Another US shooting..

[Al Swearegen]

Minister of Silly Walks got my point, Al. You didn't.

Perhaps you could explain it given what I HAVE said and not what I have not? (Far as I know I have not said a thing about toddlers being mentally ill or criminals nor making much mention of them at all).

It's about your failed attempts at scoping the problem. That bad people and IRA bombings thing that I'm sure felt relevant to you but, well, wasn't.

No, it is rather that I DO get the problem and if YOU say well what about the toddlers that mishandle firearms because of stupid irresponsible adults

So better enforcement of existing US laws, gun education and better mental health would cut doen many of the incidents

I had covered that some too.

But let's shine that back your way and instead of knocking, PRACTICAL solutions. Now take as read America will not figuratively or literally tear up their constituition AND they are as a people NOT Euro-centric. They are conded to their Constituion and banning guuns and the like will not work AND even where it is applied in some measure like gun free Chicago, it does not work (find stats on that and then look at their gun control laws).

So practical suggestions, what would you do that is NOT relying on Liberal outrage that has not and will not work?

Over to you.

[odeon]

Please edit your post so you won't attribute things to me that I did not say.

By "liberal outrage" you mean the practical solutions that actually might work? The common sense that is missing from the gun lobby and the usual republican stupidity? I don't think we have much to discuss.

[FourAceDeal]

FourAceDeal, the phrase "the gift that keeps on giving" springs to mind.

Jinx!  That is exactly the phrase that sprung to my mind.   It's the logical equivalent of watching youtube videos of people sawing off the tree branch they are sitting on.

[FourAceDeal]

Blah. Blah. Blah.....

So practical suggestions, what would you do that is NOT relying on Liberal outrage that has not and will not work?

Over to you.

I've got a better idea.  Instead of changing the subject, let's talk about the logic bomb you dropped.  I'm still not understanding the thinking behind the connection between a bombing in Britain some time ago and why America should not have tighter gun controls.

Please explain it to me so I can follow you.

How does thins bombing support your point of view?

I'm all ears.

[Al Swearegen]

Please edit your post so you won't attribute things to me that I did not say.

By "liberal outrage" you mean the practical solutions that actually might work? The common sense that is missing from the gun lobby and the usual republican stupidity? I don't think we have much to discuss.

There is nothing to edit in my post that says anything that you have not said. In fact, if you read closely you will see lots of "If...then" type statements. Why? Because I have been offering constructive solutions to a very real problem given the real resistance to complete gun removal or what would be seen as unConstitituional by many. You in turn have tried to obscure what I have said which is that a HUGE of gun shootings is by people that are mentally ill and people that are criminals and any effective way of reducing the shooting in these two groups will reduce deaths, whilst accepting that they are always going to happen to some extent.

The reasons why this is ought to be obvious is that guns are part of the American culture and part of the Constitution and ANY "solution" that says take them away not only will not work (as we see in places like gun free Chicago) BUT also is against the Constitution. Now the response may be from someone with that all or nothing mindset "Well I am superior morally than the Americans that would oppose this because they are not helping their country" or something similar BUT it amounts to virtue signalling.

So my solution to reduce gun violence had said NOTHING about toddlers (though I had offered in an earlier post that gun education would need to be part of the overall solution) but you tried to obscure shooting by toddlers in what I said though it was not addressed within the criminal or mental health communities and by your own evidence seemed to toddlers made up part of a number of 660 shooting deaths in 2010 of which over 31000 total deaths occurred (of which a HUGE proportion were criminals and peopel with mental health issues).

So now given all the above what is your practical solutions that is not virtue signalling moral superiority over Americans that would push back against total ban on guns (like what has NOT worked in Chicago) and is against their Constitution AND you bought up toddlers, what in what I said had anything to do with toddlers or disclaims what I said in respect to toddlers?

[FourAceDeal]

Please edit your post so you won't attribute things to me that I did not say.

By "liberal outrage" you mean the practical solutions that actually might work? The common sense that is missing from the gun lobby and the usual republican stupidity? I don't think we have much to discuss.

There is nothing to edit in my post that says anything that you have not said. In fact, if you read closely you will see lots of "If...then" type statements. Why? Because I have been offering constructive solutions to a very real problem given the real resistance to complete gun removal or what would be seen as unConstitituional by many. You in turn have tried to obscure what I have said which is that a HUGE of gun shootings is by people that are mentally ill and people that are criminals and any effective way of reducing the shooting in these two groups will reduce deaths, whilst accepting that they are always going to happen to some extent.

The reasons why this is ought to be obvious is that guns are part of the American culture and part of the Constitution and ANY "solution" that says take them away not only will not work (as we see in places like gun free Chicago) BUT also is against the Constitution. Now the response may be from someone with that all or nothing mindset "Well I am superior morally than the Americans that would oppose this because they are not helping their country" or something similar BUT it amounts to virtue signalling.

So my solution to reduce gun violence had said NOTHING about toddlers (though I had offered in an earlier post that gun education would need to be part of the overall solution) but you tried to obscure shooting by toddlers in what I said though it was not addressed within the criminal or mental health communities and by your own evidence seemed to toddlers made up part of a number of 660 shooting deaths in 2010 of which over 31000 total deaths occurred (of which a HUGE proportion were criminals and peopel with mental health issues).

So now given all the above what is your practical solutions that is not virtue signalling moral superiority over Americans that would push back against total ban on guns (like what has NOT worked in Chicago) and is against their Constitution AND you bought up toddlers, what in what I said had anything to do with toddlers or disclaims what I said in respect to toddlers?

No.  No and no.  People with mental health issues are no more likely to shoot people and even to commit other crimes than people without mental health issues.   The "fact" you are representing is a baseless trope from the NRA.  All the statistics and research opposes what you have said.

You should try getting your facts from places other than Breitbart.

Meanwhile.  Remember that thing you said about a bombing in Britain proving that gun controls wouldn't work in the USA?

Could you run that by me in a bit more detail?  I'm still trying to get my head around it.

[Jack]

There is nothing to edit in my post that says anything that you have not said.

Odeon is correct. Your previous post has a quote tagged with his name, but it's your quote not his.

[Al Swearegen]

Blah. Blah. Blah.....

So practical suggestions, what would you do that is NOT relying on Liberal outrage that has not and will not work?

Over to you.

I've got a better idea.  Instead of changing the subject, let's talk about the logic bomb you dropped.  I'm still not understanding the thinking behind the connection between a bombing in Britain some time ago and why America should not have tighter gun controls.

Please explain it to me so I can follow you.

How does thins bombing support your point of view?

I'm all ears.

Some time ago? http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/22/europe/manchester-arena-incident/index.html
I guess it has been 6 months. Hell, why not forget about these kids entirely?

I am not sure you can follow me as I think beyond your snark, you have little in the way of the ability to comprehend. But I will humour you.

Bombings have happened in the past in UK. They will continue to happen. Maybe not all the time but they will happen. They are illegal. They should not happen. No one is allowed to make explosive devices and detonate them, killing people, but this is the world we live in.

The same could be said for using guns to kill people (other than self defence) rather than for protection and hunting and the like. There are always going to be people killing others with guns. There will always be a criminal element or someone who goes off the deep end and starts killing people because they are crazy and accidental shootings. Always going to happen. EVEN IF you made gun ownership illegal in America it is still going to happen. However, we KNOW with certainty that a ban on guns in American will not work. At all. Not worth even pursuing that redundant notion. This is reality.

So given the world is a terrible place and bad things are going to happen regardless and wishing for it to be a nicer place is not constructive and one can only work with what one has to work with, what could actually be bought in place? Now I could virtue signal how terrible UK is in letting its children be blown up but this is virtue signalling. In the same way that some could say "America has to just ban guns to save its citizens" That would equally be virtue signalling.

Preventative measures and working with what you have to work with is better. Vetting of immigrants for possible terrorist links, education of citizens about unattended bags or packages being potentially dangerous, tracking of potential bomb-making parts and ingredients being bought in UK or imported in the UK and removing bins from heavily frequented public spaces are all practical and constructive moves.

Similarly when it comes to guns in US. Better background checks and compliance auditing, gun education, better mental health services, actively seeking to remove guns out of the guns of criminals and having a means to cross-reference when a gun owner has started to suffer from a hazardous mental health issue to remove guns, are all practical and would reduce gun death.

These things are NOT perfect and will not stop gun death BUT will substantially reduce it whereby "Americans should ban guns, will not"

[Al Swearegen]

There is nothing to edit in my post that says anything that you have not said.

Odeon is correct. Your previous post has a quote tagged with his name, but it's your quote not his.

Oh I see. I had not realised I had done that. Apologies all around. It was not deliberate. I will amend that.

[Jack]

No.  No and no.  People with mental health issues are no more likely to shoot people and even to commit other crimes than people without mental health issues.

Thinking that's not what he said. While it's true mental health history isn't an indicator of criminality, mental health does have a noteworthy role in overall gun deaths with two thirds of gun deaths being suicides.

over 31000 total deaths occurred (of which a HUGE proportion were criminals and peopel with mental health issues).

[Al Swearegen]

No.  No and no.  People with mental health issues are no more likely to shoot people and even to commit other crimes than people without mental health issues.

Thinking that's not what he said. While it's true mental health history isn't an indicator of criminality, mental health does have a noteworthy role in overall gun deaths with two thirds of gun deaths being suicides.

over 31000 total deaths occurred (of which a HUGE proportion were criminals and peopel with mental health issues).

Absolutely.

[Al Swearegen]

Please edit your post so you won't attribute things to me that I did not say.

By "liberal outrage" you mean the practical solutions that actually might work? The common sense that is missing from the gun lobby and the usual republican stupidity? I don't think we have much to discuss.

There is nothing to edit in my post that says anything that you have not said. In fact, if you read closely you will see lots of "If...then" type statements. Why? Because I have been offering constructive solutions to a very real problem given the real resistance to complete gun removal or what would be seen as unConstitituional by many. You in turn have tried to obscure what I have said which is that a HUGE of gun shootings is by people that are mentally ill and people that are criminals and any effective way of reducing the shooting in these two groups will reduce deaths, whilst accepting that they are always going to happen to some extent.

The reasons why this is ought to be obvious is that guns are part of the American culture and part of the Constitution and ANY "solution" that says take them away not only will not work (as we see in places like gun free Chicago) BUT also is against the Constitution. Now the response may be from someone with that all or nothing mindset "Well I am superior morally than the Americans that would oppose this because they are not helping their country" or something similar BUT it amounts to virtue signalling.

So my solution to reduce gun violence had said NOTHING about toddlers (though I had offered in an earlier post that gun education would need to be part of the overall solution) but you tried to obscure shooting by toddlers in what I said though it was not addressed within the criminal or mental health communities and by your own evidence seemed to toddlers made up part of a number of 660 shooting deaths in 2010 of which over 31000 total deaths occurred (of which a HUGE proportion were criminals and peopel with mental health issues).

So now given all the above what is your practical solutions that is not virtue signalling moral superiority over Americans that would push back against total ban on guns (like what has NOT worked in Chicago) and is against their Constitution AND you bought up toddlers, what in what I said had anything to do with toddlers or disclaims what I said in respect to toddlers?

No.  No and no.  People with mental health issues are no more likely to shoot people and even to commit other crimes than people without mental health issues.   The "fact" you are representing is a baseless trope from the NRA.  All the statistics and research opposes what you have said.

You should try getting your facts from places other than Breitbart.

Meanwhile.  Remember that thing you said about a bombing in Britain proving that gun controls wouldn't work in the USA?

Could you run that by me in a bit more detail?  I'm still trying to get my head around it.

How many people who suicided or have committed mass shootings have been known to be suffering and/or taking psychotropic drugs? Any figures?

Yes, I remember what I said and not what you are representing and no I will not run it by you again because you are unable to comprehend logic when it all but kicks you in the nuts. People will always do bad things and rather than suggest people behave better OR put a governmental heel on the good and bad alike, rational people will look for rational solutions. You can't, because you are a fucking idiot.

Is that clear enough?

[FourAceDeal]

Some time ago? http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/22/europe/manchester-arena-incident/index.html
...blah blah blah....

These things are NOT perfect and will not stop gun death BUT will substantially reduce it whereby "Americans should ban guns, will not"

You are saying that if someone breaks a law in country "a" then it is better not to have a law about something different in country "b"? 

A bomb in Britain is not the same issue as gun violence in the US.  Unless that violence was being done by a bomb instead of a gun, and by a terrorist instead of a citizen, and happened in the UK instead of the US.  But for the purposes of this ongoing comedy, let's assume that they are the same thing.

If someone speeds in a car then it's best to not have speed limits at all because, hey, someone broke them anyway?  Shall we take down all the speed limit signs and tell people they're safer if they go faster?

Or are you saying that Britain is safer if there were no controls on who has bombs?  If everyone has a bomb then they can blow up terrorists if they get attacked?  Is that what you're saying?

I can see no link between these two situations.  What is the link?  Why are these two things connected?

[FourAceDeal]

...and I note that you have had to change the frame of your argument to people trying to ban guns.  No one arguing against you has said this.  I have been careful to use the phrase "gun control".  That is what is being discussed here.

The UK has never banned gun ownership.  It limits the type and supply of guns. 

There...  I have explained my argument in detail.  Now do the same.

[Al Swearegen]

...and I note that you have had to change the frame of your argument to people trying to ban guns.  No one arguing against you has said this.  I have been careful to use the phrase "gun control".  That is what is being discussed here.

The UK has never banned gun ownership.  It limits the type and supply of guns. 

There...  I have explained my argument in detail.  Now do the same.

Okay/ Gun control, being that Americans have banned automatic weapons and will NOT agree to semi-automatic weapon banning and will push back hard enough on any major gun limitations or restrictions AND as seen in Chicago, that gun control is not entirely effective. What PRACTICAL solutions would you suggest?