People are complicated. Unfortunately it's simpler to think of them in only one dimension, and this is certainly how they are portrayed. Fact is I enjoyed Gary Glitter's music, Jimmy Saville did a lot for charity etc.
If it gets the required 25,000 signatures, then the American government actually have to address it, bizarrely.
He was being as idiotic as always, nothing to be admired of. He shows as little understanding of the issue as for anything else he says, and is smug about it. The only reason you think his position is sensible is because you agree with it (which happens), but once you go deeper and look why he holds that view you'll know that he is as clueless as ever. I'm personally sick of how every time such a tragedy happens everyone jumps on it with their pet issue, be it guns, be it violent games ("oh noes, he played call of duty"), violent movies, heavy metal, rap music, and on, and on. It's politicians/pundits quick to appear "on top of it" in the public eye proposing policies that have **** All to do with the actual tragedy. If there is a case to be made about the need to reduce gun deaths it can be done all year long. There's plenty statistics on whether legally acquired guns play much of a role, whether 'gun-free zones' have higher rates (nope!), etc. Yet an anomaly such as this happens and all of a sudden these out-of-nowhere experts start throwing around gun death stats all over the place, which are completely unrelated and overwhelmingly caused with weapons acquired illegally. They rush while the emotions are running high on people so that they get backing on legislation that may as well have a completely statistically irrelevant effect on reducing gun deaths, yet would involve unimaginable logistics to even contemplate implementing. But yes "we did something", good job on that.
Irrelevant. The wide availability of those weapons makes the legality of one individual's ownership of them completely moot. It's also untrue. Virginia Tech - legally acquired by the shooter. Sandy Hook - legally acquired by the shooter's mother. Aurora Cinema Shooting - legally acquired by the shooter. Columbine - legally acquired by a friend of the shooters, bar one which was knowingly sold to them illegally, as they were slightly too young.
If they only mentioned stats of mass shootings sure, but they mention stats a majority of which are inner city gang related, all via illegally acquired weapons, by criminals highly motivated to acquire them. (convenience isn't likely to make a dent, as these states already have much higher gun control than the 'southern states')
Are you really suggesting that a guy who's made up his mind to come to the attention of the world massacring as many school children as he can stops at: "ah damn you can't get guns at the guns store no more? shucks, I'll just wait for the next administration..."
Criminals don't have to be that motivated to acquire guns when there are over 300m guns in a country with roughly the same number of people. The culture and attitude towards firearms is the problem anyway, not the ease of access to them. I'm suggesting that limiting that person's access to firearms is probably a good idea. Allowing everyone that hasn't shown that they're a maniac to acquire as many assault rifles and as much ammo as they like probably isn't.
We have a similar system in this country - although they need 100,000 signatures. Now, as there's 106,000 signatures asking for the beer duty escalator to be scrapped, that would be a good place to start...
The existing 300m guns aren't an issue in illegally acquired weapons. The percentage of guns 'stolen' from or given/sold by legitimate owners for illegal acquirers is very low. Better vetting and record keeping should be implemented (although incompetence has been more of a problem than good legislation there) but that is not what these "emotional legislators" (to put a positive spin on it) are proposing.
Yep, having one gun per person certainly doesn't make it any easier to get hold of one! Because they don't have to, as there are guns everywhere! This isn't true, anyway. Criminals in the US simply buy guns via dubious sources (the internet, dodgy gun shows or dealers) or get their mates to buy them. Thefts are low. Illegal sales are very, very high.
You suggested it plays a role and I'm saying that the organizations that deal with the issues have said it is a very small source of how criminals acquire guns illegally. Oh yeah, do they grow on trees then since they don't get them from someone who already had it? Which is why the proposed legislations would do **** all to prevent anything. It would make life harder for people who buy guns for shooting ranges, and such, but let's say that's not an issue; add some more bureaucracy, increase public spending (decent issue); logistical headaches to get 'assault weapons' off of people's hands (major issue). All that for something everyone knows will do very little to ****-all to reduce gun crimes. Like I said "emotional legislation" by the "we're doing something, people, we won't let you down" politician types. Taking advantage of a tragedy when peoples' emotions are high to push legislation. People do love their simple messages "ban guns", "ban violent video games" sure are simpler to understand than "a majority of gun crimes are committed by highly motivated criminals, for whom convenience isn't an issue". Like that top rated comment at the (gun-control supporting) The Atlantic the other day: "Like a lot of people, I am angry right now and in favor of draconian legislation whether it makes any sense or not." Yep. Starts of many a great past totalitarian states, that. For the prosperity of the people, and all that.
I didn't suggest that theft played a significant role, if that's what you're saying. I suggested that having loads and loads of guns around makes it easier to acquire one. It clearly does. Except that they do get them from people that already have them, be they dealers, friends, people selling their own guns who aren't bothered about background checks or other criminals. That's clearly not true though, is it? If getting hold of guns is extremely inconvenient and risky, then there'd be less people doing it. Like in the UK, where there are very few guns, very few gun deaths and no sign of a totalitarian state. NRA propaganda. As I've said previously however, the problem is that national attitude and not the availability of weapons. See Canada.
Do we have any lovely babes supporting Spurs these days I wonder? We used to.I'd see them all the time. I can remember when we had Jayne Mansfield come to see us in the late 50's(?). I think we murdered Wolves that day too!
