thing is, 90% (probably higher) of Americans who carry guns have probably never fired them whilst underfire themselves. I wouldn't be too surprised to find out that several of the people in the Aurora incident did have weapons on their person, but in their understandable panic weren't aware enough to draw and use them in defence. I'd also put money on there being more casualties had untrained, undisciplined members of the public had started shooting in that situation. Even most trained individuals (such as Police and Military personnel) have trouble openning fire upon a real human for the first time.

I can certainly understand the appeal of having a weapon for protection to some degree, but doubt the practicality. So some extent, it is the same principle as the Military wearing helmets. Those used by most armed forces will stop a pistol or shot gun round at medium to long range, but you'd be lucky for them to stop anything at close range or a rifle round at any range. That said, having them on has a significant affect on the psychology of soldiers which allows them to actually do what they are supposed to.

Helmets were introduced to protect from shell fragments.

[Kyban]

The problem is that it won't really change anything to restrict guns in America. The people who do these kinds of things will find a way to get the guns. I feel like the culture and situation in America make it harder to regulate guns and some will always be on the streets.

[Mr Mystery]

It's the countries attitude. As has been covered many times, Canada has as many, if not more firearms per capita, but the merest fraction of gun crime.

Also, in the UK any threat made involving a gun, real, replica or 'fingers in pcoket' are classed as gun crimes!

[Kyban]

It's the countries attitude. As has been covered many times, Canada has as many, if not more firearms per capita, but the merest fraction of gun crime.

Also, in the UK any threat made involving a gun, real, replica or 'fingers in pcoket' are classed as gun crimes!

America's not that different, threats are still a crime, whether it's classified as gun or not. I wouldn't say it's the country's attitude, rather that it's gotten more out of control than other countries. You only hear about the bad areas too, most places in America have no gun problems but there are some areas that you just don't go because it's a 'bad neighborhood'.

[wittdooley]

America's not that different, threats are still a crime, whether it's classified as gun or not. I wouldn't say it's the country's attitude, rather that it's gotten more out of control than other countries. You only hear about the bad areas too, most places in America have no gun problems but there are some areas that you just don't go because it's a 'bad neighborhood'.

Well that just isn't true.

The United States is LARGELY different than most other Westernized countries in regards to our gun culture.

We are a young nation, and, as it's already been mentioned, one that was essentially founded with the use of guns as a basic tenet of American life. I mean, it's the second ammendment. That means, in our country, the importance of gun ownership took precedence to, amongst other things:

1. Right against unlawful imprisonment
2. Equal Rights for women and minorities

I think that, honestly, says it all right there.

Further, our culture doesn't marginalize gun use, but rather glorifies it. Granted, not everyone listens to it, but two of the major music genres in the US absolutely glorify gun culture (Rap/Hip Nop & Country). Couple that with the American "Cowboy" or "Outlaw" and, well, our historical culture in the US is simply saturated with it.

Now, to me, I don't care either way. The simple fact of the matter remains that bad people are going to find ways to do bad things, regardless of the legality of it. And despite the fact that the guns were legal to purchase, it's not like they simply hand them to you in direct exchange for your money. There are regulations. But again, if one wants to buy a guy through nefarious means, it's not like it's hard in this country to do so.

And it's not like, if any of the people in the theatre WERE armed, they could have stopped him with their weapon. The dude had full body armour on. He was in riot gear.

Bad people will find ways to do bad things.

[Kyban]

Well that just isn't true.

The United States is LARGELY different than most other Westernized countries in regards to our gun culture.

We are a young nation, and, as it's already been mentioned, one that was essentially founded with the use of guns as a basic tenet of American life. I mean, it's the second ammendment. That means, in our country, the importance of gun ownership took precedence to, amongst other things:

1. Right against unlawful imprisonment
2. Equal Rights for women and minorities

I think that, honestly, says it all right there.

Further, our culture doesn't marginalize gun use, but rather glorifies it. Granted, not everyone listens to it, but two of the major music genres in the US absolutely glorify gun culture (Rap/Hip Nop & Country). Couple that with the American "Cowboy" or "Outlaw" and, well, our historical culture in the US is simply saturated with it.

Now, to me, I don't care either way. The simple fact of the matter remains that bad people are going to find ways to do bad things, regardless of the legality of it. And despite the fact that the guns were legal to purchase, it's not like they simply hand them to you in direct exchange for your money. There are regulations. But again, if one wants to buy a guy through nefarious means, it's not like it's hard in this country to do so.

And it's not like, if any of the people in the theatre WERE armed, they could have stopped him with their weapon. The dude had full body armour on. He was in riot gear.

Bad people will find ways to do bad things.

That was actually the point I was trying to make, bad people will do bad things. Making owning a gun 'bad' will only make it so 'good' people won't buy them, nefarious people still will. I wasn't saying that America's attitudes toward guns is the same, it certainly seems to be glorified more than in many European countries, but that we still treat crimes very similarly.

Armed citizens does have the potential to deter crime but it still won't stop crazy people and with proper training they could have easily stopped him. Body armor doesn't protect your head and you will still certainly feel it when it hits the armor.

I don't have any guns or necessarily support gun ownership but I'm trying to say in situations like this gun control is unlikely to have had any effect. It might be much easier to get a gun in this country but he would likely have been able to obtain one anyway. There are countless illegal weapons that get smuggled into the country right now anyway and are in the hands of gangs and other 'bad' people.

[MaltonNecromancer]

Also, in the UK any threat made involving a gun, real, replica or 'fingers in pcoket' are classed as gun crimes!

Frankly, quite rightly so. It's due to that bloke who robbed banks for years using a tire iron in a plastic bag - he thought he wouldn't be charged with armed robbery because he didn't have a gun. You've got to remember that common sense applies to a lot of this. If I pointed my fingers at a friend and went "bang", I really sincerely doubt I'd be arrested. If I put my fingers in my coat and held someone up claiming they were a gun, well, it's a different kettle of fish, isn't it? You've got to basically have a law to deal with people trying to bend the rules. Yes, it's kind of foolish and more than a little open to abuse, but it has proved useful in putting some very evil men inside.



And in response to the tragic cases in Aurora (where every weapon bought by that Pyschopath was legal) apparantly gun sales in America are up 43% in the last week (reference)

Why they don't just buy body armour is the one that gets me. It costs less and it'll keep you a damn sight safer.

I think a lot of it is to do with glorification, as someone else pointed out. The gun has become a fashion accessory for a lot of people. Can you remember the last blockbuster film you saw where violence wasn't the answer? I suppose you could do something like compare "Star Trek" (cowboys go off and tame the final wild frontier with phasers and kirk-fu) to "Doctor Who" (maniac runs round stopping baddies with a screwdriver and jelly babies), and the cultural difference becomes immediately apparent.

I'm not saying that UK culture is any better, mind. We have serious problems with our casual acceptance of violent thuggery when drunk. Still, the last time we had a pointless civil shooting, we outlawed guns so hard the only thing you can legally use in the UK now are black powder weapons, and frankly it seems to have done the trick. Yes, there's gun crime, but thankfully no insane shooters.

As a side note, I found this article interesting:

http://jezebel.com/5928584/why-most-mass-murderers-are-privileged-white-men

Others of you may too.

[Kyban]

Why they don't just buy body armour is the one that gets me. It costs less and it'll keep you a damn sight safer.

Still, the last time we had a pointless civil shooting, we outlawed guns so hard the only thing you can legally use in the UK now are black powder weapons, and frankly it seems to have done the trick. Yes, there's gun crime, but thankfully no insane shooters.

Actually, body armor is generally more expensive and only offers limited protection. The ability to fight back makes people feel safer, even if they don't stand a chance in reality.

The lack of insane shooters probably has more to do with a less competitive culture, which often drives people to a certain mindset, than the prevalence of guns and the smaller population.

[DarkLink]

Before anything else, I want to make a couple of things perfectly clear.

First off, America loves guns. This is not relegated so some small redneck portion of the country. All across America, across regional and cultural boundaries, America has a consistently high gun ownership rate. America has the highest estimated gun ownership rates in the world, bar none http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country. Nor is it restricted to men. Like video games, women have much higher participation rates in shooting sports than traditional media seems to imply, though there are still more men than women involved.

In America, gun culture refers to the wide range of sporting activities gun owners participate in. Hunting, target shooting, plinking, whatever, it is widespread and amazingly harmless. Shooting sports have an incredibly low injury rate, comparable to bowling.

Violent crime is decreasing. Steadily. It has been for decades. Anyone who has ever said "America is a dangerous place these days" or "this didn't happen back then" is an idiot. America is steadily getting safer and safer.

Violence is cultural. It is not a function of an individual's access to the tools of violence, but instead one of the individual's willingness to harm others. This is why some countries like Switzerland, or some states like Arizona, have extremely high gun ownership rates yet very low crime rates, while other places like Washington DC or many third world countries suffer from the opposite.

At the same time, firearm ownership in America has been steadily rising. Concealed Carry Permits have exploded in popularity. More and more states are passing laws supporting concealed carry, and the number of people getting their permits have increased dramatically.

Firearm crime rates vary wildly across America. In places like Washington DC or Chicago, with the most strict gun laws in the nation, firearm crime rates and violent crime rates are extremely high. In places like Arizona, with very loose firearm laws, violent crime is much lower. Again, violence is cultural rather than practical.

America has very strong legal protection for the citizen's right to own firearms. A few years ago, the Supreme Court finally upheld the Constitution's blatantly obvious protection of individual gun rights. Most gun control measures that advocates propose are blatant violations of our Constitution. That's not to say all gun control laws are unconstitutional, but as an example a ban on all handguns is explicitly unconstitutional. Even if America wanted gun control laws, this protection makes it extremely difficult for politician to violate its citizen's rights in this area.

Here's an article that addresses some of these points: http://giftoffreedom.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/the-gun-control-cycle-continues/



While I was in America I heard a chap on the radio (before the Aurora shootings) express his disbelief that there "are still places in the world where you can shoot at people breaking into your house and YOU get punished for it".

Self defense is the most fundamental human right. It's disgusting to think that any nation would punish someone for defending themselves and their family, so long as it is genuinely self defense. Here's a well written article to that point: http://giftoffreedom.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/what-an-armed-and-responsible-citizenry-practically-brings-to-the-table/.



And in response to the tragic cases in Aurora (where every weapon bought by that Pyschopath was legal)

You need to read this: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/opinion/fox-mass-murder/index.html?hpt=op_bn6

Interesting little fact, the guy had an AK replica with a high capacity magazine (and an actual high capacity magazine, a hundred rounds apparently, not the bull**** phrase politicians and the media toss around). It jammed. Those hundred round magazines are notoriously unreliable. The 'scariest' weapon this guy had failed him, and he continued to kill people with much more mundane firearms.

Something you must understand, which you clearly don't, is that mass murder is a constant. It doesn't matter what laws get passed or don't, what guns are banned or aren't. Mass murderers are pathologically driven. If the guns are legal, they'll buy them. If they're illegal, they'll track them down illegally, or find an alternative means.

This murder was meticulously planned. If he lacked firearms, he would have tossed chemical bombs into the crowd and killed as many people. He clearly had the resources to do so, considering how well his house was booby-trapped. Or maybe he would have blocked the exit and started a fire. Not exactly difficult, and it probably would have killed almost everyone in the theater rather than just some.

There is no rhyme or reason to this sort of thing. It is literally impossible for someone sitting in Washington to somehow write a magical law that could have prevented this. No matter how thoroughly politicians violate individual rights in the name of security, **** happens.

Another thing you have to understand is that law enforcement is purely reactionary. It's impossible to predict this sort of thing, and it's impossible to prevent, and all the police and politicians can do is react. It is impossible to stop a mass murderer with a law, because by definition you don't know who the mass murderer is and what they're planning and they will do anything it takes to execute their plan.

Look at the TSA in America. Hugely unpopular, extremely invasive, highly ineffective, and a massive inconvenience for every single person who ever steps on a plane in America. All because of 9/11. And the funny thing is, after 9/11 passengers have realized that they can't sit idly by. Between air marshals and passengers willing to defend themselves, there is now relatively little need for the TSA.

Even worse, the TSA's failures are not due to their incompetence. They have some of the most highly trained, competent security agents in the world. But they are mandated by politicians all the way up at the top to follow nonsensical policies. It's congress that decides that you can't carry on shaving razors, not the TSA. If it were up to the TSA, their security measures would be much, much more reasonable and much, much more effective, while being much, much less invasive.

The TSA is a perfect example of how broad, sweeping, invasive, and reactive policy made from ignorance and fear not only accomplished nothing, but is massively detrimental to the public and often counter-productive.

I actually have read a letter from one of the form head of the TSA that goes into great detail on this subject, but I seem to have lost the link.


On another note, when you start down the slippery slope of violating inherent freedoms of the people, things like this start happening: http://www.popehat.com/2012/07/24/torrance-brown-jr-and-attorney-donald-karpel-are-responsible-for-rampant-violence-in-america/.

We have a bill of right for a reason, and we have the 2nd Amendment for a reason. And if you think you can violate these rights, you undermine the very basis upon which America is built.



My quote here is that "They want to have the ability to protect themselves and their families if they are in a situation like what happened in the movie theatre.". So the answer is for more people to carry guns in public.

You have to understand a couple of things.

The surge in firearms purchases comes from two thing. One is the desire to be able to defend oneself. The lesson from Aurora that you're missing is that the police can't protect you. Security guards can't protect you. Big government isn't everywhere at all times at once. Even if you aren't going to be particularly effective with a firearm without extensive training, at least you can do something. And in a less crowded and confusing mess, such as if someone tries to mug you on the street, simply brandishing a firearm can enough to send them off, even if you're not a good shot. Better to have one and not need it than need it and not have one. This desire to defend oneself, and the need to have access to the means to do so, if an inherent, unalienable right all humans have.

Again, Americans like guns. For American politicians, gun control is a losing subject. Democrats have fought, and loudly, for gun control on numerous occasions, and each time they have paid for it come elections. And every time Americans think that they're going to try and pass some new gun control legislation, we go out and buy all the stuff we want that might be illegal in a year. Obama's election was the best thing to happen to the firearms industry in recent memory, because Obama was on record as antigun so there was a huge surge of purchases. He hasn't take any anti-firearm actions as president, and he's even backed away from his previous stance due his election campaign.

Put another way, politically promoting gun control is like opposing teacher's unions. It's a losing prospect. It's unconstitutional, unpopular despite the media's efforts to demonize guns, and it is a violation of one of the most fundamental rights all human being have.



As someone from a country with very few weapons and most of them in the hands of the police, I just can't get my head around it.

We don't get why you people like tea so much.

America, from it's founding, has had a mentality of individual self reliance and ruggedness. No comment on how our surging obesity has affected that:rolleyes:, but the freedoms associated with it have been ingrained in our culture. We want to own our own stuff and do what we want without the government telling us what to do. Firearm confiscation and gun control laws on behalf of our british oppressors was one of the key reasons for the Revolutionary War. While taxes and political control were the spark, attempts to disarm Americans were a not insignificant part of the tinder.

Freedom is based on wants, not on needs. A free nation cannot arbitrarily deprive its citizens of its wants and still claim to be a free nation. The whole "but why do you need a gun" is a massively flawed argument.

Lastly, and most importantly, the right to self defense is a need. It is the most fundamental right a human being has. It is not granted by the government, nor a social contract, nor by society. It is inherent, and undeniable. Sure, having a concealed weapon is not as good as being protected by a full SWAT team. But that SWAT team is not there when the shooting starts. It's 10 minutes away, and 10 minutes got a dozen people killed and dozens more wounded.

The fundamental purpose of govenerment is to provide a degree of protection to its people. As noted above, this cannot be adequately accomplished by law enforcement alone. Thus, it is a moral imperative to protect the citizen's right to self defense, and their practical means to accomplish this.



Here's an obliquely related subject: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303425504577353754196169014.html

[DarkLink]

Granted, not everyone listens to it, but two of the major music genres in the US absolutely glorify gun culture (Rap/Hip Nop & Country). Couple that with the American "Cowboy" or "Outlaw" and, well, our historical culture in the US is simply saturated with it.


Gun culture actually has several meanings, and as far as America is concerned you're generally looking at the wrong one.

Rap, as well as the deep south, has a focus on something very different from most of America. It's called a Culture of Honor. Look it up, it's vital to understanding things like gangster violence as glorified by rap.

To put it simply, a culture of honor is one in which the individual is forced to rely on himself and his family, rather than society. Reputation becomes vital. If someone has a tough reputation, no one messes with him, and with a poor reputation they get no respect. And, key to my point, if an individual lets someone insult them, they are seen as weak. Every insult must be answered, and as might be predicted this quickly escalates to violence. One family or gang becomes tightly knit, and commits violence at slight provocation against other families or gangs.

Like I said, violence is cultural, not practical. Gangsters are not violent because they have access to guns. They are violent because they have been raised in a culture where if someone disrespects or cheats you, you beat the **** out of them.

It's not about guns in these cultures, it's about respect.

On the other hand, gun culture in America refers to shooting sports and the like, rather than criminal use of firearms like much of the rest of the world focuses on.

[wittdooley]

Gun culture actually has several meanings, and as far as America is concerned you're generally looking at the wrong one.

Rap, as well as the deep south, has a focus on something very different from most of America. It's called a Culture of Honor. Look it up, it's vital to understanding things like gangster violence as glorified by rap.

To put it simply, a culture of honor is one in which the individual is forced to rely on himself and his family, rather than society. Reputation becomes vital. If someone has a tough reputation, no one messes with him, and with a poor reputation they get no respect. And, key to my point, if an individual lets someone insult them, they are seen as weak. Every insult must be answered, and as might be predicted this quickly escalates to violence. One family or gang becomes tightly knit, and commits violence at slight provocation against other families or gangs.

Like I said, violence is cultural, not practical. Gangsters are not violent because they have access to guns. They are violent because they have been raised in a culture where if someone disrespects or cheats you, you beat the **** out of them.

It's not about guns in these cultures, it's about respect.

On the other hand, gun culture in America refers to shooting sports and the like, rather than criminal use of firearms like much of the rest of the world focuses on.

I don't disagree with any part here, but in the instances I supplied the gun is the vehicle that helps to command the respect. I understand the Cuture of Honor fairly well from working in/with it, and the gun (and particualrly then handgun) is absolutely pervasive in that culture as a means to achieve said respect.

And I think you're right on point regarding the indivdual that perpetrated the mass murder in Colorado. He was going to do it regardless. The gun was simple the vehicle for achieving his means in this instance.

In fact, and this may sound callous, though it isn't intended to, the folks in theatre 9 are probably lucky he chose guns as his vehicle for murder and not the various incendiary devices he very clearly knew how to make. Had he chosen to throw a few of them in the theatre, or worse yet as DarkLink indicated, bar the door and set the theatre on fire, the death toll could have been exponentially higher.

[Kyban]

I don't disagree with any part here, but in the instances I supplied the gun is the vehicle that helps to command the respect. I understand the Cuture of Honor fairly well from working in/with it, and the gun (and particualrly then handgun) is absolutely pervasive in that culture as a means to achieve said respect.

And I think you're right on point regarding the indivdual that perpetrated the mass murder in Colorado. He was going to do it regardless. The gun was simple the vehicle for achieving his means in this instance.

In fact, and this may sound callous, though it isn't intended to, the folks in theatre 9 are probably lucky he chose guns as his vehicle for murder and not the various incendiary devices he very clearly knew how to make. Had he chosen to throw a few of them in the theatre, or worse yet as DarkLink indicated, bar the door and set the theatre on fire, the death toll could have been exponentially higher.

Yeah, the scariest things are explosives. You can't fight back, there is often no warning, and the damage can be on a much greater scale. You can also get all the ingredients at the local drug store if you know what you're doing.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

It all comes down to completely different public mentalities. In Britain the response to violent crimes is to cry out for the state to ban/restrict the sales of the implements of said violence (handguns, knives, dogs etc) and introduce harsh sanctions for possessing them (just carrying a knife can lead to a five year prison sentence) . In the US it is to tool up on such things and look after yourself. I think it comes down to the image of what the state is for. Here we have a long tradition of the state telling us what to do and are by and large happy to trust it to look after us (hence the welfare state). America is country born out of rebellion against that state and they view individual liberty as being of paramount importance. The state should keep its nose out of your business, no matter how well intentioned it might be - the reaction to Obamacare being a prime example (there is a vocal element of republicans who would rather let poor people die than have the state interfere in the healthcare system). You see it in every element of American society - look at the great American Dream that a man can make something of himself just through the sweat of his brow. That attitude will never change and I don't think people in Britain will ever get it. And personally, I'm glad I don't live in society where I have to own a weapon to make myself feel safe.

Congratulations! This is the best analysis of this issue from a Brit that I have ever read. Fellow UK'ers pay attention to WB.

I would only add that in addition to the culture, there is also the constitutional element to which... incidentally we got from the English Bill of Rights of 1689. The Second Amendment in the US Constitution is very similar to that in the EBR.

[DarkLink]

Incidentally, here are some actual cases in which a responsible armed citizen did save lives: http://kitup.military.com/2012/07/regarding-an-armed-citizenry.html


From the article above, you'll notice that the murders mentioned all followed a certain pattern. They didn't attempt to conceal their weapons. Close friends knew something was wrong well before the event, even if they didn't know exactly what, but there was nothing that could be noticed by a police officer walking by. They often target people they know, and take out some bystanders along the way. And it is entirely possible for an armed citizen, who happens to be lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time, to stop them, often without further violence beyond brandishing their firearm.



I'll re-emphasis that. The shooter were stopped, mostly without further violence, as soon as someone presented armed resistance. Despite the fact that they typically intend to keep shooting, they don't decide to go out in a blaze of glory. When they see another gun, they tend to stop.



It's also important that friends and family often knew something was up. Not anything that could be brought to the police, typically, but enough to at least try and talk with the would-be murderer. A pro-active approach on the behalf of friends and family could stem off the entire even in a way that the police never could, or at the least get the individual the psychological medical help necessary.

Unfortunately, the sort of social situation that often drives these killers is often the result of less than caring, or detached, friends and family. It's hard to reach out to a loner, especially if they are suffering from mental illnesses of some sort, and even more so if the family just doesn't care. Even more unfortunately, there's absolutely nothing that can be done by outside forces to address this issue. You can't make or enforce a law that says you have to care about your kids, it just wouldn't work.


The moral of all of this is to be well educated on the subject. Irrational fear of guns, or blaming incidents like these on particular hunks of metal, stems directly from a lack of understanding of what drives the events. Individuals, driven by unfortunate circumstances, decide to make a terrible decision. And unless you happen to run into that individual and happen to be a psychiatrist or something, there's not really anything anyone can do about it.





I also have a question for gun control people. If guns are completely banned on basically all school campuses across the USA, then how did Virginia Tech happen? Or Columbine? It's a loaded question, but no more loaded than one such as 'why do you need guns'.




there is a vocal element of republicans who would rather let poor people die than have the state interfere in the healthcare system

That's not very accurate.

Obamacare is little more than a massive tax increase. And don't let anyone bull**** you int thinking it isn't a tax increase, because it is: http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/09/yes-actually-obamacare-is-the-biggest-ta

Both sides actually want to improve healthcare, they can't agree on how. Obamacare take the approach of raise taxes and throw money at the problem, which conservatives despise. There are some provisions in Obamacare that are beneficial, but for the most part it's nothing more than our current messed up system on steroids. That's their complaint.

Edit: BTW, it's the Feds interfering. State governments have their own healthcare, but Obamacare is on the federal level. One other complaint was that it directly undermined some State healthcare programs, and that was one part of the law that the Supreme Court did strike down.

[Psychosplodge]

We don't get why you people like tea so much.



Your loss...



I would only add that in addition to the culture, there is also the constitutional element to which... incidentally we got from the English Bill of Rights of 1689. The Second Amendment in the US Constitution is very similar to that in the EBR.

That's because US law was based mostly on English law as it was in the late 1700's for some reason :D.
But we had our right to firearms removed in I think 1921 on the basis of the establishment feared a russian style communist uprising.

Also whoever said something about the founding document being eternal, no it isn't you can amend it whenever there is enough political will in any one direction.

[Wolfshade]

I have to say that this is one of the "friendliest" debates I've seen on here for a long time. We have people with opposing views who keep on topic and seem to respect each other's points of view, well done everyone :)

I think that there is an ultimate deterrant needed, my concern is where this "ultimate sanction" becomes the go to. Where one side is armed, the other to try and restore balance then arms themselves. To get their original advantage back the one side then needs a better gun and so it continues though an arms race.
Lest we not forget when the right to bear arms was enshrined the best infantrymen would be firing 3 rounds per minute, there are now machine pistols that have greater range/accuracy firing 1200+ rounds per minute.
I know this view might be slightly detached from reality but when I watch NCIS, I see Gibbs taking people out with a double tap to the heart, never "spray n' pray", so why are such rates of fire required?

There is also an argument that the "right to bear arms" in the 18th C. meant to serve as a solider rather than for an armed citizenry, It came from Henry II in 1181 whom consolidated his power by enforicng his will though allowing those loyal to him to form militia, though I feel such a debate, which, while potentially interesting is not strictly to do with the matter at hand.

[Psychosplodge]

Well there are appropriate reasons for high RoF weapons, just watch anything about the Iranian Embassy siege...

But yes those laws and rights were based around weapons with low fire rates, accuracy, and most peoples weapon of choice was probably something bladed.

[Wildeybeast]

That's not very accurate.

Obamacare is little more than a massive tax increase. And don't let anyone bull**** you int thinking it isn't a tax increase, because it is: http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/09/yes-actually-obamacare-is-the-biggest-ta

Both sides actually want to improve healthcare, they can't agree on how. Obamacare take the approach of raise taxes and throw money at the problem, which conservatives despise. There are some provisions in Obamacare that are beneficial, but for the most part it's nothing more than our current messed up system on steroids. That's their complaint.

Edit: BTW, it's the Feds interfering. State governments have their own healthcare, but Obamacare is on the federal level. One other complaint was that it directly undermined some State healthcare programs, and that was one part of the law that the Supreme Court did strike down.

Of course it's a tax increase. How do you think we fund the NHS? The money has to come from somewhere though. What I find startling is that some Americans would actually rather let poor people die than face a tax increase. "Republican primary debate in Tampa, FL last September, when members of the “conservative” Tea Party audience cried “let him die” about a hypothetical young man who falls catastrophically ill without health insurance". http://www.nationalmemo.com/let-them-live-wounded-and-pregnant-an-aurora-family-without-health-coverage/2/ For me it goes to the heart of the individualist attitude that most Americans have.

By state I meant the state as in the mechanics of government rather than South Dakota etc. The British public view of the role of the state is a conservative one, the American founding fathers were heavily influenced by the likes of Locke and Rousseau and as such your view of the state is a libertarian one. One emphasises state interference in private life to promote the wellbeing of citizens, the other advocates the state keeping it's nose out except to protect your rights from others.



I don't have any guns or necessarily support gun ownership but I'm trying to say in situations like this gun control is unlikely to have had any effect. It might be much easier to get a gun in this country but he would likely have been able to obtain one anyway. There are countless illegal weapons that get smuggled into the country right now anyway and are in the hands of gangs and other 'bad' people.

Gun control might not keep guns out of the hands of bad people, but it does make it harder to get hold of them. Since we banned handguns in this country, most firearms used in crime are now either converted replica handguns or shotguns which can be legally owned by some people. Admittedly as an island it is easier to control the import of weapons and we didn't have the proliferation of them that the US does, but common sense dictates that if you reduce people's access to weapons, you reduce the opportunity for them to use them. Determined criminals will always find ways to access weapons, but if you make it harder for the small time crooks and drug addicts to get hold of them, you will reduce gun crime. Not to mention getting rid of all those accidental shootings where Jonny found daddy's gun. But as I've said, it goes back to public attitudes. Because Americans have an individualist view, the fault lies with the criminal/careless parent, not the the state for failing to regulate properly whereas we blame the state for not doing enough to prevent people hurting each other. We introduce regulation, Americans rail at the idea of individual rights being curtailed because of the actions of an irresponsible minority.



Congratulations! This is the best analysis of this issue from a Brit that I have ever read. Fellow UK'ers pay attention to WB.

Thanks dude! You fancy coming into my classes and telling the kids that? :D

[wittdooley]

Of course it's a tax increase. How do you think we fund the NHS? The money has to come from somewhere though. What I find startling is that some Americans would actually rather let poor people die than face a tax increase. "Republican primary debate in Tampa, FL last September, when members of the “conservative” Tea Party audience cried “let him die” about a hypothetical young man who falls catastrophically ill without health insurance". http://www.nationalmemo.com/let-them-live-wounded-and-pregnant-an-aurora-family-without-health-coverage/2/ For me it goes to the heart of the individualist attitude that most Americans have.


I think this is a bit of a half-truth. Tea Party Conservatives don't want to be paying for the lazy, uneducated poor that are content to live off government systems. And quite frankly, I dont know why anyone would be interested in increasing our taxes to continue to pay for those people to live and breed and consequently, pay for more of them.

I read an interesting article yesterday detailing how the birth rate in the United States has dropped below 2.0 children/woman for the first time in 25 years, with those birth rates dipping to close to 1.0/woman in northern and western states, whereas the fertility rates in the south and 'middle' states remains relatively stable. It continues to be a pretty clear case of too many people in the US breeding that shouldn't be, and too many people that should be breeding failing to.

You know, it's frustrating right now being any kind of conservative in the United States because you're accused of being unsympathetic. As a former teacher (not by choice, but by economy) I've plenty of compassion for the poor that make an effort, but I've seen enough instances working in the schools of the opposite end of the spectrum with ignorant, lazy families looking for handouts and then teaching those "values" to their children. It's despicable. Our government systems are already stretched and abused, and I don't think it's selfish or individualistic to say enough.

If you talk to American conservatives, many have no problem with health care being made available to those that deserve it. This means kids under 18. This means ANYONE working more than part time. But to continue to give and give and give to people that sustain themselves by loopholing and leeching from our systems...well, I'm just not down with that.

[Psychosplodge]

So what you're saying is that the northern and western states have birth rates more in line with other developed western countries?

[wittdooley]

According to the stats I saw, yeah.

Remember the "American Dream" was 2.5 kids and a white picket fence. Also remember that the United States was more recently an agrarian society (simply due to the age of our country and the vastness of our land) than many European nations. Based on a quick google-fu search, it appears that most westernized European countries are between 1.5/per and 2.0/per, so you'd be right.

However, I think living expenses, coupled with the much greater amount of land in the US, perhaps "explain" the higher birth rate as a whole. That and all the crazyazz eveangelical popping out their own Christain Armies in the middle states :D (<-- meant semi sarcastically; shows like 19 and Counting (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CG4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fduggarfamily.com%2F&ei=-0wRUMXWDoTErQGpv4DgCw&usg=AFQjCNF2Lccs_aG0hFH8Q8oHlrEVo_WYUQ&sig2=7GvORCXxYl-QkVlSxWMiMw)show there really are insane people floating around in the US overbreeding). The Duggars are doing their part to keep Arkansas at the top of the US fertility rate charts, that's for sure.

Anyways, and I apologize for the digression, but yeah... I sometimes feel like a primary tenet of being part of the political left is to maintain a certain level of "white guilt;" I think many policies like these come from that tenet. I mean, if you'll recall, there was a huge movement in 2008 for Obama that basically said you were a racist if you didn't vote for him. That plays right into the white guilt that the left likes to foster and then give themselves pats on the back for.

[Psychosplodge]

I really don't understand white guilt.

Are saying they've had 19 kids? O_o

Yeah I think to maintain a steady population you need to have 2.3 or 2.4 or something to account for people dying before breeding. Never saw the appeal of white picket fences either, it's just something else that needs painting...

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Did you know that Jesus used guns to fight the Romans?

[Psychosplodge]

I remember reading Socrates historical works on the subject, his storming of the roman imperial palace using helicopters and AK47s was considered a work of tactical genius...

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!
u

[Kyban]

I remember reading Socrates historical works on the subject, his storming of the roman imperial palace using helicopters and AK47s was considered a work of tactical genius...

Nonsense, he was clearly using a TAR21! :p

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I only use Sniper Rifles, I don't use scopes however, because scopes are for puss!es. :p

[wittdooley]

I really don't understand white guilt.


Like, you dont understand why people feel it or you dont understand what it is?



Are saying they've had 19 kids? O_o



Sigh.... yes. 19...and Counting. It's really an embarassing sideshow in America. Shows like that and shows like 16 & Pregnant are some of the worst things to ever happen to the US. For so many white trash girls, seeing 16 & Pregnant was a form of validation and a "way to celebrity." I've heard first hand accounts of girls trying to get pregnant so they can attempt to get on those shows. Again, Despicable. I'll take 18 more varieties of Real Housewives if that means they'd stop putting 16 & Pregnant and Teen Mom on TV.

Sure, MTV 'says' that they're running them 'as a cautionary tale,' but heres the problem: all these teenage girls I hear trying to get on the show KNOW that, while on camera there are 'problems,' they know MTV is paying these girls well, and these girls are getting on the cover of US Weekly and other trash magazines.

Ugh. I'm going to stop this rant before I go any further. There are a few things I boycott out of principle, and this is one of them. I also turn off Chris Brown music if it ever comes on in my car because I think he's a piece of shyte woman beater that deserves to be beaten Fight Club style so that "something beautiful is ruined."

[Psychosplodge]

I don't understand why people feel it.

yeah, sixteen and pregnant has crossed the pond, i've seen it advertised on freeview somewhere. And that doesn't surprise me, just more paris hilton style famous for the sake of being famous, missing the point that she's got a trust fund so can afford to "just be famous" ¬_¬


Feel free to come join the "doing my head in" thread, the place for rants lol

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

We like rants. We like witt. Surely this is fate?

[wittdooley]

I don't understand why people feel it.

yeah, sixteen and pregnant has crossed the pond, i've seen it advertised on freeview somewhere. And that doesn't surprise me, just more paris hilton style famous for the sake of being famous, missing the point that she's got a trust fund so can afford to "just be famous" ¬_¬


Feel free to come join the "doing my head in" thread, the place for rants lol

I think it is a decidedly American feeling. It started with feeling guilty about slavery, but it's moved on to feeling guilty about lots of other things, including being more wealthy than others, etc. But it isn't real guilt. It's like, a self-serving artificial guilt that provides a means to give yourself a "pat on the back" for helping those "less fortunate than you." It's like that whole Kony thing. I'm sure those guys care about African genocide as humans, but I have trouble believing their "cause" is anything more than a "look-at-me" self-serving endeavor.

It's like the people that post on Facebook about "really wanting people to get motivated to get in shape." Sure, they care a little bit about that, but those declarations are more a way for them to say, "Look at how in shape I am."

That's one of the things that bothers me sometimes about overly-boistrous liberals. They take up all these causes and agendas and act like they're the super-humanitarians. The fact of the matter is that they're just more vocal about giving themselves the pat on the back for being "so humanitarian."

[DrLove42]

One things i'll say there is the diffeence in political advertising over there.

In the 2 weeks there i'm sure i saw more political adverts saying "Don't vote for the other guy!" than i saw saying "Vote for me!"

[wittdooley]

One things i'll say there is the diffeence in political advertising over there.

In the 2 weeks there i'm sure i saw more political adverts saying "Don't vote for the other guy!" than i saw saying "Vote for me!"

It's awful, isn't it?

I'm not particularly fond of either candidate at this point, but Obam's smear campaign has been one for the ages. They actually pulled a commercial of Obama's that basically had him making fun of Romney's wife's horse riding, a hobby she partakes in because it alleviates some of the symptoms of her MS.

The first candidate that presents more "this is why you should vote for me" campaigning rather than "these half-truth's are why you shouldn't vote for him" campaigning will be the person I vote for almost automatically. It isn't happening this year though, they've made that pretty clear.

[Kyban]

One things i'll say there is the diffeence in political advertising over there.

In the 2 weeks there i'm sure i saw more political adverts saying "Don't vote for the other guy!" than i saw saying "Vote for me!"

My favorite are the adverts that attack the other candidate about attacking them. :p

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Oh dear.... That's quite terrible.

This is why I don't pay attention to American politics. (or ours for that matter)

[Psychosplodge]

One things i'll say there is the diffeence in political advertising over there.

In the 2 weeks there i'm sure i saw more political adverts saying "Don't vote for the other guy!" than i saw saying "Vote for me!"



I'm sure that's how Our last election was fought wasn't it?

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Sounds about right, and I was just underage to vote. (balls!)

[Psychosplodge]

You didn't miss anything.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I missed voting for C.U.R.E. :(

[Psychosplodge]

some local independent?

[eldargal]

Ha, you haven't experienced white guilt until you've been to Britain. EVERYTHING bad everywhere is our fault because of the British Empire. Even slavery in America, that's our fault too.

As to guns, the thing that irritates me about the situation in America is that they have the right to bear arms so the citizenry can defend the state agaisnt external threats nd the guvmint. Ignoringthe fact that Americans are too lazy and apathetic to take action against their own government (in contrast to the French who are on their fifth republic since 1789), they also have one of the largest and most powerful standing armies the world has ever seen which is EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Citizens for Undead Rights and Equality. :p

They got like 50 votes in Devon?

[DrLove42]

If you want to incite rebellion in America just charge them what we pay for Petrol (gasoline).

Iin Florida, where I was on Holiday it was $3.30 or so for a gallon.
In England its currently about £1.35 a litre

Now the exchange rate is £1 for $1.55. So we pay $2.09 a litre
Theres 4.5 litres in a gallon.

So in the UK we pay $9.41 per gallon. Compared to $3.3 you pay. Can you imagine the riots if there a bit of equality there?

[Kyban]

If you want to incite rebellion in America just charge them what we pay for Petrol (gasoline).

Iin Florida, where I was on Holiday it was $3.30 or so for a gallon.
In England its currently about £1.35 a litre

Now the exchange rate is £1 for $1.55. So we pay $2.09 a litre
Theres 4.5 litres in a gallon.

So in the UK we pay $9.41 per gallon. Compared to $3.3 you pay. Can you imagine the riots if there a bit of equality there?

I feel like we use more gas on average in the US though, maybe that has something to do with it.
The US has a feeling that rebellion would mean losing everything, I believe there is an ingrained incentive not to rebel. The closest we have come is the Occupy protests recently.

[wittdooley]

If you want to incite rebellion in America just charge them what we pay for Petrol (gasoline).

Iin Florida, where I was on Holiday it was $3.30 or so for a gallon.
In England its currently about £1.35 a litre

Now the exchange rate is £1 for $1.55. So we pay $2.09 a litre
Theres 4.5 litres in a gallon.

So in the UK we pay $9.41 per gallon. Compared to $3.3 you pay. Can you imagine the riots if there a bit of equality there?

That'll never happen. I'd love to not have to drive a car, but our infrastructure for much of the country doesn't afford me that many other opportunities to commute. The way I understand much of Europe (and correct me if I'm wrong) Pretty much EVERY major city has either A) solid public transportation, or B) has a city layout small enough that you can function more appropriately with bikes, scooters, etc.

We simply don't have that in the States in MANY of our cities.

[DrLove42]

Oh yeah it comes down to cultures. I get the bus to work every day and live close enough to town to walk to shops

And no one english will ever call their public transport solid. Theres a reason why late buses/trains are the butt of lots of jokes.

And everything in the states is cheaper. FLorida's 6% sales tax can't quite match our 20%.....

[wittdooley]

Oh yeah it comes down to cultures. I get the bus to work every day and live close enough to town to walk to shops

And no one english will ever call their public transport solid. Theres a reason why late buses/trains are the butt of lots of jokes.

And everything in the states is cheaper. FLorida's 6% sales tax can't quite match our 20%.....

Out of curiosity, what do ya'll typically net (percentage wise) of your gross income after taxes?

[SotonShades]

It averages in at around £30k, but that does tend to be more people with 8+ years experience and is horribly skewed by a very large number of wealthy CEOs and the like who live in the UK and also 'officially' live in places like Monaco so they can pay a fraction of the tax they should, but still contribute to the overall average income figures.

So call it $45k, so about the same as the average American (plus or minus a grand or so). Bare in mind, once you get an income over £40k, the amount of tax you have to pay skyrockets, so until you are earning significantly more (I believe, but could be wrong, arouns £60k) you are better off staying at £39,999.99.


Edit; oops, those figures would appear to be pre-tax for both UK and US averages I believe. Trying to work out an average post tax for the UK is like trying to shoot a bullet at a moving target while blind folded over here (nearly back on the original topic...) as so much depends on where you live (even one street from the next), how many kids you have, your marrital situation, blah blah blah.

[wittdooley]

I'm sorry, I think I was unintentionally vague.

So, For example, if an individual made $40,000 pre tax, what would the ACTUALLY take home?

In the US, if you're making $40K pretax, you're only taking home in the neighborhood of $26K, so the tax rate hovers around 35%, give or take. The % is higher when you enter higher earnings brackets, but that's a good "average American" example.

Quite frankly, it makes me sick to think about, but I was curious what that looked like in other countries.

[DrLove42]

When you hit 40k here the rate hits 40%

At 16k pre tax my wife brings home about 12k post

[wittdooley]

When you hit 40k here the rate hits 40%

At 16k pre tax my wife brings home about 12k post

40K in GBP is around 65K in USD...Hmm. Looks like, based on your wife's however, that the % taken is about the same.

So much for starting a revolution to avoid undue taxes ;-P

[Wildeybeast]

I think this is a bit of a half-truth. Tea Party Conservatives don't want to be paying for the lazy, uneducated poor that are content to live off government systems. And quite frankly, I dont know why anyone would be interested in increasing our taxes to continue to pay for those people to live and breed and consequently, pay for more of them.

I read an interesting article yesterday detailing how the birth rate in the United States has dropped below 2.0 children/woman for the first time in 25 years, with those birth rates dipping to close to 1.0/woman in northern and western states, whereas the fertility rates in the south and 'middle' states remains relatively stable. It continues to be a pretty clear case of too many people in the US breeding that shouldn't be, and too many people that should be breeding failing to.

You know, it's frustrating right now being any kind of conservative in the United States because you're accused of being unsympathetic. As a former teacher (not by choice, but by economy) I've plenty of compassion for the poor that make an effort, but I've seen enough instances working in the schools of the opposite end of the spectrum with ignorant, lazy families looking for handouts and then teaching those "values" to their children. It's despicable. Our government systems are already stretched and abused, and I don't think it's selfish or individualistic to say enough.

If you talk to American conservatives, many have no problem with health care being made available to those that deserve it. This means kids under 18. This means ANYONE working more than part time. But to continue to give and give and give to people that sustain themselves by loopholing and leeching from our systems...well, I'm just not down with that.

We have the same problem in this country and no one wants to pay for the lazy, ignorant good for nothings. But should we just leave them die? I mean, I rankle at the idea of my taxes paying for the healthcare of smokers and alcoholics whose diseases are entirely self inflicted, but I can't quite bring myself to just say 'leave them to die'. Those with the ability to help have the obligation to do so in my view.

The problem comes in sorting out those who need help from those who don't. My mum has worked damn hard all her life, paid her taxes and supported her family. She can barely walk any more, has two artificial hips, an artificial knee and needs the other one replacing, is in constant pain and now has even more problems after the hospital cocked up her last operation and nearly killed her. Yet as the government is trying to get all the shirkers off benefits, their new assessment system says there is no reason why she cannnot work and is entitled to diddly squat in terms of benefit. Until someone comes up with a way of only supporting those who need it, I'd rather keep paying for the spongers rather than have deserving people left with no help at all.



I'm sorry, I think I was unintentionally vague.

So, For example, if an individual made $40,000 pre tax, what would the ACTUALLY take home?

In the US, if you're making $40K pretax, you're only taking home in the neighborhood of $26K, so the tax rate hovers around 35%, give or take. The % is higher when you enter higher earnings brackets, but that's a good "average American" example.

Quite frankly, it makes me sick to think about, but I was curious what that looked like in other countries.

Put it like this, I make approx £27000 pre tax, I take home approx £18600 (though that does include pension contributions and student loan repayment which are deducted at source). Just pure tax it works at £21k take home. Our figures are complicated somewhat by that fact we have two different taxes on income which are done at different rates. Income tax is at a basic rate of 20% (with the first £8000 of salary being tax free). I have no idea how National Insurance is worked out.


Ha, you haven't experienced white guilt until you've been to Britain. EVERYTHING bad everywhere is our fault because of the British Empire. Even slavery in America, that's our fault too.

Yeah, but I was under the impression that we didn't really care about any of that on the basis that it happened so long ago. The rest of the world blames us, but we offer lip service apologies and then ignore them (especially when they start talking about reparations). Plus the Americans are so intent on making an even bigger mess of the world that we can just transfer any guilt into laughing at how they haven't learned from all our mistakes.

[Wildeybeast]

40K in GBP is around 65K in USD...Hmm. Looks like, based on your wife's however, that the % taken is about the same.

So much for starting a revolution to avoid undue taxes ;-P

I thought issue wasn't paying the taxes, but paying for them without representation in Parliament? That and all our pesky bureaucracy stopping you from stealing the natives land. ;)

[Drunkencorgimaster]

Thanks dude! You fancy coming into my classes and telling the kids that? :D

Yeah, I'd be happy too. Shoulda figured you were a fellow educator. You make sense.

[Mr Mystery]

Actually, Tax in the UK is only around 20% for most earners, but there's an additional 12% National Insurance. I think both are applied at the same point (after your rate deduction. I for example earn £8,105.00 tax free each year, rising to £9,205 next April).

So on my new wage of £22,000, I should be taking home in the region of.....(22,000-8105, x 0.68, +8105 /12) = £1,462.08 per month this year, next year (22,000-9205, x0.68 +9205 /12) £1,492ish per month. Not too shabby for a single bloke!

Quite looking forward to the subsequent pay rises! KERCHING! (recession, what recession :p )

[Wildeybeast]

Yeah, I'd be happy too. Shoulda figured you were a fellow educator. You make sense.

Spending all day trying to explain things in a clear and simple fashion to kids gives me perfect practice for dealing with the internet. ;)

(I exclude present company from that remark, the Oubliette seems like a bastion of reasonable and rational folk).

[wittdooley]

We have the same problem in this country and no one wants to pay for the lazy, ignorant good for nothings. But should we just leave them die? I mean, I rankle at the idea of my taxes paying for the healthcare of smokers and alcoholics whose diseases are entirely self inflicted, but I can't quite bring myself to just say 'leave them to die'. Those with the ability to help have the obligation to do so in my view.

The problem comes in sorting out those who need help from those who don't. My mum has worked damn hard all her life, paid her taxes and supported her family. She can barely walk any more, has two artificial hips, an artificial knee and needs the other one replacing, is in constant pain and now has even more problems after the hospital cocked up her last operation and nearly killed her. Yet as the government is trying to get all the shirkers off benefits, their new assessment system says there is no reason why she cannnot work and is entitled to diddly squat in terms of benefit. Until someone comes up with a way of only supporting those who need it, I'd rather keep paying for the spongers rather than have deserving people left with no help at all.

I'm right with you here. Of course the problem is that there's no easy solution. That's frustrating. Sad to hear your mom isn't taken care of the way she should be. We do, at least, have Medicaid which takes care our seniors.

I think it's interesting that you mention smokers and alcoholics, too. Part of Obamacare is the attempt to gradually remove risk based pricing for insurance, both health and auto. That means those smokers and alcoholics will pay the same as someone running CrossFit tournaments every weekend. It disincentivizes healthy living, which is a BAD idea in the United States, as we're already a nation of excess and gluttony (and as an overweight dude myself, I'm a part of that too).

I mean, the callous answer is Fug em. If you're a wasteful PoS that doesn't serve any real purpose to society beyond breeding, why SHOULD we support you? I mean, on a TV show like Survivor, that kind of person gets their *** voted off the island. Previously, Darwinism would snuff those people out. And even more coincidentally, these layabouts are the ones that are typically most vocal about whining about Hispanics coming in and working.

Anyways, rant off.



Put it like this, I make approx £27000 pre tax, I take home approx £18600 (though that does include pension contributions and student loan repayment which are deducted at source). Just pure tax it works at £21k take home. Our figures are complicated somewhat by that fact we have two different taxes on income which are done at different rates. Income tax is at a basic rate of 20% (with the first £8000 of salary being tax free). I have no idea how National Insurance is worked out.

Envious you can make student loan payments pre-tax. I wish we could do that in the US.




Yeah, but I was under the impression that we didn't really care about any of that on the basis that it happened so long ago. The rest of the world blames us, but we offer lip service apologies and then ignore them (especially when they start talking about reparations). Plus the Americans are so intent on making an even bigger mess of the world that we can just transfer any guilt into laughing at how they haven't learned from all our mistakes.

This is interesting to me. I've never really thought to blame Britain for anything other than bad dentistry ;)

[Wildeybeast]

Envious you can make student loan payments pre-tax. I wish we could do that in the US.

It's not a perfect system as the loan is calculated based on income rather than minimum payments so for the first two working years of my life the damn thing actually went up because it accrued more interest than I paid off.


This is interesting to me. I've never really thought to blame Britain for anything other than bad dentistry ;)

That's because you're too preoccupied with everyone blaming you lot for messing up their countries (which we also get blamed for because our PM's often have an inexplicable desire to join you in said messing up). I'm curious as to where the American idea that we have poor dentistry comes from. We have a good standard of dentists and dental care. We don't have the Hollywood obsession with perfect teeth, but don't have any more problems with dental hygiene than any other developed nation and as under18's get free dental treatment (including reasonable cosmetic alterations) our kids teeth are generally pretty well looked after. And out kids eat a lot less sugar then yours.

[DarkLink]

That's one of the things that bothers me sometimes about overly-boistrous liberals. They take up all these causes and agendas and act like they're the super-humanitarians. The fact of the matter is that they're just more vocal about giving themselves the pat on the back for being "so humanitarian."

This is actually the core lesson of the book Heart and the Fist that I linked to below. The author traveled the world as a humanitarian during his college years, and literally everywhere he went he saw the same thing. Bad people raping and murdering, and western charities would come in and hand out a few pieces of candy but do nothing about the rape and murder. The author decided he wanted to do something to actually help the people being raped and murdered, so he joined the Navy and become a SEAL. Because the only way to protect someone in some random third world country from being raped and murdered is to stand between them and the bad guys with a gun. Waiting until afterwards and giving them a courtesy pat on the back is worthless.

Edit: posted twice, in the wrong order, when trying to keep track of the five extra pages of comments.

[DarkLink]

Right, conservatives take huge amounts of completely undeserved flak for 'not caring about the sick'. Yet all the criticism I've ever heard conservatives level at healthcare has nothing to do with its existence. It is about how inefficient and wasteful the system is. Conservatives want quallity health care as much as liberals do. The only difference is, conservatives seem to be the only ones wh actually care about the quality of the health care system, as opposed to how much money we spend on it.

America actually spends a larger percentage of its GDP on healthcare than most other industrial nations, yet we're very lowly ranked in terms of healthcare quality. If you take a step back and look at the whole issue, conservatives espouse trying to raise us up on the ranks by making the system more efficient and less wasteful, while it seems like liberals simply want to make the same wasteful and inefficient system even bigger and clumsier. That's a generalization, of course, but the point is that conservatives usually do care, yet they get constant flak on the subject.

I think it's also worth noting that providing healthcare to 300 million people is no easy task. It requires a huge, incredibly complex system, and that makes it inherently less flexible and more difficult to keep in line than the system of a small government. Our government is also designed to run into political gridlock fairly easily, for better or worse, which makes reform very difficult even when we want it. And since the proposed healthcare reforms are very controversial, and politics have become more polarized, it's very difficult to pass any reform at all because the good stuff gets lumped in with the bad.


You know, it's frustrating right now being any kind of conservative in the United States because you're accused of being unsympathetic. As a former teacher (not by choice, but by economy) I've plenty of compassion for the poor that make an effort, but I've seen enough instances working in the schools of the opposite end of the spectrum with ignorant, lazy families looking for handouts and then teaching those "values" to their children. It's despicable. Our government systems are already stretched and abused, and I don't think it's selfish or individualistic to say enough.

+1.

I know one person who legitimately qualified for food stamps and that sort of thing. She was basically abandoned by her parents at 18 when they divorced, and left with nothing but a dead end job, and she's worked her *** off to claw her way into college.

I also can't tell you how many stories of lazy ****bags using their welfare to buy booze and cigarettes, who lie and cheat on their tax forms to squeeze every bit of money they can out of the system, or who refuse to pursue a job because it's easier to live off of welfare. Just as an example, I know someone who does hiring for various companies, and she regularly gets calls from people who want an interview not so they can get a job, but so they can check off on their welfare form that they've had an interview, and she never hears from them again.

There is a legitimate reason for a safety net like welfare. But our current system is so broken that I cannot say that I support it.


I don't understand why people feel [white guilt].

Dunno. It's kind of like wanting to donate to charity, kind of. Except maybe a little racist:rolleyes:.

I do perfectly understand America's desire to be the world's police. If you want to read about that subject, go and buy The Heart and the Fist (http://www.ericgreitens.com/). If you can read that book and still think America is motivated mainly by imperialism or some bull**** like that, I'll be impressed. I can go on for quite a while on exactly why Bush decided to invade Iraq, and while much of the invasion was badly mismanaged, the reasoning behind it is actually very sympathetic.



I know this view might be slightly detached from reality but when I watch NCIS, I see Gibbs taking people out with a double tap to the heart, never "spray n' pray", so why are such rates of fire required?

A military need, or a civilian need?

Militarily, only machine guns ever actually use full auto. Most assault rifles the USA uses don't even have full auto. The M16 has a 3 round burst, which literally no one uses, ever. I have a friend in the Army Rangers who's been to Iraq and Afghanistan six or eight times, who has used full auto in combat exactly once. They took a casualty, and the helo had to land in an open field exposed to enemy fire, so they formed a firing line and rock'n'rolled until the bird got in the air.

From what I've heard from pretty much every military shooter I've listened to or read about, accurate, semi-automatic fire is basically always better than full auto. You are more accurate, you waste less ammo, and inflict more enemy casualties.

Only reason a civilian would buy a fully automatic firearm (which is legal, but extremely expensive, as in literally ten thousand dollars expensive) is for pure fun. Kind of like owning a Ferrari. Completely impractical, but who cares. At the price you have to pay, no criminal is ever going to bother, and the crime rates with actual assault rifles (as opposed to semi-automatic rifles that the media loves to refer to as high-powered assault weapon babykilling death machines) is remarkably low.



There is also an argument that the "right to bear arms" in the 18th C. meant to serve as a solider rather than for an armed citizenry, It came from Henry II in 1181 whom consolidated his power by enforicng his will though allowing those loyal to him to form militia, though I feel such a debate, which, while potentially interesting is not strictly to do with the matter at hand.

Our Supreme Court seems to think otherwise. It was explicitly ruled that the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms was an individual right to own and use personal firearms without unreasonable interference from the state, and not the right to join a state controlled militia.


By state I meant the state as in the mechanics of government rather than South Dakota etc.

I know that, I mentioned it to you because the terminology would found funny to an American in the context you used. When referring to USA legislation, if you say state then you're saying state laws, something totally different from federal laws. We use 'the state' as you mean it in certain contexts, but in this one 'federal government' is the one you're looking for.

We really only use the generic 'state' in reference to either generic political ideals or to other nations. When we're referring to ourselves, 'the state' means one of the fifty states, and the federal government refers to our overarching government that you would call the state.


Thanks dude! You fancy coming into my classes and telling the kids that?

I'll back him up. Your explanation, that we place responsibility in the individual rather than the government, is the most simple way of explaining the cultural differences this thread is about. We have a cultural resistance to nanny states, which kind of ties in a little with why we have such unusual healthcare politics compared to the rest of the world.

[eldargal]

I agree with most of what you said, DarkLink, except this:


I'll back him up. Your explanation, that we place responsibility in the individual rather than the government, is the most simple way of explaining the cultural differences this thread is about. We have a cultural resistance to nanny states, which kind of ties in a little with why we have such unusual healthcare politics compared to the rest of the world.

You have a nanny state and your populace is just addicted to it as we are. It just takes a different form, the emphasis on making the voters feel safe rather than seeing to their material needs.

Which isn't to say that Americans DON'T put more emphasis on individual responsibility, you do. Just not as much as you think. This isn't a criticism, it is still a hell of a lot more than Britain does. I'd love nothing more for Britain to adopt some of Americas entrepreneurial spirit instead of just waiting for the guvmint to do something.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

This thread is full of TL;DR.

[DarkLink]

You have a nanny state and your populace is just addicted to it as we are. It just takes a different form, the emphasis on making the voters feel safe rather than seeing to their material needs.

Which isn't to say that Americans DON'T put more emphasis on individual responsibility, you do. Just not as much as you think. This isn't a criticism, it is still a hell of a lot more than Britain does. I'd love nothing more for Britain to adopt some of Americas entrepreneurial spirit instead of just waiting for the guvmint to do something.

No, you're absolutely correct. This is really the issue at the core of the welfare/healthcare argument. Portions of this country want to have a nanny state to take care of them. Other portions want to carry on our 'rugged individualism' ideals. I think a big difference between America and many other Western nations is that we are still arguing over this, while many others have given into the dark side:p.

Public security is another avenue where this appears. Our media is terrible. They promote a massive culture of fear and push the idea that the government is the way to protect us. They're convinced the average American should live in fear of guns and germs and bird flu and terrorists and global warming (excuse me, climate change), while promoting the polarization of politics and derailing rational discussion. I don't know if they're any better elsewhere, but I generally do not have a very good opinion of reporters and journalists.

[Psychosplodge]

Ha, you haven't experienced white guilt until you've been to Britain. EVERYTHING bad everywhere is our fault because of the British Empire. Even slavery in America, that's our fault too.

As to guns, the thing that irritates me about the situation in America is that they have the right to bear arms so the citizenry can defend the state agaisnt external threats nd the guvmint. Ignoringthe fact that Americans are too lazy and apathetic to take action against their own government (in contrast to the French who are on their fifth republic since 1789), they also have one of the largest and most powerful standing armies the world has ever seen which is EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid.

You mean when we traded in an available commodity like everyone else, and brought civilisation to the rest of the world while doing it?


Citizens for Undead Rights and Equality. :p

They got like 50 votes in Devon?

Cool.



So reading through this, I get that Americans pay almost as much as us in direct taxation, but less in indirect taxation, and get a lot less of the benefits we get, and also have to find their own healthcare provider?:eek:

Tbh the 300million people should be as easy as to provide for as the 60million here, just a case of scale.
But it's simply not in the interest of the current providers to facilitate it, so regardless of any pro's or con's it will/would be nigh on impossible for a smooth transition to "free" healthcare.

[Wolfshade]

Public security is another avenue where this appears. Our media is terrible. They promote a massive culture of fear and push the idea that the government is the way to protect us. They're convinced the average American should live in fear of guns and germs and bird flu and terrorists and global warming (excuse me, climate change), while promoting the polarization of politics and derailing rational discussion. I don't know if they're any better elsewhere, but I generally do not have a very good opinion of reporters and journalists.

You obviously need to read the Daily Mail :eek:, although that isn't state media. We have the BBC and is the only direct tax that we pay and I think it does a fairly well balanced job on the whole.

It is our private media where we have huge biases, you have to know what is the political alignment of the newspaper before you buy it.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Oh the Daily Mail... I can't even be in the same room as someone reading that paper...

[Psychosplodge]

between that and the red tops our papers are a joke...

[DrLove42]

Politics!

Romney is a tool

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19007127

Hes made an *** of himself over here

Heres the thing that egts me about Presidential elections in the US. The President is only voted for by the American people, but has a much greater effect on the global situation than any other individual in the world (except maybe Murdoch :P). He makes decisions and shapes arguments that affect everyone on earth, but only 5% of the population of the earth get any say in who he (or maybe one day she) will be (and even then most don't bother to vote)

It comes down to a glorified popularity contest on undecided American voters, with the balence of the world in hand

(And just in case you can't tell, were I an American, I'd be coming down hard on the Democrat side 9/10)

[Wolfshade]

DrLove, calm down, soon the Chinese will be the superpower and we won't need to worry about who is elected...

[Kyban]

DrLove, calm down, soon the Chinese will be the superpower and we won't need to worry about who is elected...

Because there won't be elections?

[Wildeybeast]

I know that, I mentioned it to you because the terminology would found funny to an American in the context you used. When referring to USA legislation, if you say state then you're saying state laws, something totally different from federal laws. We use 'the state' as you mean it in certain contexts, but in this one 'federal government' is the one you're looking for.

We really only use the generic 'state' in reference to either generic political ideals or to other nations. When we're referring to ourselves, 'the state' means one of the fifty states, and the federal government refers to our overarching government that you would call the state.

Fair enough. We obviously don't have that level of separation in law making, so we use it in the original context of reference to the nation or government. I can see how that term would muddy the waters across the pond, what with your insistence on always being different! :)




I'll back him up. Your explanation, that we place responsibility in the individual rather than the government, is the most simple way of explaining the cultural differences this thread is about. We have a cultural resistance to nanny states, which kind of ties in a little with why we have such unusual healthcare politics compared to the rest of the world.



You have a nanny state and your populace is just addicted to it as we are. It just takes a different form, the emphasis on making the voters feel safe rather than seeing to their material needs.

Which isn't to say that Americans DON'T put more emphasis on individual responsibility, you do. Just not as much as you think. This isn't a criticism, it is still a hell of a lot more than Britain does. I'd love nothing more for Britain to adopt some of Americas entrepreneurial spirit instead of just waiting for the guvmint to do something.

They do have a nanny state, yes (as do most western nations), but the emphasis on individual responsibility and personal liberty still underlines their public consciousness. Look at our contrasting reactions to horrific crimes. Over here, we demand legislation to stop it happening again, hold lengthy and pointless public enquiries that cost a small fortune, appoint 'tzars' to provide a report the government can largely ignore or demand tougher punishments for the criminals in the vain hope that it will act as deterrent. Sometimes we do all the above. In America, people buy more guns to protect themselves because they don't trust/want the government to look after them.

We have a good entrepreneurial spirit over here. The problem is banks are waiting for the government to fix things and aren't lending anyone money until they do and until all the tax shirking Mediterranean types sort their economies out there isn't much the government can do.

[wittdooley]

Politics!

Romney is a tool

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19007127

Hes made an *** of himself over here


To be fair, it's not like he's an uneducated source devoid of any experience that would allow him to comment.... I mean, he was one of the primary organizers of the Salt Lake games....



Heres the thing that egts me about Presidential elections in the US. The President is only voted for by the American people, but has a much greater effect on the global situation than any other individual in the world (except maybe Murdoch :P). He makes decisions and shapes arguments that affect everyone on earth, but only 5% of the population of the earth get any say in who he (or maybe one day she) will be (and even then most don't bother to vote)

It comes down to a glorified popularity contest on undecided American voters, with the balence of the world in hand


You know, one of the largest problems concerning our elections is availability. Sure, there are lots of polling avenues, but IMO there's an easy fix: make it a National Holiday, and shut down business for the day. I don't know if there's any quantitative proof it would increase voting rates, but it couldn't hurt.

As to the popularity contest: well, of course it is. There's a large contingent of America that voted for Obama simply because he's black. In fact, a great portion of the media cast smear campaigns during the 2008 election that basically said, "You're a racist if you dont vote Obama."

In that same respect, there are plenty of Right Wing Ultra-Conservatives that will vote for a Republican candidate regardless of their ACTUAL politics. It's just how it is, and is an inherent flaw with our two party system. The United States is pretty much the ONLY westernized democratic nation with only two political parties with a legitimate chance of winning an election. I, for one, would rather vote for Ron Paul, but if I do so, it's effectively a wasted vote. He legitimately has no chance of winning. So we're stuck with the either or the or, and often times you're picking the 'lesser of two evils.'

The other problem is our university system, which is overwhelmingly liberal. I'm a former educator, and I can, with incredibly clear conscience, say this. Got to any college campus in the United States and, if you're a conservative, you're generally looked at with derision. Being young and liberal is "hip," regardless if you actually know what you're being liberal about. To most 18-25 year olds, being liberal means being cool. It means you "care about causes." It means you're "cultured and diverse." It means you're a "free thinker." Which is, of course, all a steaming load of horsepies. In fact, I'd argue our young liberals are actually less of the 'free thinker' than the young conservative: it takes a lot more gumption to have beliefs that are 'unattractive' to your age demographic than it does to put on some plastic frame glasses, a flannel, and espouse the politics your professers taught you.

[DrLove42]

See we have more than 2 parties.

But in all reasonable counts, we may as well only have 2.

Labour or Tories. Could vote Lib Dems, but they'll never get into power and they sold their soul and a lot of their trust to get into the coalition we have now, so a vote for them is effectivly a wasted vote

[lattd]

I know its off topic but i can't believe anyone expected a politician to keep their promise especially after the expenses scandal?

On topic I always get a massive sense of fear of others when it comes to america.

[Wildeybeast]

See we have more than 2 parties.

But in all reasonable counts, we may as well only have 2.

Labour or Tories. Could vote Lib Dems, but they'll never get into power and they sold their soul and a lot of their trust to get into the coalition we have now, so a vote for them is effectivly a wasted vote

Except it's not because they are in power now and have managed to enact several of their policies. Sure they've had to compromise/sell out on some, but they were always going to in a coalition. And their only other alternative was to form another (minority) coalition with Labour or force everyone back to the polls. This was their best chance at power in god knows how long and whilst it has cost them a fair few supporters, in reality they had to take the opportunity to make a change and get some of their policies in when they could. I'm not a supporter of them and didn't vote for them, but people are giving them a really hard deal for having to compromise on their policies when they don't deserve it. They are a political party with ambitions to rule the country, they had to take the chance of power when it was presented to them.

[DarkLink]

DrLove, calm down, soon the Chinese will be the superpower and we won't need to worry about who is elected...

Unless the western world's economy collapses, and all of China's wealth goes down the drain and they follow suit... maybe our rampant government overspending actually has something to it:rolleyes:.

Alternatively, as China continues to adopt more and more free market policies, the growing middle class will become more politically engaged. Poor people don't start revolutions, angry middle class do. They're the ones who are in a position to see the big picture.


You know, one of the largest problems concerning our elections is availability. Sure, there are lots of polling avenues, but IMO there's an easy fix: make it a National Holiday, and shut down business for the day. I don't know if there's any quantitative proof it would increase voting rates, but it couldn't hurt.


Give voters a ticket as proof, and make it a paid holiday if they actually voted.

[Wildeybeast]

Give voters a ticket as proof, and make it a paid holiday if they actually voted.

Or just make voting compulsory as they do in Down Under.

[Gotthammer]

Or just make voting compulsory as they do in Down Under.

And we don't get any time off for it either. I always find it odd that people would chose not to vote, and I never realised how few places its compulsory.


To get back to the original point, after the Port Arthur Massacre the government instituted colossal gun law reforms, banning and restricting basically everything (including a massive buyback of now banned guns). We haven't had a mass shooting since.
And for those who say criminals will have guns etc, the current crime problem is simply people getting killed on the streets by getting randomly punched to death (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/unprovoked-teen-talking-on-phone-fatally-punched-on-first-night-out-in-kings-cross-20120710-21sn3.html), so lack of guns doesn't make me feel any less safer.

[DarkLink]

Or just make voting compulsory as they do in Down Under.

We can't even limit voting to legal citizens who are actually allowed to vote. When a politician tries to so much as require an ID to vote, they literally get called racist.

[wittdooley]

We can't even limit voting to legal citizens who are actually allowed to vote. When a politician tries to so much as require an ID to vote, they literally get called racist.

So, if you're keeping score, in the United States we're required to ID you to:

1. Purchase Alcohol
2. Purchase Cigarettes
3. Enter an R- Rated film

But not to participate in a freaking election.

In other news, the Fed found another psycho claiming to the Joker with a stash of guns and explosives in Maryland. Facepalm...

I think we just need to legalize prostitution. I can't help but think getting some of these ugly *** lonely dudes laid would lighten them up a bit...

[DarkLink]

Florida recently tried to reform its voting system, something that you would think is pretty frikin' important considering how Bush's second election came down to possible accounting errors in Flordia, and the final count came down to a mere couple hundred votes. After massive, nation-wide outcries of discrimination, they more or less shut it down, but not before highlighting the fact that they couldn't tell who was a frikin' citizen and who wasn't.

[Wildeybeast]

So, if you're keeping score, in the United States we're required to ID you to:

1. Purchase Alcohol
2. Purchase Cigarettes
3. Enter an R- Rated film

But not to participate in a freaking election.

In other news, the Fed found another psycho claiming to the Joker with a stash of guns and explosives in Maryland. Facepalm...

I think we just need to legalize prostitution. I can't help but think getting some of these ugly *** lonely dudes laid would lighten them up a bit...

We don't get ID'd to vote either. You just turn up and tell them your name and address and they cross you off the list and give you a ballot paper. And since you can get those details form the electoral register about anyone, it is open to fraud, especially with postal voting. My dad worked with someone form the Muslim community and was talking to him about who he voted for. He was surprised my dad asked him as he said the guy form the local mosque just comes round and collects all their ballot papers and voted for them. He was surprised when my dad explained to him this wasn't normal or indeed legal.

[DarkLink]

Here's an opinion article I'd like to address, as it hits a lot of relevant points. Original link: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/opinion/frum-guns/index.html?iref=obnetwork

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120723045000-frum-guns-story-top.jpg

The article opens with this image. I'm not sure why, but based on the tone of the article I can only assume that the writer wants to manipulate the readers into shock that you can buy an 'assault rifle', causing the readers to question how dangerous gun owners might be. Considering the lack of context, that's a dangerous thing to do, and this sort of manipulation is one of the reasons I don't respect many journalists.

So there are a few things about that image I need to clarify.

First, this is pretty much just a display model.

It is legal to own a 'machine gun'. It is also extremely expensive. Not only are the firearms themselves extremely expensive, but the licenses and such are as well. You can literally buy a car for the overall price of a gun like that. Similarly, grenade launchers are legal, but again are extremely expensive, and ammo is incredibly expensive, paperwork intensive, and difficult to find.

So, yes it is legal, but it is incredibly expensive and you'll never see a weapon like this used by a ********er. In fact, you'll probably never even see a gun like this used in a crime, ever. It would be like using a one-of-a-kind designer car as a getaway vehicle in a bank robbery, you have to be rich to even do it and the police will know exactly who to look for.

More importantly, this image's caption mixes up terms. It calls this an assault rifle. This creates images of the Col. shooter and his 'assault rifle' in the reader's head. It's also a misnomer.

This firearm might actually be an assault rifle. An assault rifle is a 'lightweight, selective fire (read: full auto), rifle firing an intermediate (read: relatively low powered and short ranged) cartridge'.

However, most 'assault rifles' the media talks about are not. They don't have full auto, nor 3 round burst. They're nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle with a relatively wimpy bullet. Yet they're normally called 'high powered assault rifles', for seemingly no more reason than to inspire fear. I'll restate that. 'High powered' assault rifles actually, by definition, fire a very low powered bullet for a rifle. No, it's not 'armor piercing' or any crap like that. The military uses assault rifles because they are lightweight and easy to carry a lot of ammo for, but lacking full auto there's nothing special about civilian 'assault rifles', other than being fun to shoot because of their low recoil and because many owners are former military who learned to shoot on that system.

So, basically, despite the implied intent on behalf of the writer, this is exactly the sort of firearm you don't need to worry about.


(CNN) -- There will be no new gun laws after the Aurora shooting for the basic reason that the American people do not want them.
Over the past 20 years, support for gun control has collapsed in the United States.

This is an important point to make. America likes gun, and the freedom to own them.



Three-quarters of Americans want to keep the right to own handguns, weapons whose only function is to kill human beings at close range.

False. Anyone incompetent enough to think this doesn't have the slightest clue what they're talking about.

Shooting sports, in particular pistol and 3 gun competitions, are popular among firearms owners, and growing more so, for the simple reason that putting holes in pieces of paper is really fun. And the reason they're called 3 gun competitions is because you use handguns, rifles and shotguns all in one course.



David Frum
Responding to public opinion, states have loosened gun laws to allow citizens to carry weapons with them almost anywhere they go. In Georgia, Arizona, Tennessee and Virginia, it's legal to carry a gun into a bar. Guns and booze: What could go wrong?

Anything can go wrong with booze. Ask about how many people are killed by drunk drivers each year. It's a lot more than are killed by guns, regardless of alcohol's involvement, I can tell you that much.



But here's the odd thing: At the same time as Americans have become more enthusiastic about gun rights, fewer and fewer Americans actually want to own a gun themselves.

The author actually contradict himself on this point almost immediately. Gun ownership dropped for a while after 1990, but it has been on the rise in the past half a decade, so it wouldn't make sense to say that it is currently on the decline.



In the 1990s, the proportion of Americans who kept a gun in the home tumbled from one-half to one-third. And while gun ownership has risen in the Obama years, it remains lower than in the 1960s when strong majorities of the American people demanded stricter laws.

There's the contradiction, my emphasis. Since the mid-2000's, gun ownership has been on the rise again.



How can we make sense of this weird divergence between beliefs and behavior?

There are two explanations, one practical and one ideological.

The practical is that gun owners are afraid Obama will ban guns, so they're buying now why they still can. This is a time-honored tradition that shows up pretty much every time an anti-gun president is elected, whether or not they actually enact gun control policies.

The ideological one is that the belief in freedom does not necessitate exercising that freedom. I think people should be able to watch crappy romantic comedies, even if I don't watch them myself. And if someone starts infringing on their right to watch crappy romantic comedies, what's to stop them from banning awesome action movies? It's an extremely slippery slope.



Americans support gun rights because they believe guns are necessary for self-protection. As the Georgia lawmaker who introduced the law allowing guns to be carried in bars explained:
"Folks were being robbed, assaulted -- it was becoming an issue of personal safety. The police aren't going to be able to protect you. They're going to be checking out the crime scene after you and your family's been shot or injured or assaulted or raped."

This is a simply put explanation of this particular point. I’d like to add that most gun owners don’t really expect to ever have to use a firearm in personal defense, unless they live in a bad neighborhood, they simply want to have protection in case it does happen. It’s the same thing as fire extinguishers and alarms in your house. You don’t expect your house to burn down, but you want to be able to survive it if it does.



At the same time, people hesitate to own guns themselves because they recognize that keeping a gun in the house is a dangerous thing to do. A gun in the house minimally doubles the risk that a household member will kill himself or herself. (Some studies put the increase in suicide risk as high as 10 times.) An American is 50% more likely to be shot dead by his or her own hand than to be shot dead by a criminal assailant. More than 30,000 Americans injure themselves with guns every year.

A lot more people than that hurt themselves with cars every year. Some people will always slack on personal responsibility, and suffer the consequences.

An important distinction to make has to do with the common term ‘accidental discharge’. It’s a misnomer. There is no accident, there is only negligence. The correct term is ‘negligent discharge’, because the idiot with the gun failed to behave in a responsible manner.

Learn to handle a firearm safely. This is something every single person should know, just as everyone should be able to drive safely (or not drive at all).



The good news is that as America becomes safer, fewer and fewer Americans feel the need for a weapon. The overall violent crime index has tumbled by one-third since the early 1990s. The worst crimes -- murder and rape -- have declined even more. American citizens are safer today from crime than at almost any time since record-keeping began, very likely safer than at any time in the history of the country.

Americans perceive these improvements in the safety of their immediate neighborhood. Back in the early 1980s, half of Americans said they feared to walk alone at night near their own homes. By the early 2000s, only one-third expressed such fears. (Those fears have ticked up a little in the last few years, even as crime rates continue to fall, but again they remain way below historic peaks.)

This is an important point to make. America. Is. Getting. Safer.




Yet unfortunately, Americans are not, however, nearly so accurate at assessing national trends. In the mid-2000s, when crime rates were declining fast, almost 70% of Americans wrongly said that crime rates had risen over the past year.

Blame the media. You never, ever hear about how things are improving, only about the increasingly rare tragedies that they can sensationalize. The only reason I know about this is because I’ve researched it before, but I’ve literally never heard positive news on this subject from any newspaper or talk show.



Analysis: Why gun controls are off the agenda in America
What force on earth could convince Americans that down is up? The most powerful force of all: television.
TV news -- and especially local TV news -- is dominated by news of violent crime, the more spectacular and murderous the better. TV news creates a false picture of a country under attack by rampaging criminals, and especially nonwhite criminals. The people who watch the most TV news, Americans older than 50, also happen to be the group most likely to own a gun.

Yup.



Only one-fifth of young Americans own a gun; one-third of over-50 Americans do. Republicans are twice as likely to own a gun as Democrats. Maybe not so coincidentally, Republicans are more likely to watch the scariest news channel of them all: Fox. Whites are twice as likely to own a gun as nonwhites -- and it may also not be a coincidence that gun purchases have suddenly spiked since November 2008.

I'm not entirely sure what his point here is. The only fact listed here that seems relevant to the rest of the article is the last point, that gun purchases have spiked since 2008, and even then he fails to address the 'it may not be a coincidence'. What coincidence is he talking about? That Republicans bought more guns so they could revolt and overthrow Obama? I really don't know what this paragraph is supposed to address.



Proponents of gun control are baffled that horrific massacres such as the one in Aurora, Colorado, do not lead to stricter gun control. They have their causation backward.

The more terrifyingly criminal the world looks, the more ineffective law enforcement seems, the more Americans demand the right to deadly weapons with which to defend themselves. It is local TV programming directors, not the National Rifle Association, who are tirelessly persuading Americans that they need to strap a gun to their legs before heading to the mall.

This is an excellent point.


But here is where the writer starts to break down again.



And what will change those attitudes is not more atrocity stories, but instead the reassuring truth: The United States is safe and getting safer, safer than ever before in its history.

The police can protect you, and will, and do. And a gun in the house is not a guarantee of personal security -- it is instead a standing invitation to family tragedy. The cold dead hands from which they pry the gun are very unlikely to be the hands of a heroic minuteman defending home and hearth against intruders.

He’s acting on the fundamentally flawed assumption that self-defense is the only reason people buy guns. Many people do buy guns for self-defense. There are also literally millions of hunters and competition shooters, and people who just like to go out in their back yard and shoot cans.

He’s started his article from the presumptions that people don’t want, and should not have guns, and tried to lead his facts to match that conclusion. That’s bad journalism and even worse logic.

And his claim that the police can protect you is not supported by any part of his argument. It’s undermined by the lack of police protection at the Colorado shooting, and he does not address this claim anywhere. He doesn’t even take the easy way out and tie it into the statistics about decreasing crime.

But the fact remains that the police are not everywhere, and they only very rarely actually stop crime directly. They usually clean it up and arrest the perpetrators, if we’re lucky. Even in high crime areas such as ghettos, they can do little to directly stop crime. Gang members don’t stop crime because the police arrest a few of them. If the idea that police can stop crime directly were true, then solving crime problems in ghettos would be pretty easy. Police can help the issue, but the core of the problem is buried in the gang culture prevalent in those areas. Police are a bandage, though they can also be a spark that ignites the tinderbox.

This should lead one to the conclusion that crime is a cultural thing. America, as a nation, has become more and more peaceful, and as a result has a lower crime rate. This has little to do with police or gun ownership.



They are much more likely to be the hands of a troubled adolescent or a clumsy child.
In the land of the Second Amendment, nobody will take your guns away. But if you love your children, you should get rid of them voluntarily.

If you love your kids, you don’t leave dangerous objects lying around. You don’t let them drink the household cleaners under the sink, you don’t expose them to alcohol, drugs, or tobacco, you don’t drive recklessly with your kids in the back seat, and you don’t leave loaded guns lying around.

A competent, responsible individual is perfectly capable of filling their house with guns and staying safe. An idiot can get people killed via their idiocy. The problem is not the means by which they express their incompetence and negligence, it is the fact that they are irresponsible idiots.

And the day you figure out a way to filter the idiots from the smart people is the day the world becomes a better place. The author of this article falls into the trap of thinking that idiots will stop being idiots if you put a warning label on everything.

By the way, people will take your guns away. After Katrina, police in New Orleans seemed to spend more time illegally confiscating firearms than helping victims. Washington DC, Chicago, and San Francisco have all completely banned handguns before. It took the Supreme Court to shut them down and protect our rights. It is a right, and it is one that needs to be protected.




Here are related comments:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-820691?ref=feeds%2Ftopics%2Foncnn%2F818658

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-819868

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-820600?ref=feeds%2Ftopics%2Foncnn%2F818658

[Wildeybeast]

Darklink, I have question and this isn't one meant to cause offence, but I'm curious as to who you are trying to persuade here. Brits (as a nation) are never going to think private gun ownership is a good idea and by all accounts the majority of Americans seem to agree with your view that owning guns is fine. I get that you like them and that you feel the need to defend gun owners, I'm just not sure who you are defending them against. As I said, not meant to start an argument, I'm just curious as to why you feel the need to defend gun ownership so passionately.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

(And just in case you can't tell, were I an American, I'd be coming down hard on the Democrat side 9/10)

I really respect you Dr. Love (particularly for your bone marrow donation), but I'm inclined to disagree here. If you really WERE an American and had to live day-to-day in this slow train wreck you might not be so pro-Democrat. Being an extremely moderate Republican, I voted for Obama in 2008. No god-damn way I will again. The man apparently had a very clear Keynesian vision about how to fix this country with a massive stimulus project (which he sort of failed to mention in the campaign). It failed of course and for the remainder of the term he seemed to have no clue what to do except blame the previous administration and Republicans in general. And this was the guy who was going to "bring the country back together?" I don't recall him saying in 2008 "Vote for me and the economy will pretty much still be crap in four years and I'll STILL be blaming Bush." What a clown that man is.

Having said that, I agree that Romney does come off as a tool. I really don't like how when he gets flustered he keeps repeating the same line over and over. "I'm talking! I'm talking! I'm talking!" "It's the Word of God!, It's the Word of God!, It's the Word of God!" How is that remotely logical? It's like the debating technique you sometimes see in the 40k section of this forum (less so in the Oubliette of course:)). Is he going to pull that crap with Putin? God help us all if so. Maybe he'll shape up in the debates but I'm not expecting much.

This will probably be the year I vote 3rd Party. The hell with it. Why should I keep putting up with bad and worse?


The other problem is our university system, which is overwhelmingly liberal. I'm a former educator, and I can, with incredibly clear conscience, say this. Got to any college campus in the United States and, if you're a conservative, you're generally looked at with derision. Being young and liberal is "hip," regardless if you actually know what you're being liberal about. To most 18-25 year olds, being liberal means being cool. It means you "care about causes." It means you're "cultured and diverse." It means you're a "free thinker." Which is, of course, all a steaming load of horsepies. In fact, I'd argue our young liberals are actually less of the 'free thinker' than the young conservative: it takes a lot more gumption to have beliefs that are 'unattractive' to your age demographic than it does to put on some plastic frame glasses, a flannel, and espouse the politics your professers taught you.

Amen. This is right on the money. Campuses are way to the left of any other institution in the US as far as I can tell. There is almost zero tolerance for a conservative voice in academia. Even as a moderate Republican I had to spend several years "in the closest" or I would never have gotten tenure.



False. Anyone incompetent enough to think this doesn't have the slightest clue what they're talking about.

Shooting sports, in particular pistol and 3 gun competitions, are popular among firearms owners, and growing more so, for the simple reason that putting holes in pieces of paper is really fun. And the reason they're called 3 gun competitions is because you use handguns, rifles and shotguns all in one course.


Maybe, but I believe (I'm pretty sure you'll disagree) that there actually is a potential constitutional argument in favor of banning handguns. The Federalist Papers, the English Bill of Rights, and other parts of the Constitution clearly show that the Second Amendment was intended to allow the people to resist a tyrannical government. I don't see how handguns can help much in that department. On the other hand, one could potentially make the similar argument that privately-owned grenade launchers and F-15 are thus constitutional! Not much chance of that getting by of course, which is why we can always amend the US Constitution if enough people desire it. It might be a good idea to do so...clear up some of this confusion...



A lot more people than that hurt themselves with cars every year. Some people will always slack on personal responsibility, and suffer the consequences.

Blame the media. You never, ever hear about how things are improving, only about the increasingly rare tragedies that they can sensationalize. The only reason I know about this is because I’ve researched it before, but I’ve literally never heard positive news on this subject from any newspaper or talk show.


These strike me as very good points. We slaughter far more of our citizens with cars than with guns. Why is this never part of the debate?

The media also clearly does not like to report good stuff. Remember that Don Henley song, "Dirty Laundry?

[ragnarcissist]

from my cold dead hands

[wittdooley]

I really respect you Dr. Love (particularly for your bone marrow donation), but I'm inclined to disagree here. If you really WERE an American and had to live day-to-day in this slow train wreck you might not be so pro-Democrat. Being an extremely moderate Republican, I voted for Obama in 2008. No god-damn way I will again. The man apparently had a very clear Keynesian vision about how to fix this country with a massive stimulus project (which he sort of failed to mention in the campaign). It failed of course and for the remainder of the term he seemed to have no clue what to do except blame the previous administration and Republicans in general. And this was the guy who was going to "bring the country back together?" I don't recall him saying in 2008 "Vote for me and the economy will pretty much still be crap in four years and I'll STILL be blaming Bush." What a clown that man is.



Good lord. Glad to hear I'm not the only person. Im in the exact same boat as you. I voted for Obama in 2008 and you'd have to take a soldering iron to my balls for me to do it today.

Not to mention he's undertaking one of the most platant smear campaigns in modern politics right now.

[DrLove42]

OH yeah, I appreciate that hes definently not lived up to his promises (what politician does), that hes not the shining knight he was 4 years ago and that its easy for me as an outsider to comment.

But as Witts previously pointed out you only get 2 choices. You can take the current, or you can take the new.

No politician ever lives up to their promises, but i still prefer the manifesto for the Democrats to that of the Republicans. Any party that refuses to pay to research Stem Cell research, global warming and looks to overturn Wade vs Roe (thats free choice for abortions to those who don't know) is going to push me in the other direction



On the original topic, to our American posters, how many guns do you personally, or your family have in your house?

And I understand the belief of protecting ones self with a weapon. But do you really need so many? Do you really need a LMG or an assault rifle (not effective weapons in untrained hands) to perform this role?

[DarkLink]

I find it really ironic that the only thing Obama is good at is conducting semi-covert wars. Not necessarily at foreign policy in general, because drone strikes aren't very popular with other nations, but Obama immediately seized upon the potential of special operations and surgical drone strikes.

Everything else he's done has been status quo at best. The bailouts weren't even his idea, funnily enough. Bush organized the plan, Obama just stamped his seal of approval on it and implemented it. And then used some extremely creative accounting to make it look like the bailout loans were actually income rather than spending so he could claim that he spent less than Bush:rolleyes:.

PS. If you voted for Obama, does this mean I get to tell you 'I told you so'?



Amen. This is right on the money. Campuses are way to the left of any other institution in the US as far as I can tell. There is almost zero tolerance for a conservative voice in academia. Even as a moderate Republican I had to spend several years "in the closest" or I would never have gotten tenure.

Speaking of tenure (off topic, but in a thread like this who cares), what do you think about tenure in lower levels of education? In universities, it's a tough process, but for k-12 it's practically automatic, and I've seen some very solid research directly linking the inability to fire incompetent teachers and the interference of teacher's unions to basically all of the education problems in America today.

Unsurprisingly, I've seen a ton of research that students learn not from the curriculum, but from the teacher. Good teachers can cover huge amounts of material and get great test scores on all of it, while bad teachers struggle to cover a fraction of the required material. Everything is based on the quality of the teacher, yet the system is based on standardized tests and k-12 teachers seem to go through very little quality control.



Maybe, but I believe (I'm pretty sure you'll disagree) that there actually is a potential constitutional argument in favor of banning handguns. The Federalist Papers, the English Bill of Rights, and other parts of the Constitution clearly show that the Second Amendment was intended to allow the people to resist a tyrannical government.

This was addressed by the Supreme Court. The issue was actually specifically over Washington DC's complete handgun ban. They basically reaffirmed that the Second Amendment was specifically an individual right to bear arms of pretty much all types. The right to bear arms was the important part, while the ability to form a militia was merely a logical extrapolation of a threatened, armed populace. Keeping people armed was the important thing, and armed people can form a militia without government protection. But if you place gun ownership in the hands of the government, then no one will be able to form a militia even if they have a right to do so.

There are two other points to make. First, few revolutions are truly successful through open warfare. Rebels don't have the resources. Covert guerrilla fighting, or at least the threat of such, is what is intended to keep everyone friendly. Enough politicians have been assassinated with handguns to make that point. Rebels just have to be annoying enough, long enough, for the leaders to either give up, collapse, or have someone turn on them in a coup.

Secondly, this was written in a time when pistols were neigh worthless. They were good for duels and not a whole lot else. A rifle, on the other hand, could feed you and your family while protecting you from natives. But they still kept pistols around, because they were still a decent last resort. Better than a knife, at least.



I don't see how handguns can help much in that department. On the other hand, one could potentially make the similar argument that privately-owned grenade launchers and F-15 are thus constitutional! Not much chance of that getting by of course, which is why we can always amend the US Constitution if enough people desire it. It might be a good idea to do so...clear up some of this confusion...

You actually can own military aircraft and vehicles. I know a guy who decided to become a Marine pilot because he liked planes and got to fly in some rich guy's private former military aircraft (I forget which type of fighter plane it was). And I've heard of places that own old tanks (nothing modern, because the military holds on to them for parts and such) and rents them out and stuff.

You're not likely to be able to find any actual weapon systems for these things, though. Nor is anyone outside the 1% ever going to be able to even think about the payment plans. There's a reason America spends so much money on military stuff, and a stunningly clumsy Pentagon bureaucratic is only one of them.



These strike me as very good points. We slaughter far more of our citizens with cars than with guns. Why is this never part of the debate?

The media also clearly does not like to report good stuff. Remember that Don Henley song, "Dirty Laundry?

It's all a matter of scale. Really, we should spend all of our time moaning about guns to develop a car that drives itself. We'd save literally millions of lives a year.

And why is McDonald's legal? If you want to infringe on freedoms to save lives, ban every consumable item except all natural meat, fruit, veggies, nuts, and water. No wheat, no nitrate-laced processed meat, no added sugars or preservatives. You would save literally millions of lives a year, increase the lifespan of everyone, and vastly improve the quality of living for all of those fatties out there.

Of course, New York tried to ban soft drinks larger than 16oz in restaurants, and there was widespread public outcry.


Incidentally, according to Wikipedia, violence in all its forms kills half as many people as car accidents. Gun violence is only a fraction of that amount.


Darklink, I have question and this isn't one meant to cause offence, but I'm curious as to who you are trying to persuade here.

No one in particular. The points are relevant, and at the least I want to demonstrate that a lot of the complaints that are leveled against gun owners are either misunderstandings or unfounded. I've seen several articles like this pop up since the Colorado shootings, and most of them have similar misunderstandings and flawed logic, so when I get the chance I try and correct them.


Besides, the point of the thread is to discuss gun ownership in America, right:p.

[Wildeybeast]

No one in particular. The points are relevant, and at the least I want to demonstrate that a lot of the complaints that are leveled against gun owners are either misunderstandings or unfounded. I've seen several articles like this pop up since the Colorado shootings, and most of them have similar misunderstandings and flawed logic, so when I get the chance I try and correct them.


Besides, the point of the thread is to discuss gun ownership in America, right:p.

Fair enough. I guess I was wondering more in general terms like why is the NRA necessary. If so many Americans are pro guns, do you really need a pro gun lobby?

[Mr Mystery]

On the subject of Obama and his apparent failures (I say apparent as I don't keep abreast of US Politics) do you feel that the other candidate could have done a better job?

From a UK point of view, I can't wait for the current goons to get booted out in the next general election. Their policies have been abject failures. Massive cuts have been made, and we're back in recession. Now I'm no economist so I'm quite likely missing something, but it seems abundantly obvious that when you cause mass redundancies, you're reducing tax income, and increasing benefit pay outs, thus shagging the economy even more, rather than doing anything to stimulate it.

Add in tax cuts for the wealthy, whilst increasing it for everyone else, and you have a government clearly interested in lining the pockets of it's mates at the expense of every one else.

Like the bank bailouts. Like them or loathe them, what's done is done. We bought shares in those beneficiaries, rather than just *****ing public money at them. Which means once the banks are back on their feet we could potentially make a profit on the investment. But no. George 'probably can't even use a calculator' Osborne has been selling the publically owned shares off.....at a massive loss. That's right. And I'm not just talking about selling them at their current reduced value, but LESS than that amount. What exactly is that likely to achieve?? Bear in mind a significant portion of our national debt relates to this, it is utter insanity to sell them for less than they're worth!

Then we have the Liberal Democrats. What a disappointment. They campaign heavily on keeping university tuition fees as they were, yet once they get a whiff of power, they turn their back, and vote in favour of raising them! Way to back stab your voter base you idiots.

In light of all this, I can't help but feel Labour couldn't have stuffed things up this badly. The banks shagged the global economy, and the greed of the spod in the street didn't help (can't afford it, go without it). Labour reacted in the way they did, and did so in the national interest.

And lets look at the banks. Massive stimulus was pumped into them to keep them afloat, and to grease the wheels of the credit industry. Yet STILL they refuse to lend money. WE BLOODY OWN THEM. WE ARE THEIR BOARD. Government has pretty much ordered them, and still they refuse, instead using the stimulus money to pay themselves bonuses. Why? Why is this allowed? Oh, of course. Because no doubt the Tory morons have a finger in the pie as well, and are benfitting from this status quo. GRRR!

[DrLove42]

Those are my thoughts on theUK as well.

Ive always been a Labour boy (born from Yorkshire gardening and London ship building stock, with 2 parents in the NHS employ) but il change my mind if they ever scfew up,

Frankly no one will have done well out of the recession, its a shame people always lay the blame on the party for something thats not their fault

[Wildeybeast]

On the subject of Obama and his apparent failures (I say apparent as I don't keep abreast of US Politics) do you feel that the other candidate could have done a better job?

From a UK point of view, I can't wait for the current goons to get booted out in the next general election. Their policies have been abject failures. Massive cuts have been made, and we're back in recession. Now I'm no economist so I'm quite likely missing something, but it seems abundantly obvious that when you cause mass redundancies, you're reducing tax income, and increasing benefit pay outs, thus shagging the economy even more, rather than doing anything to stimulate it.

Add in tax cuts for the wealthy, whilst increasing it for everyone else, and you have a government clearly interested in lining the pockets of it's mates at the expense of every one else.

Like the bank bailouts. Like them or loathe them, what's done is done. We bought shares in those beneficiaries, rather than just *****ing public money at them. Which means once the banks are back on their feet we could potentially make a profit on the investment. But no. George 'probably can't even use a calculator' Osborne has been selling the publically owned shares off.....at a massive loss. That's right. And I'm not just talking about selling them at their current reduced value, but LESS than that amount. What exactly is that likely to achieve?? Bear in mind a significant portion of our national debt relates to this, it is utter insanity to sell them for less than they're worth!

Then we have the Liberal Democrats. What a disappointment. They campaign heavily on keeping university tuition fees as they were, yet once they get a whiff of power, they turn their back, and vote in favour of raising them! Way to back stab your voter base you idiots.

In light of all this, I can't help but feel Labour couldn't have stuffed things up this badly. The banks shagged the global economy, and the greed of the spod in the street didn't help (can't afford it, go without it). Labour reacted in the way they did, and did so in the national interest.

And lets look at the banks. Massive stimulus was pumped into them to keep them afloat, and to grease the wheels of the credit industry. Yet STILL they refuse to lend money. WE BLOODY OWN THEM. WE ARE THEIR BOARD. Government has pretty much ordered them, and still they refuse, instead using the stimulus money to pay themselves bonuses. Why? Why is this allowed? Oh, of course. Because no doubt the Tory morons have a finger in the pie as well, and are benfitting from this status quo. GRRR!

Bollocks. Utter reactionary, populist, tabloid bollocks.

Firstly, labour could have made a bigger mess because they don't have a bloody clue what to do. They have no actual policies other than saying the coalition are doing it wrong. They haven't proposed any solutions on how to fix the situation, they just keep repeating the 'austerity isn't working' mantra because it sounds good. And when it comes to the crunch of opposing cuts to public sector worker's jobs, pay and salaries they have refused point blank to support the unions, so that shows how much they really oppose what the government is doing. Like most opposition, they trot out sound bites to grab headlines, but nothing of any substance. They should be cleaning up in the opinion polls given what the government is doing, but they aren't because people don't have any faith in Labour.

Secondly, the current austerity programme IS working. Our plans have been approved by the IMF and Germany, and other than Germany, we are the only major European economy not to have had a our credit rating downgraded. Making major cutbacks is not popular (and I speak as public sector worker and union rep on this) but it has reassured the financial sector about the stability of the British economy. They only reason our economy is still buggered is because we are so tied up with the European market which, if it weren't for Germany, would be utterly shafted beyond all hope (and could still end up being in spite of the Germans best efforts).

Tax cuts for the wealthy make sense because I would rather have them paying some tax than buggering off to Monaco and paying sod all. They have also raised the tax threshold meaning more of the poorest pay less and in some cases non at all. Though I notice the only public sectors not subject to pay and pension reviews are the MP's.

As for the banks, we are not their board, we are their shareholders. An importance difference, especially as other than RBS we don't own a majority stake in any of them. In short, we can't just tell them what to do. I would also like to point out that the banking crisis was allowed to occur because of over a decade Labour letting them do whatever they wanted with little to no regulation (I wonder if Gordon Brown regrets declaring an end to 'boom and bust banking'? And whilst we are talking about selling off public assets, this is the man who sold off the gold reserve whilst the gold prices were at a 40 year low, against the advice of everyone who knew anything about it.) As a link back to some of my earlier posts, as Marx would say, the negligent and carefree attitude to banking is a direct result of the liberal emphasis on individual rights. When you focus on my rights and what I can do and the need to look out for yourself, it is all too easy to lose sight of your responsibilities to other people and as such to stop caring about them, which is exactly what the bankers did.

Basically, this government is doing the best it, or anyone else could, to clean up the biggest pile of financial sh1t the world has ever seen, a pile of sh1t created by the unadulterated greed of bankers around the world who did whatever they wanted because successive governments in various countries did nothing to stop them. To think that changing the the colour of the ties those in charge are wearing will make any difference to this situation is naive.

[MaltonNecromancer]

Basically, this government is doing the best it, or anyone else could, to clean up the biggest pile of financial sh1t the world has ever seen

And failing miserably. George Osbourne is a clueless berk so busy strategising for his party, he's forgotten his actual job is to sort out the economy. How many of his Budget choices has he had to backtrack on now (because they were, to all intents and purposes, absolutely insane)? All he wants is power for the Tories, forever and ever and ever.

And let's not pretend that if the Tories had been in power things would have gone any different because that's a joke that's not even funny; the Tories were all about free-market economics and unrestricted banks. The crisis would have happened regardless because the people with the money wanted more.

Literally nothing could have been done to prevent the crisis because no-one in power in the UK or US had the interest or the political will to make changes. The only difference would have been in levels of public spending, and while the Tories wouldn't have spent as much, they would have given away more to private finance because that's what they do.

Labour and Tories? Entitled scumbags all.

http://cdn.ifanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Transmetropolitan_41_p20.jpg

[Wildeybeast]

And failing miserably. George Osbourne is a clueless berk so busy strategising for his party, he's forgotten his actual job is to sort out the economy. How many of his Budget choices has he had to backtrack on now (because they were, to all intents and purposes, absolutely insane)? All he wants is power for the Tories, forever and ever and ever.

And let's not pretend that if the Tories had been in power things would have gone any different because that's a joke that's not even funny; the Tories were all about free-market economics and unrestricted banks. The crisis would have happened regardless because the people with the money wanted more.

Literally nothing could have been done to prevent the crisis because no-one in power in the UK or US had the interest or the political will to make changes. The only difference would have been in levels of public spending, and while the Tories wouldn't have spent as much, they would have given away more to private finance because that's what they do.

Labour and Tories? Entitled scumbags all.


Agree entirely. . They are all as incompetent and selfish as each other. As public sector worker I'm feeling the sharp end (and not just financially, Michael Gove is the most moronic man I have ever witnessed in government. He would be funny if it wasn't my profession he was intent on destroying) and I'm sick to death of the lot of them. I'm in quandary for the next election because I don't want to vote for any of them, but it is voter apathy that allows extremist parties to gain power.

[DarkLink]

On the subject of Obama and his apparent failures (I say apparent as I don't keep abreast of US Politics) do you feel that the other candidate could have done a better job?


I knew Obama's rhetoric, his ideals and his background, and I knew that they would probably make a bad situation worse. As an alternative, with McCain I could at least hope that he would just try and reign in the wasteful spending a little bit and leave stuff alone. It was a choice between making things worse, or leaving things alone and hoping they got better, and frankly my money was on leaving things more or less alone rather than essentially guaranteeing they got worse.

Obama has an air of having an academic, theoretical approach to how he thinks things should work, while ignoring the reality of the situation. He wants to take the nation in a particular direction, no matter how damaging that effort may be.



There have been two defining aspects of Obama's presidency. He's managed the two wars that Bush started, as well as the continued conflict in the middle east, and he's overseen the attempts at economic revival.

The wars have actually gone kind of well. Insurgent warfare and building democracy is not something that any nation can successfully do. All you can do is free the other nation, provide a bit of aid, and hope they get their act together. The discussion of the success of the war is a long and complex topic, as is the reasons why we started the wars in the first place (it wasn't about oil, and it wasn't just about 9/11). But the perception is that the wars were poorly implemented, and the mission is unclear, and Obama has done an acceptable but not fantastic job of wrapping things up. His drone strike campaign and killing Osama both gave him some street cred, and the public generally has a positive but controversial perception of how he's handled hunting terrorists and handling things like the Arab Spring. The big draw is that he's gotten good results with minimal investment and extremely few deployed forces, but he's also literally assassinated American citizens without any due process of law, and there is still reason to believe that some drone strikes are too aggressive, killing civilians and harming our relationships with other nations in the region. So Obama has done a much better job than most people expected, mostly because he's recognized the value of special operations units and drone strikes, and he's let the military do their thing without too much interference, but he's also been overly aggressive and in some cases has potentially done more harm than good.

Lately Obama has also worn the 'I make the call to kill Osama' too thin.

The economy is an abject disaster. Our bailouts are as controversial as yours. Obama has tried over and over again to convince people that the literally hundreds of billions of dollars he has thrown at the problem have helped and recovery is just around the corner, but most people have started to get wise to that. Obama is throwing money at the problem in the hope it goes away, at a time when we have massive, massive debts to a nation notorious for abusing human rights.



From a UK point of view, I can't wait for the current goons to get booted out in the next general election. Their policies have been abject failures.

I think you just answered your first question for us;).




And lets look at the banks. Massive stimulus was pumped into them to keep them afloat, and to grease the wheels of the credit industry. Yet STILL they refuse to lend money. WE BLOODY OWN THEM. WE ARE THEIR BOARD. Government has pretty much ordered them, and still they refuse, instead using the stimulus money to pay themselves bonuses. Why? Why is this allowed? Oh, of course. Because no doubt the Tory morons have a finger in the pie as well, and are benfitting from this status quo. GRRR!

I don't know what precisely caused your credit crisis, but if it's anything like ours it's a very, very good thing that banks aren't lending money. Lending money too freely was precisely what got us into our situation.

It all started with Clinton. He put together a program to allow banks to make (risky) loans to people who couldn't otherwise afford a home. Bush sat on that legislation, until ten years later the consequences started showing up.

The banks that had made the risky loans had dumped stupendous amounts of money into them. People used those loans to invest in the housing market. They'd buy a house, fix it up, and sell it for more money than they bought it for. Rinse and repeat, until houses were two or three times what they were actually worth. Then, suddenly, everyone ran out of people willing to buy the overpriced houses, and the housing market bubble burst. All that money went down the drain.

It's probably a little more complicated than that, but that's the ballpark idea. Though if anyone is an economist, correct me if I'm wrong.

Point is, allowing banks to make risky investments was exactly what caused the problem. That cost us huge amounts of money. The individual is left with hefty mortgage payments, the banks are struggling to regain that money they lost and can barely make enough money to keep afloat, businesses can't get loans from the struggling banks to expand their businesses and they can't get more business from the struggling customers, and the workers can't get paid because their businesses are struggling. It's a viscous cycle.

Now, again, I'm no economist. But I think it's possible that saving the banks, while not good, was actually necessary. Take that viscous cycle, but completely remove banks from the equasion. Businesses lose their money because the banks go under. Customers lose their money because the banks go under. Businesses lose their business because the customers lost their money because the banks go under. Workers lose their savings, and can't get raises, because their businesses lost their money and because the banks went under. Take out one leg of the stool, and the stool falls over.

So saving the banks might have been a necessary evil.

I do only say might, however, because the system might just have messed itself up so much that a hard reset might actually be less painless. The beauty of capitalism is that it abhors a vacuum. If one big bank collapses, a bunch of small banks that weren't so foolish might be able to rapidly expand to take their place, and that rapid expansion would require new investments, which would mean more money to more businesses, which would mean more pay to workers, and more money to customers, and the whole cycle would start over again.

It will probably be a hundred years before economists have been able to study the problem long enough to understand which option, saving the banks or letting them collapse, would have been more painless.



Incidentally, this whole thing bears a startling resemblance to the Great Depression and FDR's New Deal. Contrary to what we're taught in school, economists now know that the New Deal actually severely hindered economic growth. If FDR had left the economy alone to the free market, it would have restored equilibrium approximately seven years earlier than it did when he tried to artificially fix it. I have a feeling that the same thing will happen with this recession. In fifty or a hundred years, economists will figure out that if Bush and Obama had just left the economy alone, we would have had a much more rapid recovery.

[Wildeybeast]

I don't know what precisely caused your credit crisis, but if it's anything like ours it's a very, very good thing that banks aren't lending money. Lending money too freely was precisely what got us into our situation.

It all started with Clinton. He put together a program to allow banks to make (risky) loans to people who couldn't otherwise afford a home. Bush sat on that legislation, until ten years later the consequences started showing up.



Well, our credit crisis was in no small part caused by yours. When your sub-prime mortgage market went tits up over there, your banking crisis spread like a virus because your irresponsible bankers had been selling those mortgages to other irresponsible bankers around the world (especially ours) and we were stuck with a load of bad debt. This insecurity caused a slump in what had been a very buoyant housing market and suddenly the decision of some of the smaller banks to give out 100% mortgages to people with questionable credit records (not as bad as your deliberate sub-prime thing, but not far off) looked very dicey, people panicked and there was a run on one of our banks (Northern Rock) to the extent it had to be bought in it's entirety by the government. It then turned out one our biggest banks (RBS) had bought a dodgy Dutch bank a few years ago which caused them to go tits up and get bailed out. The government then 'persuaded' one of our few good banks (Lloyds) to buy one of our smaller dodgy banks (HBoS) by waving the normal regulation on such a thing, the purchase was rushed through without due diligence and it turned out HBoS had basically been burning money or something equally stupid, so Lloyds got bailed out too. The only major bank we have that hasn't been bailed out by the state is Barclays and it's recently been revealed that they have been rigging the inter bank lending rate.

Part nationalising two of our three biggest banks, as well as other smaller banks, costs billions if not trillions, which the government had to borrow from the international markets, which hugely increased our national debt, hence the austerity measures in an attempt to reduce this debt. The general economy is still buggered because although we aren't in the Euro, the Eurozone is our biggest trading partner, so while the PIGS are still buggering things up for the Euro, we are stuck. Basically, Germany is single handedly saving the entirety of Europe from utter financial collapse which would pretty much usher in the end of days for the rest of the world. Not that the rest of Europe has any gratitude to the Germans of course.

Edit: On your point of the necessity of bank bailouts, we literally had no choice. Around 20% of our economy was generated by the financial sector and with one run on a bank already, we could not have handled another, especially on a major bank.

[wittdooley]

Well, our credit crisis was in no small part caused by yours. When your sub-prime mortgage market went tits up over there, your banking crisis spread like a virus because your irresponsible bankers had been selling those mortgages to other irresponsible bankers around the world (especially ours) and we were stuck with a load of bad debt. This insecurity caused a slump in what had been a very buoyant housing market and suddenly the decision of some of the smaller banks to give out 100% mortgages to people with questionable credit records (not as bad as your deliberate sub-prime thing, but not far off) looked very dicey, people panicked and there was a run on one of our banks (Northern Rock) to the extent it had to be bought in it's entirety by the government. It then turned out one our biggest banks (RBS) had bought a dodgy Dutch bank a few years ago which caused them to go tits up and get bailed out. The government then 'persuaded' one of our few good banks (Lloyds) to buy one of our smaller dodgy banks (HBoS) by waving the normal regulation on such a thing, the purchase was rushed through without due diligence and it turned out HBoS had basically been burning money or something equally stupid, so Lloyds got bailed out too. The only major bank we have that hasn't been bailed out by the state is Barclays and it's recently been revealed that they have been rigging the inter bank

it is Important to remember that our banks were encouraged/forced to make these loans due to the Community Reinvestment Act. Further, shouldn't it be the responsibility of the borrower to know what they can afford in the first place?

[Wildeybeast]

it is Important to remember that our banks were encouraged/forced to make these loans due to the Community Reinvestment Act. Further, shouldn't it be the responsibility of the borrower to know what they can afford in the first place?

Oh absolutely. I have little sympathy for people who have borrowed more than they knew they could afford, but the responsibility ultimately lies with the bank, since it's our money they were lending out. They owe a duty of care to their customers to be fiscally responsible with the money people invest with them. I find it morally repugnant that they were giving mortgages to people they knew full well had little chance of being able to repay that mortgage, taking the view that they could always repossess the house and it wouldn't be their money they were losing. It's people's lives and livelihoods they were playing fast and lose with and they didn't give a damn. They then knowingly sold that bad debt onto the rest of the world. It's the financial equivalent of having unprotected sex with someone when you know you have an STI. I'm not blaming the whole thing on American bankers as ours were just as greedy and negligent and the world wide banking system was clearly a Jenga tower waiting to fall, your lot were just the ones that pulled out the wrong brick.

[Mr Mystery]

I think the general populace are yet to stop playing the victim and accept their part of the responsibility.

For instance, property developers. I bloody hate those programmes on telly (which they're still making, I can only assume to take the piss) which actively encourage buying up a bargain house, then splitting into as many flats as you can possibly can and all on the never never. It locks the younger generation out of the housing market, and creates the house of cards we're seeing now, as it depends entirely on property only increasing in value, which is a stupid thing to take for granted.

Yes, the Banks leant in an irresponsible manner, but in order to do that they'd need irresponsible borrowers to flog their dodgy loans to.

Now me, I'm relatively untouched by the global recession. Through a combination of luck and idiot savancy, I've landed myself a better career and I have no debts to speak of (secured or unsecured).

And yes, the Banks DO need to start lending again. Running a business is a pain the butt. My families print house went under not because of a lack of work, their order book was full for 18 months, but because of cashflow. You do the job, and then your buyer delays payments. On paper your fine, but you don't necessarily have the cash your owed. Hence small business loans. Used to be (potted version alert!) that you'd take your order book to your bank, expain the log ja, how much and why, and they'd provide the loan, it being paid back in relatively short order. Your business remains afloat, the bank gets it's money back. Now it could be your buyer isn't able to pay you for the same reason. Not really a fault on the borrowers there (not many businesses are able to build up a sufficient reserve of cash, especially how things are now). Then take the bank's lending out the equation. Yup, you've just gone bankrupt. Redundancies ahoy, and not through bad business management...

The Banks need to start lending again. Not to the pre-2008 levels, but they need to start playing fair. Banks, although private institutions have a responsibility to the people they serve. Yet they have the wrong attitude. Let's take one of the worst offenders, in the shape of Lehman's Brothers. Not entirely sure why that collapsed, though I understand it may be the subprime market. So anyways, they go belly up, and various bits and bobs are sold off to various other Banks. Including the aforementioned Barclays. Now understandably, they had to buy the bad with the good (seriously, fair enough. Got to share the risk!). Barlcays spent several billion on this procurement. And the big cheeses at Lehman's wanted a portion of that ring frenced for their bonuses] Yep. Despite having just run their business into the ground, they still expected fat old bonuses..... Fat Fred in the UK did much the same.

Now I get and kind of agree with the deregulation of banks. But they need to be held to account when the mess up, and not allowed to simply slink off with their pockets stuffed with cash. When they are held to account properly, and those who severely mess up punished, then we will see a change in their approach to sensible business.

[Wildeybeast]

I think the general populace are yet to stop playing the victim and accept their part of the responsibility.

For instance, property developers. I bloody hate those programmes on telly (which they're still making, I can only assume to take the piss) which actively encourage buying up a bargain house, then splitting into as many flats as you can possibly can and all on the never never. It locks the younger generation out of the housing market, and creates the house of cards we're seeing now, as it depends entirely on property only increasing in value, which is a stupid thing to take for granted.

Yes, the Banks leant in an irresponsible manner, but in order to do that they'd need irresponsible borrowers to flog their dodgy loans to.

Now me, I'm relatively untouched by the global recession. Through a combination of luck and idiot savancy, I've landed myself a better career and I have no debts to speak of (secured or unsecured).

And yes, the Banks DO need to start lending again. Running a business is a pain the butt. My families print house went under not because of a lack of work, their order book was full for 18 months, but because of cashflow. You do the job, and then your buyer delays payments. On paper your fine, but you don't necessarily have the cash your owed. Hence small business loans. Used to be (potted version alert!) that you'd take your order book to your bank, expain the log ja, how much and why, and they'd provide the loan, it being paid back in relatively short order. Your business remains afloat, the bank gets it's money back. Now it could be your buyer isn't able to pay you for the same reason. Not really a fault on the borrowers there (not many businesses are able to build up a sufficient reserve of cash, especially how things are now). Then take the bank's lending out the equation. Yup, you've just gone bankrupt. Redundancies ahoy, and not through bad business management...

The Banks need to start lending again. Not to the pre-2008 levels, but they need to start playing fair. Banks, although private institutions have a responsibility to the people they serve. Yet they have the wrong attitude. Let's take one of the worst offenders, in the shape of Lehman's Brothers. Not entirely sure why that collapsed, though I understand it may be the subprime market. So anyways, they go belly up, and various bits and bobs are sold off to various other Banks. Including the aforementioned Barclays. Now understandably, they had to buy the bad with the good (seriously, fair enough. Got to share the risk!). Barlcays spent several billion on this procurement. And the big cheeses at Lehman's wanted a portion of that ring frenced for their bonuses] Yep. Despite having just run their business into the ground, they still expected fat old bonuses..... Fat Fred in the UK did much the same.

Now I get and kind of agree with the deregulation of banks. But they need to be held to account when the mess up, and not allowed to simply slink off with their pockets stuffed with cash. When they are held to account properly, and those who severely mess up punished, then we will see a change in their approach to sensible business.

Yes the general public should beheld accountable to a certain extent, but ultimately the banks bear the fault. Some are stupid. I've worked in debt reclamation for a credit card company before and the amount of people who got into difficulty through stupid spending was laughable. Not extravagant stuff, but just things like gym membership, satellite TV etc going on credit card. Now people should be held accountable for their own stupidity, but the banks and the CC companies and the like knew that people were stupid or desperate and they deliberately preyed on it, when they should have been responsible lenders. They gave credit and mortgages out like they were sweets. My company's sales team were on commission for getting customers to take out extra products. Whether the customer actually needed them was irrelevant. It is still happening now. These short term/payday loans companies are glorified loan sharks, charging an astronomical amount of interest and often not requiring credit checks. If people are so desperate that they need to take one of those loans out, they are clearly in financial trouble and the last thing they need is more credit. It is deliberately preying on vulnerable people and the government are still failing to regulate it. It's all well and good to say the public should be responsible for their borrowing, but if you've just lost your job through no fault of your own, you've got kids to feed and you're at risk of losing your house, which of us would say no to the offer of a credit card or a loan? 'It's just a short term thing, just till I get another job/get back on my feet etc.' These people need help, not exploiting.

I'm pissed off because I'm a victim of the CC. I managed my debt responsibly whilst at uni and since starting work I have paid it all back and ensured I don't spend more than I earn. And what do I get for it? I get a pay freeze, I get my pension shafted and I get completely priced out of the housing market because of the greed and incompetence of those in the banking sector who were trusted to look after our money, not piss it up the wall. And I'm lucky because I still have a job. So yeah I'm victim and I'm angry about it and I'm going to blame those who should be blamed, not that they care about it. :mad:

Rant over. :)

[Mr Mystery]

Ranting is good! In the UK we're too afraid to say what's on our minds!

As for CC and PPI stuff. Soon....in literally a fortnights time, I can begin my own programme of revenge against the greed of banks! Why? Next Monday I start my new job at the Financial Ombudsman Service. Sure I won't have the power to get individuals named and shamed, but I will be there specifically to ensure when missold, the customer gets their money back. Which is nice!

I hope for fairly rapid progression (my general claims handling experience is more than the average applicant) and could well wind up being an Ombudsman, possibly even transfer over the FSA and help in forming law and legislation!

[Wildeybeast]

Good work, stick it to the man!

[Mr Mystery]

Can't wait to get stuck in! Ombudsman level is likely to take a while to achieve, but I'm happy I can get there!

In the meantime I'll be sticking it to the man all the same!

[wittdooley]

The scary thing is, Obama wants to do it again:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/12677872-obama-white-house-intends-to-cause-new-housing-bubble

[Drunkencorgimaster]

Speaking of tenure (off topic, but in a thread like this who cares), what do you think about tenure in lower levels of education? In universities, it's a tough process, but for k-12 it's practically automatic, and I've seen some very solid research directly linking the inability to fire incompetent teachers and the interference of teacher's unions to basically all of the education problems in America today.

Unsurprisingly, I've seen a ton of research that students learn not from the curriculum, but from the teacher. Good teachers can cover huge amounts of material and get great test scores on all of it, while bad teachers struggle to cover a fraction of the required material. Everything is based on the quality of the teacher, yet the system is based on standardized tests and k-12 teachers seem to go through very little quality control.

The notion of tenure for k-12 is absurd. Frankly, I have to admit that it is pretty abused at the university level too. You often have this Dr. Jekyll and Dr. Hyde phenomenon in which a professor is engaging and energetic until he/she gets tenure and then he just kicks back and goes into semi-retirement mode. I also wonder how important it is outside of the Humanities. What can a math professor "discover" that could be so controversial and political that if she did not have tenure, she would have to fear for her career if she published it?

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Ranting is good! In the UK we're too afraid to say what's on our minds!!

Speak for yourself man. :p

[Psychosplodge]

Or just make voting compulsory as they do in Down Under.

GODS NO! Surely part of the right to vote, is the the right not to vote?


My dad worked with someone form the Muslim community and was talking to him about who he voted for. He was surprised my dad asked him as he said the guy form the local mosque just comes round and collects all their ballot papers and voted for them. He was surprised when my dad explained to him this wasn't normal or indeed legal.

Not the first person I've heard say this, It's actually quite scary when you think about it.


from my cold dead hands
Be careful what you wish for lol.



I'm pissed off because I'm a victim of the CC. I managed my debt responsibly whilst at uni and since starting work I have paid it all back and ensured I don't spend more than I earn. And what do I get for it? I get a pay freeze, I get my pension shafted and I get completely priced out of the housing market because of the greed and incompetence of those in the banking sector who were trusted to look after our money, not piss it up the wall. And I'm lucky because I still have a job. So yeah I'm victim and I'm angry about it and I'm going to blame those who should be blamed, not that they care about it. :mad:

Rant over. :)

And here in the private sector we get a pay freeze, not enough to even contemplate buying a house, or renting one, pension? whats that? and the joy of watching the management buy a new 70k car every other year, and knowing exactly how much you make the company.

But it's the housing one that really pisses me of, you expect greed from management, but it's disgusting that on a full working week you can't but housing makes me sick, and it's all down to this buy to let bullsh!t pedalled by greedy banks, and politicians encouraging it as high house prices made it look like there was more money in the country and made them look good, and lets face it they bought the votes of the wont work people by putting them in houses the people that do work couldn't afford...

[/rant]

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

GODS NO! Surely part of the right to vote, is the the right not to vote?

Heh, you said "gods". My religion is infectious. :D

[Psychosplodge]

Heh, you said "gods". My religion is infectious. :D
Told you before lol, as an unbeliever polytheism makes as much sense as monotheism...

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Praise the Nine!
And Tzeentch, the true Omnissiah!

[Psychosplodge]

And all the asgurdian pantheon,
etc
etc
etc

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Not the Indian Gods, they're stupid. (that wasn't a racist comment, they just aren't cool)

[Wildeybeast]

GODS NO! Surely part of the right to vote, is the the right not to vote?

Yes and no. People get so hung up on what their rights entitle them to, they often forget that their are responsibilities duties/attached to many rights. E.g. the right to life places a duty on others not to kill you. One could argue that you have duty to vote as history is abundant with sorry of examples of what happens when people fail to exercise their democratic right properly.




Not the first person I've heard say this, It's actually quite scary when you think about it.
The funniest thing is my dad and the Muslim guy both worked for the police at the time (though the Muslim guy was in civilian role thankfully)



And here in the private sector we get a pay freeze, not enough to even contemplate buying a house, or renting one, pension? whats that? and the joy of watching the management buy a new 70k car every other year, and knowing exactly how much you make the company.

But it's the housing one that really pisses me of, you expect greed from management, but it's disgusting that on a full working week you can't but housing makes me sick, and it's all down to this buy to let bullsh!t pedalled by greedy banks, and politicians encouraging it as high house prices made it look like there was more money in the country and made them look good, and lets face it they bought the votes of the wont work people by putting them in houses the people that do work couldn't afford...

[/rant]

Yeah, the housing thing really gets my goat. I could comfortably afford to pay a mortgage and all the other bills, but saving up the 20k+ deposit is taking forever, so I'm still stuck living with the folks at 28. There is sod all useful help for first time buyers and with young people the ones struggling most to find work, that situation is only going to get worse. And unless we get first time buyers getting onto the property rung the housing market is going to slump again and everyone loses out.

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah, the housing thing really gets my goat. I could comfortably afford to pay a mortgage and all the other bills, but saving up the 20k+ deposit is taking forever, so I'm still stuck living with the folks at 28. There is sod all useful help for first time buyers and with young people the ones struggling most to find work, that situation is only going to get worse. And unless we get first time buyers getting onto the property rung the housing market is going to slump again and everyone loses out.

Yeah, you've just described my life lol, what annoys me more though was if I was 18 female and went and got knocked up, they'd practically throw an house at me...

[Wildeybeast]

Yeah, you've just described my life lol, what annoys me more though was if I was 18 female and went and got knocked up, they'd practically throw an house at me...

My sister has worked with girls before who actually have that as their career plan - get knocked up asap and live of benefits forever.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

My sister has worked with girls before who actually have that as their career plan - get knocked up asap and live of benefits forever.

And that makes my blood boil. :/

[Psychosplodge]

My sister has worked with girls before who actually have that as their career plan - get knocked up asap and live of benefits forever.

I can believe, I think our lass said about a third the girls she went to school with actually did that.

[DrLove42]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19138754

OK. So we've covered why Americans like guns and the difference in cultures.

New question to our US bretheren....another major incident within a month. I know the country is a big place...

So the question is this - How frequent do you think these events would need to be for you to consider that changes were needed. Would you think the country could ever reach a tolerance point that they call out that enough is enough

(I know no political party would touch this in a election run in the final straight, but a hypothetical future party)

[Wildeybeast]

Good to see the BBC has dumbed down to the stage that they use the term 'Sikh Temple' rather than Gurdwara.

As to the point of you post, you are talking about a complete change in the American national consciousness, which I don't think will ever happen. The libertarian view they have means they will blame whichever wacko responsible for the problem, on the basis they made an individual choice to violate the law. The government is fulfilling the libertarian role of putting in place laws to punish people who violate human rights, any further regulation would be a violation of the rights of innocent individuals. Put simply, it won't occur to them (on a notional consciousness level) that they could have done anything else to prevent such situations. Easy access to guns and people using guns to commit crimes are unrelated in the American psyche and I doubt that will ever change.

[Psychosplodge]

Considering most days at somepoint you'll find a spelling mistake in one of the the headlines somewhere on the page...

[Wolfshade]

Good to see the BBC has dumbed down to the stage that they use the term 'Sikh Temple' rather than Gurdwara.
The even seem to be prefering Stadiums over Stadia, sigh.

[DrLove42]

Problem is if they'd used the word Gurdwara 75% of the population wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about and assume it was a restauraunt or something....

[Psychosplodge]

You could explain afterwards in italics or something, you know inform/educate them like the BBC is supposed to do...

[Wildeybeast]

Problem is if they'd used the word Gurdwara 75% of the population wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about and assume it was a restauraunt or something....

I have a poster up in my classroom explaining what one is and the kids still stare blankly at me when I use the word. :( If the beeb used the word on the rare occasion they actually talk about them it might help drill into the minds of the uneducated massess. I've just seen a report on this in the news and they used the phrase 'Sikh temple' at least three times, when they could have easily alternated between that and Gurdwara.

[Psychosplodge]

what subject do you teach?

[Wolfshade]

It's the dumbing down which irritates me for instance Birmingham City council to try and make things easier for people who can't use the apostrophe has renamed places like King's Norton to Kings Norton, Accock's Green to Ac***** Green, and elsewhere (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4388343/Apostrophes-abolished-by-council.html)

[Wildeybeast]

what subject do you teach?

Religious education, hence the poster.


It's the dumbing down which irritates me for instance Birmingham City council to try and make things easier for people who can't use the apostrophe has renamed places like King's Norton to Kings Norton, Accock's Green to Ac***** Green, and elsewhere (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4388343/Apostrophes-abolished-by-council.html)

What an utterly stupid decision. It's not going to stop staff wasting their time dealing with complaints as the complaints will still come. As for bringing about "consistency", I'm not sure being consistently wrong is a goal to be aiming for. What would actually save time and money is if they people responsible for making their signs had a decent understanding of grammar and punctuation and did it properly in the first place.

[Psychosplodge]

Religious education, hence the poster.

You never know lol...





What an utterly stupid decision. It's not going to stop staff wasting their time dealing with complaints as the complaints will still come. As for bringing about "consistency", I'm not sure being consistently wrong is a goal to be aiming for. What would actually save time and money is if they people responsible for making their signs had a decent understanding of grammar and punctuation and did it properly in the first place.

it's easier to aim low...

[Kyban]

CNN just came out with some interesting numbers:
CNN Story (http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/09/politics/btn-guns-in-america/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3 A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Reader)

[DarkLink]

New question to our US bretheren....another major incident within a month. I know the country is a big place...

So the question is this - How frequent do you think these events would need to be for you to consider that changes were needed. Would you think the country could ever reach a tolerance point that they call out that enough is enough


I've got a question for you, in return.

Look up other shootings in Aurora. At almost the same time as the batman shooting, another person tried to shoot up a church. A citizen with a concealed weapon stopped him before he could kill more than a single person. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/54618459-82/aurora-gun-shooting-church.html.csp

So, why does everyone focus exclusively on the cases where only the bad guys have guns, and completely ignore cases where the second amendment has saved lives?

Your question, how many dead people will it take for us to consider banning guns, is a loaded question. It is biased, and does not fairly represent all the facts. Your question assumes the unqualified statement that gun control does stop violent crime and mass murder, but we choose to accept a certain amount of violent crime and mass murder because we like guns. This is completely fallacious.


You should be asking 'does gun control stop crime'. If yes, then ban guns. If no, then don't.

There is no evidence that gun control stops violent crime. There is no evidence that gun control stops mass murder. In fact, there is a significant amount of correlational evidence that, quite often, the exact opposite is true.

Guns do not cause crime. Gun control does not stop crime. Culture and society cause, and prevent, crime, and frankly nothing can be done to directly combat mass murders.



Again, you are asking the wrong question. You are asking 'how do we get rid of guns to stop crime', albeit in an indirect fashion. You should be asking 'how do we stop crime'. Ask that, and you'll quickly realize how pointless your previous question was.


Edit:
Was reading that CNN 'by the numbers' link, and while most of the stuff is accurate, I would love to be able to buy a handgun for under $75. A baseline, low caliber handgun is going to be a minimum of $300, even used.

Naturally, you can find exceptions. Pawn shops, old guns in poor condition, etc. But saying you can buy a handgun for $75 is like saying you can buy a car for $500. Yes, you probably can, but it's going to be second hand, from some guy looking to get what he can out of the deal.

[DrLove42]

I don't think it was an pointless question. I only said a change in the law, I never suggested that that change would ever be an outright ban. I odn't think the idea of the US banning guns is ever going to be pheasable, they're too ingrained into your culture.

What I said was a change in the regulations. I am led to believe (how true this is i don't know) that the laws on gun sales only regulation (other than the necessary paperwork) is that you're limited to buying one gun per person, per month.

Or the types of weapons that are sold. I can understand your claims for the need for handguns for self defence. Or hunting shotguns for hunting. Or high powered "sniper" rifles for the same purpose. But why does an indivudal need a fully automatic police assault shotgun? Or a M16 or equivilent semi/full auto rifle? Surely if guns are sold for your individual self defence then they are far in excess of what is needed

I don't mention, and they aren't talked about much (for the self defence in the church point you make) because they don't make it over here, and are probably not getting much media coverage in your country. Incidents like that don't have the flash or drama to make it onto the news.

The CNN article is interesting. And it proves your point that people choose guns for self defence, that even with a dramatic increase in gun crime from the 50's the amount of people opposed to them has increased.

[Kyban]

I think the assault rifles are more for collectors/shooting at ranges for fun. Fully automatic weapons are (I believe) very restricted, so there is some control over those types of weapons. It really doesn't stop people from being crazy though, like the guy that shot up the Sikh temple or this guy: Crazy Person (CNN) (http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/10/justice/texas-fort-hood-plot/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3 A+Top+Stories%29)

[DarkLink]

Fully automatic weapons are extremely expensive. They're also essentially never used for crime, probably for that reason. Why spend tens of thousands of dollars on a full automatic rifle, when you can just buy a five hundred dollar pistol?

The concern with 'full auto assault shotguns' and crap like that betrays ignorance. Banning them will have no effect on crime, because they're not the firearms used in crime.

A related example is the .50 BMG round. Very big bullet. Literally ten times the weight of an .556 round, with the same muzzle velocity. Military snipers have recorded multiple kills with .50 cal sniper rifles at distances greater than a mile.

The .50 has been widely available since I believe 1917. Nearly 100 years. Guess how many crimes have ever been comitted with a .50 caliber rifle (or any one of dozens of similarly large and overpowered, but less common, calibers) in the United States?

Zero.

Anyone scared of any 'overpowered' firearms is ignorant of reality.

Depending on the year, 80-90% of all firearm related crimes are committed with handguns. So 'gun control' itself is one big misnomer. It should be 'handgun control', because there's even less point to unnecessary rifle gun control than to handgun control measures.



Or the types of weapons that are sold. I can understand your claims for the need for handguns for self defence.

And because they're fun to shoot. Really fun to shoot. They require a ton of technique, speed, and precision.



Or high powered "sniper" rifles for the same purpose.

What's with the 'high powered sniper' descriptor? Do you even know what the differences between hunting rifles and sniper rifles are, or why the 'high powered' part is pointless and typically either inaccurate or redundant?



But why does an indivudal need a fully automatic police assault shotgun?

Seriously? Are you just throwing random words out?

What's an 'assault' shotgun? Never heard anyone who knows anything about guns use that phrase before.

Nor, I can assure you, do police carry around fully automatic shotguns. In fact, most police shotguns are just the exact same Remington 870's or Mossberg 500's that are used for hunting or trap shooting or home defense, just with a shorter barrel and stock.

A very few fully automatic shotguns do exist, mainly the Saiga 12 and the AA-12, but neither are widely commercially available, and are really just niche military weapons. They would be really fun to shoot, but also extremely expensive to own. Nor have any ever been used in any crime that I know of.

And why the phobia of fully automatic weapons? Full auto is a great way to waste ammo. Accurate, semi-automatic fire is much more effective. The only 'use' for full auto is either pure entertainment, or for expressly not killing people and rather scaring them with suppressing fire. Otherwise, aiming is much more effective.



Or a M16 or equivilent semi/full auto rifle? Surely if guns are sold for your individual self defence then they are far in excess of what is needed

What's wrong with an AR15? Because I assume that's what you refer to when you say M16, because M16s are not commercially available. And the only difference between an M16 and an AR15 is a 3-round burst, because M16s are no longer full auto weapons, and as already covered full auto is over rated and 3-round bursts are even more worthless.

So, about AR15s.

Military firearms are always popular amongst shooters, because it's often the platform veterans trained on. After WWI, veterans bought Springfields. After WWII and Korea, veterans bought M1 Garands and M1 Carbines. After Vietnam, veterans bought M14s and AR15s.

AR15s are extremely shootable. They have very good ergonomics, mild recoil, light weight, and are very accurate. They're everything you'd want in a light rifle, except the ammo is kind of expensive. The exact same feature that make the M16 a good assault rifle make the AR15 a good sport rifle and a good defense rifle. They are fun to shoot, and are perfect for many types of sporting uses.

They also fire a very small bullet. So small, in fact, that it's not legal to hunt deer with standard AR15s. If you wanted to start shooting into a crowd, a larger weapon would be far more effective. Say, an FAL or M14. Not that either are commonly used in crimes, either. Why the military chose the .556 is a long and complex discussion, and why it isn't particularly great for civilian criminal use is another, but suffice to say that it's not likely to be the most dangerous thing you could use.




In addition, 'need' is irrelevant. This is a freedom, which by definition only necessitates 'want'. People don't 'need' anything but shelter from the environment, food, and water, but luckily we are free to pursue our wants. Your entire argument is fallacious in any free democracy, because we by definition are generally free and we do not have to justify what we 'want'.



I don't mention, and they aren't talked about much (for the self defence in the church point you make) because they don't make it over here, and are probably not getting much media coverage in your country. Incidents like that don't have the flash or drama to make it onto the news.


Exactly. It's cool to talk about how a bunch of people got shot, and how terrible guns are, while conveniently ignoring contradictory cases. When you ignore inconvenient facts, it appears to make the gun control issue pretty one-sided, doesn't it.

[MaltonNecromancer]

And why the phobia of fully automatic weapons? Full auto is a great way to waste ammo.

Wait, you seriously don't get the phobia about automatic weapons? Seriously?

To spell it out: bullets are dangerous. One accurate bullet is dangerous to its target. A whole load of randomly fired, inaccurate bullets are dangerous to anyone in the range of the weapon. There's a reason a drive-by shooting is terrifying to the public at large.

Those "wasted" bullets are still bullets. I doubt a random passer-by hit by a "wasted" bullet would call it that.

So that's why. Claiming that fully auto weapons are no more dangerous than semi-auto is at best naive, and at worst disingenous, regardless of where you sit on the gun politics fence.


Accurate, semi-automatic fire is much more effective. The only 'use' for full auto is either pure entertainment, or for expressly not killing people and rather scaring them with suppressing fire.

A person shooting precisely and accurately is a terrifying prospect.

A person spraying bullets like water out of a hose may not be efficient, but is equally dangerous, simply in a different way. You're talking about guns like a bullet that misses its intended target isn't a danger. A bullet that has been fired is a danger until its kinetic energy is gone, only to surrounding people, and let's be fair: that's the whole anti-gun lobby's beef. The idea that people might get randomly shot. Which is a lot easier to do with a full auto weapon.

You can argue on other points, but not this one. A lunatic in a public place is exponentially more dangerous with fully automatic weapons than without.

Seriously, if fully auto weapons are so useless, how come they're issued to every modern footsoldier? That alone is pretty much QED.

[wittdooley]

.

Seriously, if fully auto weapons are so useless, how come they're issued to every modern footsoldier? That alone is pretty much QED.

You mean besides that they no longer are, right?

The M16, the standard US military rifle, is a 3 round burst or single fire rifle.

Despite what Hollywood may tell you, our soldiers aren't all getting UZIs and MP5s.

[DarkLink]

Exactly. And the 3-round burst is basically never used.

Even among soldiers that are issued fully automatic weapons (mostly special operations units) full auto is essentially never used. I've a friend in the Rangers who, in 7-8 deployments to Iraq, had fired full auto in combat a grand total of once, and that was to provide suppressing fire for a medivac forced to land in an exposed position.

The military retains some full auto capacity, mainly in its squad machine guns, for the sole purpose of suppressive fire. Full auto doesn't kill people. It makes them duck, so that you can maneuver into position to shoot them better with semi-auto fire or just to generally prevent them from shooting at you.




Wait, you seriously don't get the phobia about automatic weapons? Seriously?

Here's some numbers for you. In 1995, there were 240,000 registered 'machine guns' (full auto firearms) in the USA. Since 1937, public records only show 2 cases of crime committed with a registered machine gun. A few cases exist that were attributed to machine guns but in Minneapolis and Chicago police seizures never turned up a machine gun out of thousands of firearms. Even in Miami (machine gun and drug capital of the USA, with drug cartels and all that crazy stuff) less than 1% of homicides were committed with machine guns, and all of those were illegally owned and smuggled into the country, rendering gun control measures utterly useless.

So in the almost entire USA in the last ~80 years, despite thousands of available, legally owned machine guns, I can count the number of violent crimes committed with a machine gun on my fingers. Quod. Erat. Demonstrandum.


While we're at it, let's broaden the definition to 'assault weapon'. Most people, since they don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about, think this means full auto, and that everything bigger than a handgun falls into this category. They're idiots.

Regardless of terminology, an 'assault weapon' is basically just a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. There's some other nonsensical bull**** associated with the definition, but it's all nonsensical bull**** so no one that matters cares.

Fewer than 2% of all gun crimes are committed with 'assault weapons'. More than 80%, as I mentioned earlier, are committed with handguns. So why the concern with full auto weapons or with assault weapons?



You're crying about the boogieman here. Most of the debate around gun control is based purely on ignorance, misinformation, and incompetence on behalf of the gun control advocates.

[Wolfshade]

I do hope that they are going to be using lead free bullets (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19116438). Won't somebody think of the children!

[DarkLink]

Unfortunately, as the article indirectly points out, there aren't really any good alternatives to lead for large scale use. It's like trying to build a sky scraper without using steel. Theoretically you can use titanium or something, but ultimately it's just not very practical. There are a few options out there, but not many.

[Psychosplodge]

I do hope that they are going to be using lead free bullets (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19116438). Won't somebody think of the children!



pfft

[DrLove42]

Posted without comment

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html

And

http://www.wbez.org/blogs/bez/2012-06/truth-numbers-former-gang-members-discuss-reality-chicagos-rising-homicide-numbers


The war zone-like statistics are not new. As WBEZ reports, while some 2,000 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001, more than 5,000 people have been killed by gun fire in Chicago during that time, based on Department of Defense and FBI data.

[Wildeybeast]

For a modern war, the western casualty rates are incredibly low, though given the asymmetric nature that is not surprising. I would be amazed if the murder rate in the UK was not higher than the number of soldiers we have lost in Afghanistan.

[DarkLink]

It's also worth noting that Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in all of America.

[Barghest]

As a guy who lives in the US (Texas, no less), I just want to chip in with the following:

The local college is actually voting whether or not to allow guns on campus. That's right, cowboy frat kids with guns. I feel safer already.

[DarkLink]

Because banning guns on campus worked so well for Virginia Tech...

Anyways, most dorms rightly ban guns, because it's hard to secure them in a dorm. When I went to college, you could store guns with the campus PD (I think, never really looked into it), but storing a gun in a dorm is recipe for disaster. It would probably do a lot more good if they could figure out a way to actually ban alcohol, though.

As for carrying guns, a college campus is no different from any other public place. Responsible citizens won't cause problems, criminals will. And unless your campus has a shooting range, there won't exactly be many guns there anyways.

[eldargal]

DarkLink has a point.

I actually think there are two ways to go about ensuring safety re: guns:

1) Restrict them for everyone bar people who have a legitimate use to use them (farmers, hunters, gun club mmebers etc) or collectors (subjecto controls). No carrying them in public. Yes, criminals will still ignore hte law and get them but it makes it much more difficult and conspicuous for them.

2) All law abiding citizens can own/carry guns whereever the ywant subject to certain common sense restrictions.

Obviously these are simplified for brevity and there are other issues to take int oaccount but you get the gist of it.

If you mix these two you get some areas where guns are readily available and others where they are not, which just is not a good combination.

[Wolfshade]

Gun ownership in SA is a much more bizarre topic.

In one (a typical) out of town shopping centre, it is surrounded by an 8' chainlink fence topped with razor wire. In each corner is a watch tower, it looked like a WWII POW camp. As we pulled in there is a huge security guard (seriously like eleventy foot tall) carrying some kinda rifle, not in an incospicuois way, though I am not sure you can carry something 4/5' long conspicously. Then another guy just the same patrolling the back of the shop, made for the most uncomfortable shopping trip ever.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I still like the idea of a public charge for bullets, so that they cost like £5000 each. It won't stop people, but it's a deterrent

[Psychosplodge]

Then it would be cheaper to manufacture your own...

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I mean flat charge, across the board. Not just for purchase.
If you are caught with them then you are going to jail and you will be charged excessive amounts of money.
It may be tyrannical, but it works.

[Wolfshade]

I mean flat charge, across the board. Not just for purchase.
If you are caught with them then you are going to jail and you will be charged excessive amounts of money.
It may be tyrannical, but it works.

Like 50M coulomb ?

[Psychosplodge]

Like 50M coulomb ?
Not a 1F?

[Wolfshade]

Not a 1F?

No, that's a charge density, not a charge.

F=C/V

[Psychosplodge]

:D I should have known that....

[Wolfshade]

You were just being a little m/V

[Psychosplodge]

:p

[Wolfshade]

:D

[Psychosplodge]

So it's another one of those days...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19438776

[Wolfshade]

Did you see clint eastwoods rambling speech?

[Psychosplodge]

I've seen the report on it. Not quite sure what an actors got to do with politics...

[Wildeybeast]

Surely it always one of those days somewhere in America?

[Psychosplodge]

Well there is 300M of them, but it doesn't always make it to the bbc news website....saying that we could have a serial killer here and if someones cats stuck up a tree in leeds the bbc would cover the cat...

[Wolfshade]

Everyone knows you put cats in wheelie bins

[scadugenga]

I've seen the report on it. Not quite sure what an actors got to do with politics...

He was the mayor of a California city.

So, he's actually been a politician--for a while.

[DarkLink]

Clint Eastwood's a fairly stout Republican supporter.

The speech was also, apparently, improv. And for some reason, it angered twitter. I was amazed at the petty partisan comments from the rest of Hollywood. I swear, they made a bigger deal out of the speech than Mel Gibson's drunken anti-semantic comments, and Hollywood is predominately Jewish.

[DrLove42]

Then on the other side of this argument....tjis.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-19456928

Might show how different things are over here. Theres a good chance the homeowner would get more prison time than the burglars, particularly if they die. Then of course they can probably sue him....

[Wildeybeast]

Most of the time they get arrested but don't end up being charged these days. It depends on the context. Cave someone's skull in with a spade as they break into your house and you'll probably be ok, shoot them in the back as they are running away and you won't.

[Mr Mystery]

Actually, there's a piece of case law preventing someone from profiting from illegal/immoral behaviour.

Don't believe everything (or indeed anything) you read in Das Daily Mail.

[Psychosplodge]

Actually, there's a piece of case law preventing someone from profiting from illegal/immoral behaviour.

Don't believe everything (or indeed anything) you read in Das Daily Mail.
Yeah but that's aimed at pimps and brothel madams...

[DarkLink]

Might show how different things are over here. Theres a good chance the homeowner would get more prison time than the burglars, particularly if they die. Then of course they can probably sue him....

Whereas over here, most states have a castle doctrine or stand your ground law, explicitly stating that you can use force, including lethal force, to defend yourself in your home, or often even in any public place or place you have a right to be in. So long as it is in self defense.

[Psychosplodge]

I was told we lost this in the 70's

[Wildeybeast]

Whereas over here, most states have a castle doctrine or stand your ground law, explicitly stating that you can use force, including lethal force, to defend yourself in your home, or often even in any public place or place you have a right to be in. So long as it is in self defense.


I was told we lost this in the 70's

It's covered under the right to use reasonable force in self defence. I don't think there is any right to use force to protect property as such, it's generally assumed that any threat against your property (whilst you are present to defend it) can be reasonably construed as a threat against your person. I told you they wouldn't be charged (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-19496531).

[Wolfshade]

I forgot to mention, guns in south africa.
Miners strike so the Police shoot them and kill a number.
The survivors are then charged for their deaths...

[DarkLink]

It always amazes me that, somehow, the instant something like that gets thrust into the global spotlight, someone is still stupid enough to do something like charging the miners. You would think that they'd realize 'hey, this is all over worldwide new, and there's widespread anger and condemnation, y'know what, I'm gonna leave these miners alone until this all blows over'.



So it's another one of those days...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19438776

In other news, maybe France and Canada should look at their gun control measures (...there's no good emoticion for being sad and sarcastic at the same time):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9523586/France-shooting-Four-dead-after-gun-attack-on-British-car-in-French-Alps-near-Grenoble.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-09-05/Quebec-premier---shooting/57594324/1

[Wolfshade]

The interesting thing with the ZA is that the law they are using is a (controversial) apartitide era law.

[Psychosplodge]

It's covered under the right to use reasonable force in self defence. I don't think there is any right to use force to protect property as such, it's generally assumed that any threat against your property (whilst you are present to defend it) can be reasonably construed as a threat against your person. I told you they wouldn't be charged (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-19496531).

Yes, but pre 70's you probably wouldn't have been arrested.

This (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-19503922) is why the country's in the state it is, I mean if the judge holds views like this what hope is there for justice?


I forgot to mention, guns in south africa.
Miners strike so the Police shoot them and kill a number.
The survivors are then charged for their deaths...

Aye and the now government campaigned against laws they're now using. Typical politician hypocrisy...

[Wildeybeast]

The interesting thing with the ZA is that the law they are using is a (controversial) apartitide era law.

You mean one of those ones that is designed for oppressing people rather than delivering justice?

[Wolfshade]

I never said oppressing people.

It was more the hypocrasy, that the current president campaigned (or at least his party did) against that law (along with a raft of others) and now in power uses the same law to deliever justice.

Common Purpose (which is the one in equestion) is used from English Common law and is perfectly reasonable.
Imagine you and I engaged in a race and as a result of that killed someone and it could not be determined whom did it, we could be be charged with murder as the death came about as a result of our recklessness.
Similiarly, anyone involved in the summer riots could be charged with any crime committed during that period of lawlessness under this

[Wildeybeast]

I'm assuming you mean a car race, the only person I'd be killing in a foot race is me.

[DarkLink]

Then the others would get charged with hazing you?