When it comes to gun violence such as mass shootings, many people are asking how does something like this happen and happen frequently? What has America done since (lets say) Columbine to prevent future tragedies such as this?
The world is watching the same tragic scene play over and over and over again, with the same questions being raised after each incident. Not only that, the media (at least) attempts to outline that warning signs were there for these individuals and if only so and so reacted sooner the tragedy could have been prevented. Most of the time though, even though the warning signs are there, there is little others can do without infringing on that persons liberty.
The world isn't trying to change the policy, they are just attempting to figure out why America doesnt.
Drug Related Violence
You are correct in assessing that most gun violence revolves around both drug and gang violence in major urban areas. The problem isn't guns however, it is how the community and law enforcement attempt to tackle the issue of drugs. If you have not watched it, I suggest looking up the superb HBO series The Wire. It outlines the struggle that people that are born into poverty face when it comes to gangs and he luxury lifestyle it portrays against working or getting an education for a living.
Ottawa, the city I live in, is slowly starting to see a rise in gang violence. The city knows though, that it is not just a policing issue, its a social issue and on top of creating a police task force to tackle this new threat, they are also rolling oit outreach programs to prevent kids and teens from joining the gangs, as well as ways to get current gang members out of gangs. We are aware that many of these members are victims of circumstance and not the enemy.
America seems to have a "don't care" attitude when it comes to those in urban populace. When ine of them is a victim of gun violence it is mostly "oh he's a known criminal so, it's ok." A blind eye is turned on that victim and nothing changes.
Gun Control and Registration
Registration does not work and can lead to an infringement of peoples rights. A prime example is how the RAMP handled the gun confiscation during Calgary's flood, where they went home to home removing all firearms from the premises to prevent rioters or looters from taking them. (This being Calgary there were no looters).
The Canadian gun registry also cost us millions of dollars for a program that targeted law abiding citizens. Criminals wouldn't register guns, and it didn't prevent gun violence when the weapon was registered.
The registry also led to a seizure of guns that were banned after the registry took effect. These weapons were similar in appearance to a gun already banned in Canada, but were less of a threat (I do not know the full politics of what makes one high powered rifle more dangerous than the bext but I digress). The RCMP used the registry to confiscate these new guns from law abiding citizens with no compensation for their financial loss.
So using these as an example I can see how Americans would say it leads to a slippery slope when it comes to registration because you just have to look north and how it was handled here.
Another thing you need to look at is its in America's rights to bear arms. Are you saying those that are mentally ill should have less rights than other individuals of your soiety? If this passes, what prevents other factors from emerging from taking away rights from individuals. Should only educated people who understand the policies of governments be able to vote? Should all citizens need to take a test before being able to cast a ballot?
I'll stop here and go into mental health in another wall if text when I have more time.
On a somewhat related note I do find it interesting that Canada bans throwing stars, but not throwing knives. Does any place that does not ban them find that they face a barrage of ninjas?
Another thing you need to look at is its in America's rights to bear arms. Are you saying those that are mentally ill should have less rights than other individuals of your soiety? If this passes, what prevents other factors from emerging from taking away rights from individuals. Should only educated people who understand the policies of governments be able to vote? Should all citizens need to take a test before being able to cast a ballot?
Those tests were ended by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which the Supreme Court has begun dismantling. Several states have taken advantage of a change in 2013 by implementing things like voter ID laws (and then, in some cases, closing ID offices in majority-Black areas) and reduced hours/locations/methods for voting. So for a lot of Americans, your reductio ad absurdum sadly might not seem so absurd.
You are correct in assessing that most gun violence revolves around both drug and gang violence in major urban areas. The problem isn't guns however, it is how the community and law enforcement attempt to tackle the issue of drugs. If you have not watched it, I suggest looking up the superb HBO series The Wire. It outlines the struggle that people that are born into poverty face when it comes to gangs and he luxury lifestyle it portrays against working or getting an education for a living.
Ottawa, the city I live in, is slowly starting to see a rise in gang violence. The city knows though, that it is not just a policing issue, its a social issue and on top of creating a police task force to tackle this new threat, they are also rolling oit outreach programs to prevent kids and teens from joining the gangs, as well as ways to get current gang members out of gangs. We are aware that many of these members are victims of circumstance and not the enemy.
America seems to have a "don't care" attitude when it comes to those in urban populace. When ine of them is a victim of gun violence it is mostly "oh he's a known criminal so, it's ok." A blind eye is turned on that victim and nothing changes.
This was actually my precise point. The police are put in an untenable position and the war is clearly unwinnable. Luckily, attitudes are quickly changing on this position. In my personal experience, the drug war is the one topic I feel like I've actually been able to change other people's minds on (I'm in favor of decriminalization).
This stems from the fact that drug warriors mostly come from a good and caring place. They, in good faith, believe that banning certain harmful substances makes a significant difference in keeping them off the streets. Everyone I've spoken to that has taken the traditional pro-drug war positions does so out of their desire to cure a social ill.
The facts regarding the decriminalization of drugs have demonstrably shown that not only have the laudable goals of the drug war not been reached in over 40 years, but have also lead to unwanted and unintended consequences. When faced with these facts and with the reasoning behind them I've seen many people change their minds. I was one of them. As long as you don't demonize them.
I do think there is some arguments against the criminalization of guns in a country that has an existing abundance of guns might have similar unintended consequences to the criminalization of drugs, but that is difficult to predict.
As far as The Wire is concerned, I've watched it twice and it is a masterpiece. I take more pride in my country's artistic history than in our government... the most impressive thing about America is that our shittiest city produced both Edgar Allan Poe AND The Wire.
I'll respond to the more later, when I have less homework
@CaloNord said that most people in the city don't need guns, and farmers only need bolt action rifles at the most. I have a few things to say about this. First, not everyone can live in the Happy Nonviolent Airsoft-Banning Fantasy Land that is Australia/New Zealand. A lot of people in our cities would VERY uncomfortable if you took away their handguns. I wouldn't be surprised if a good percent of them where dead. I'm sorry, but asking nicely just doesn't cut it against a crazy guy on a cocain-fueled stealing spree.
But to a certain extent that's true. A lot of people in the middle class suberbs don't NEED guns. I don't. We WANT them. I WANT them. Because their fun. Because we go hunting. Because that's what we do. This is America. We like our guns. And don't get me wrong, I'm for a schizophrenia one-over before we start tossing out AR-15s to every idiot who asks, but that's not going to stop gun violence. There are some steps we can take to stop mass shootings, and most of them probably don't involve guns, but background checks will probably help. But I'm not talking about just mass shootings. Statistically I'm talking about the drug related violence that happens in our inner cities. That happens with illegal handguns, not legally purchased assault rifles. It's usually one or two people at a time. And this principle apllies:
I'm not saying I know a better way to stop gun violence. America DOES have a special problem, but I have no idea why. Maybe it's culture, maybe it's gun laws, maybe it's the amount of guns. I don't know, and it doesn't look like anyone else does. So it not going to say I have a solution. But neither does anyone else, so stop bitching at us every time this happens. All the rest of the world scolding America about how many guns we have every time someone gets shot over here isn't helping.
So I may not know what will work, but I do know what won't work, and that's gatheringing up all of our guns and melting them down into cookware. Yes, it worked In aulstrailia. Though I would point out that aulstrailia had relatively few shootings, implemented gun control laws, and now has relative few mass shootings. So it "worked" in aulstrailia. But that won't work here, partially because most of the guns used in American violence are illegal anyway, and partially because a lot of Americans will shoot their guns at the government before they hand them over to it.
Whatever the fix is it won't happen over night, however I bet quite a few of the illegal guns are licensed guns that have been nicked and had the serial number taken off.
The rest of the world cannot scold the United States. When scolding happens the recipient has to believe that the other party, the one doing the scolding, has the moral authority to evoke shame and remorse in the recipient of the scolding. The last time I checked there was no one who had moral authority over the United States other than the United States itself. Obviously, the same is true for every other country but the point is that we cannot be scolded. I don't care if other nations dislike the fact that from time to time shootings happen here--I don't see anyone trying to scold Iraq if a car bomb blows up a shopping market, I didn't see anyone trying to scold Egypt when it arrested journalists for daring to report the news, and I didn't see anyone trying to scold China when it rounded up homeless people and put them on a train for anywhere just to get them out of Beijing for the Olympics.
Yes, the United States has a problem and the problem is very serious. That problem is this: too many people get hysterical when a "mass shooting" occurs. Part of this is because of the narrow definition of "mass shooting", which does not include typical gang- or drug-related violence, doesn't include any situation where the perpetrator and victim know each other, and does not include instances of family violence. Even according to Mother Jones, a very liberal source of news, the average number of days between "mass shootings" going back to 1982 is 172--less than two such incidents per year. In their defense, it is correct to note that the number of days in between such incidents has shrunk in recent years. That being said, mass shootings are not becoming more frequent because we have the ability to buy guns. No, they are becoming more frequent because the people who carry out such acts want the notoriety that comes along with being a mass shooter--they want people to tween about it, update their Facebook status to say something about it, they want news outlets to put their name and face on the screen, and they want national leaders to talk about what they did.
If you look at the recent mass shootings you will find one thing in common--psychiatric medication, either too much of it, the wrong one, or because they stopped taking it. Although many people would like to have a screening for psychiatric medications to be part of the process for legally purchasing a gun that would violate HIPPA, a different Federal law.
9 people were killed at that college in Oregon--that is a tragedy, but we can easily see vigils held for them and find their names and faces relatively easily. Did you know that 62 people were killed in the Greater Chicago Metropolitan Area in September? No, of course you didn't because they weren't involved in a mass shooting so I suppose their deaths don't matter--they don't get their names in the news, or pictures on the TV, or candlelight vigils, or politicians talking about them. Compared to that, is Oregon really a tragedy? Isn't the greater tragedy that we treat Chicago murders as "just another day in the big city"?
everyone can criticize everything and everyone else in order to make the world a better place. freedom of speech, remember?
the relevant problem here is not anything other than school shootings. it's a usa specific cultural phenomenon. something is not alright in your society that enables this to keep happening.
it might be gun politics, it may be something else, but it's obviously something worth looking into. claiming that there are bigger tragedies means accepting the continuation of this tragic phenomenon.
One country in the developed world has similar gun controls to the USA. It is Finland. They have a fear from being invaded by Russia...
They do have mass shootings too, but smaller population so doesn't get in the news so often.
This was made after the charleston shooting.
Hmm...
Anyway. One tidbit of fact. British police do not carry guns. Reason. They do not want to up the anti with criminals. In other words criminals do not carry guns because the police will not shoot them. Our police wear stab vests instead.
However. If you carry a gun. Seen with a gun. Suspected to have a gun. You will end up shot dead by a specialist firearm (sniper) unit. They do talk to the criminal first but you have to be an idiot or want to die first to carry a gun in a public space in Britain explaining the deaths. In fact the unit gets into trouble, not for the deaths, but when a gun is not found.
Guns are not rare in Britain, but they are not easily available. Even replicas and air pistols require special markings and licensing.
Gun crimes are rare in Britain.
Can America replicate this? Why not? (Although Australian gun controls could fit the bill better) I could forsee a need for a gun amnesty.
But there is no will. Guns are... fun.
Lastly. The thought about arming the teachers was hilarious! Give teachers in most countries guns and most parents would have to go home disappointed at the end of the school day!
in order to restrict gun ownership in usa, they will have to do what australia did which is destroy the guns. but in the usa there's massive underground demand - organized crime, militant groups...the unsellable illegal weapons will be find their way to them instead of getting destroyed or traded illegally by law-abiding former gun owners; these groups will have huge stashes of firearms and will dominate the black market (that will go rampant) which will make them richer and increasingly antagonistic to the public and the police. that would mean that eventually (almost) only criminally-minded individuals would hold guns...that's worse than the current situation
therefore america can never diminish the gun ownership rights, they can only remove loopholes that enable virtually everyone to buy guns. other things they could do is institute mandatory gun education and a raised minimum age.
This is an article from a South African paper (The City Press) about crime statistics in SA which show, amongst other things, a murder rate of 49 PER DAY.
I don't see anyone trying to scold Iraq if a car bomb blows up a shopping market, I didn't see anyone trying to scold Egypt when it arrested journalists for daring to report the news, and I didn't see anyone trying to scold China when it rounded up homeless people and put them on a train for anywhere just to get them out of Beijing for the Olympics.
However. If you carry a gun. Seen with a gun. Suspected to have a gun. You will end up shot dead by a specialist firearm (sniper) unit. They do talk to the criminal first but you have to be an idiot or want to die first to carry a gun in a public space in Britain explaining the deaths. In fact the unit gets into trouble, not for the deaths, but when a gun is not found.
This is what most gun people(for lack of a better term) are afraid of. Not something we wish we could someday achieve.
In all the usual news sources I scour as moderator of the "politics and current events" forum elsewhere. I have a standard list of both "conservative" and "liberal" sources, as well as international ones so I can get a perspective that isn't quietly United States-centric.
everyone can criticize everything and everyone else in order to make the world a better place. freedom of speech, remember?
I said "scold", not "criticize". I criticize this country quite often as every citizen should. Scolding is something parents do towards children; criticizing is something friends do for each other to keep each other in line.
Anyway. One tidbit of fact. British police do not carry guns. Reason. They do not want to up the anti with criminals. In other words criminals do not carry guns because the police will not shoot them. Our police wear stab vests instead.
Can America replicate this? Why not? (Although Australian gun controls could fit the bill better) I could forsee a need for a gun amnesty.
This fear of upping the ante when it comes to criminal doesn't exist in the States, since there is already an abundance of firearms. It is not difficult for criminals to get a hold of them. The idea of our police going unarmed is sadly unrealistic in the United States and that is why the US would have a hard time replicating such a policy effectively.
everyone can criticize everything and everyone else in order to make the world a better place. freedom of speech, remember?
I actually agree. My initial (as I said "tongue in cheek" with a face at the end) comment on CaloNord's wall was just to point out that those who are concerned with the US putting its nose where it doesn't belong and its fingers in other people's pies need to take a step back and evaluate their own positions.
This includes myself... when I hear about a tragedy in a third world nation, my initial reaction is usually "we don't need to get involved in another violent foreign entanglement". But then I think to myself, what if my parent's country (Greece) went into a downward spiral more so than it already has and our current Maoist government follows its intellectual forefathers and becomes increasingly violent? Would I really want the world to turn a total blind eye to atrocities? I don't think that is the correct approach, and the US, being the main superpower in today's world and having what I believe to be slightly more moral clarity than say the PRC, would surely be at the forefront of any movement opposing the atrocities.
That being said, the current state of gun violence in the US is hardly at that level. Also when it comes to a purely domestic problem that the rest of the world (including our good friends up North) are fairly insulated from, it doesn't seem to be the sort of place where intervention is warranted
I don't see anyone trying to scold Iraq if a car bomb blows up a shopping market, I didn't see anyone trying to scold Egypt when it arrested journalists for daring to report the news, and I didn't see anyone trying to scold China when it rounded up homeless people and put them on a train for anywhere just to get them out of Beijing for the Olympics.
To be honest, people do scold them for those actions, but with far less media attention. I think the US gets more scrutiny since our country is supposed to be (and often claims to be) the "leader of the free world" slash "The West".
I think people are just more comfortable scolding the United States because 1) the US is the most powerful nation, and therefore should be held to a higher standard. The US is in the position to do, as a collective, the most good, but also the most evil. This should make us weary. 2) our people tend to take a self-deprecating and often humorous take on this. We tend not to be too touchy. This is good when it encourages self-reflection and debate, but could work against us when we give in to certain misguided voices. 3) we have a pretty open society, and our dedication to free speech (not just as a right protected by government but also as a value protected by people who hold it dear) allows us to accept criticisms in ways that many (particularly in the Muslim world) do not.
9 people were killed at that college in Oregon--that is a tragedy, but we can easily see vigils held for them and find their names and faces relatively easily. Did you know that 62 people were killed in the Greater Chicago Metropolitan Area in September? No, of course you didn't because they weren't involved in a mass shooting so I suppose their deaths don't matter--they don't get their names in the news, or pictures on the TV, or candlelight vigils, or politicians talking about them. Compared to that, is Oregon really a tragedy? Isn't the greater tragedy that we treat Chicago murders as "just another day in the big city"?
Thank you @booinyoureyes . However you failed to mention "because we are a superior nation" as a reason why the BBC tut tut at America when reporting on these shootings.
...
Not that any former colonies have not humiliated us recently.
(Curse you Australia! Curse you and the egg shaped balll! )
Interest in jai alai in the United States is almost entirely concentrated in Florida. TV trivia: Ricky Ricardo (Desi Arnaz) mentioned jai alai in one episode of I Love Lucy; I suspect the character was on the team when he attended La Universidad de La Habana (Arnaz, himself, never actually attended university there, his family essentially being run out of Cuba by Batista in the 1930s).
did you really just post a picture of the guy who famously dies in every role he plays in this situation?
He may die in every other role, but it's only to make up for Sharpe being invincible. If you've ever wathced Sharpe you'll agree, that man's bloody unstoppable.
Comments
America's Domestic Policy
When it comes to gun violence such as mass shootings, many people are asking how does something like this happen and happen frequently? What has America done since (lets say) Columbine to prevent future tragedies such as this?
The world is watching the same tragic scene play over and over and over again, with the same questions being raised after each incident. Not only that, the media (at least) attempts to outline that warning signs were there for these individuals and if only so and so reacted sooner the tragedy could have been prevented. Most of the time though, even though the warning signs are there, there is little others can do without infringing on that persons liberty.
The world isn't trying to change the policy, they are just attempting to figure out why America doesnt.
Drug Related Violence
You are correct in assessing that most gun violence revolves around both drug and gang violence in major urban areas. The problem isn't guns however, it is how the community and law enforcement attempt to tackle the issue of drugs. If you have not watched it, I suggest looking up the superb HBO series The Wire. It outlines the struggle that people that are born into poverty face when it comes to gangs and he luxury lifestyle it portrays against working or getting an education for a living.
Ottawa, the city I live in, is slowly starting to see a rise in gang violence. The city knows though, that it is not just a policing issue, its a social issue and on top of creating a police task force to tackle this new threat, they are also rolling oit outreach programs to prevent kids and teens from joining the gangs, as well as ways to get current gang members out of gangs. We are aware that many of these members are victims of circumstance and not the enemy.
America seems to have a "don't care" attitude when it comes to those in urban populace. When ine of them is a victim of gun violence it is mostly "oh he's a known criminal so, it's ok." A blind eye is turned on that victim and nothing changes.
Gun Control and Registration
Registration does not work and can lead to an infringement of peoples rights. A prime example is how the RAMP handled the gun confiscation during Calgary's flood, where they went home to home removing all firearms from the premises to prevent rioters or looters from taking them. (This being Calgary there were no looters).
The Canadian gun registry also cost us millions of dollars for a program that targeted law abiding citizens. Criminals wouldn't register guns, and it didn't prevent gun violence when the weapon was registered.
The registry also led to a seizure of guns that were banned after the registry took effect. These weapons were similar in appearance to a gun already banned in Canada, but were less of a threat (I do not know the full politics of what makes one high powered rifle more dangerous than the bext but I digress). The RCMP used the registry to confiscate these new guns from law abiding citizens with no compensation for their financial loss.
So using these as an example I can see how Americans would say it leads to a slippery slope when it comes to registration because you just have to look north and how it was handled here.
Another thing you need to look at is its in America's rights to bear arms. Are you saying those that are mentally ill should have less rights than other individuals of your soiety? If this passes, what prevents other factors from emerging from taking away rights from individuals. Should only educated people who understand the policies of governments be able to vote? Should all citizens need to take a test before being able to cast a ballot?
I'll stop here and go into mental health in another wall if text when I have more time.
In the US if you are running for president you pretty much need at least one photo of you skeet shooting. Even Obama had to do it.
In Canada there is no expectation of that. Depending on the riding it might actually even work against the candidate.
Those tests were ended by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which the Supreme Court has begun dismantling. Several states have taken advantage of a change in 2013 by implementing things like voter ID laws (and then, in some cases, closing ID offices in majority-Black areas) and reduced hours/locations/methods for voting. So for a lot of Americans, your reductio ad absurdum sadly might not seem so absurd.
This stems from the fact that drug warriors mostly come from a good and caring place. They, in good faith, believe that banning certain harmful substances makes a significant difference in keeping them off the streets. Everyone I've spoken to that has taken the traditional pro-drug war positions does so out of their desire to cure a social ill.
The facts regarding the decriminalization of drugs have demonstrably shown that not only have the laudable goals of the drug war not been reached in over 40 years, but have also lead to unwanted and unintended consequences. When faced with these facts and with the reasoning behind them I've seen many people change their minds. I was one of them. As long as you don't demonize them.
I do think there is some arguments against the criminalization of guns in a country that has an existing abundance of guns might have similar unintended consequences to the criminalization of drugs, but that is difficult to predict.
As far as The Wire is concerned, I've watched it twice and it is a masterpiece. I take more pride in my country's artistic history than in our government... the most impressive thing about America is that our shittiest city produced both Edgar Allan Poe AND The Wire.
I'll respond to the more later, when I have less homework
I have a few things to say about this. First, not everyone can live in the Happy Nonviolent Airsoft-Banning Fantasy Land that is Australia/New Zealand. A lot of people in our cities would VERY uncomfortable if you took away their handguns. I wouldn't be surprised if a good percent of them where dead. I'm sorry, but asking nicely just doesn't cut it against a crazy guy on a cocain-fueled stealing spree.
But to a certain extent that's true. A lot of people in the middle class suberbs don't NEED guns. I don't. We WANT them. I WANT them. Because their fun. Because we go hunting. Because that's what we do. This is America. We like our guns.
And don't get me wrong, I'm for a schizophrenia one-over before we start tossing out AR-15s to every idiot who asks, but that's not going to stop gun violence.
There are some steps we can take to stop mass shootings, and most of them probably don't involve guns, but background checks will probably help. But I'm not talking about just mass shootings. Statistically I'm talking about the drug related violence that happens in our inner cities. That happens with illegal handguns, not legally purchased assault rifles. It's usually one or two people at a time. And this principle apllies:
I'm not saying I know a better way to stop gun violence. America DOES have a special problem, but I have no idea why. Maybe it's culture, maybe it's gun laws, maybe it's the amount of guns. I don't know, and it doesn't look like anyone else does. So it not going to say I have a solution. But neither does anyone else, so stop bitching at us every time this happens. All the rest of the world scolding America about how many guns we have every time someone gets shot over here isn't helping.
So I may not know what will work, but I do know what won't work, and that's gatheringing up all of our guns and melting them down into cookware. Yes, it worked In aulstrailia. Though I would point out that aulstrailia had relatively few shootings, implemented gun control laws, and now has relative few mass shootings. So it "worked" in aulstrailia.
But that won't work here, partially because most of the guns used in American violence are illegal anyway, and partially because a lot of Americans will shoot their guns at the government before they hand them over to it.
Oh and that baby is awesome.
Yes, the United States has a problem and the problem is very serious. That problem is this: too many people get hysterical when a "mass shooting" occurs. Part of this is because of the narrow definition of "mass shooting", which does not include typical gang- or drug-related violence, doesn't include any situation where the perpetrator and victim know each other, and does not include instances of family violence. Even according to Mother Jones, a very liberal source of news, the average number of days between "mass shootings" going back to 1982 is 172--less than two such incidents per year. In their defense, it is correct to note that the number of days in between such incidents has shrunk in recent years. That being said, mass shootings are not becoming more frequent because we have the ability to buy guns. No, they are becoming more frequent because the people who carry out such acts want the notoriety that comes along with being a mass shooter--they want people to tween about it, update their Facebook status to say something about it, they want news outlets to put their name and face on the screen, and they want national leaders to talk about what they did.
If you look at the recent mass shootings you will find one thing in common--psychiatric medication, either too much of it, the wrong one, or because they stopped taking it. Although many people would like to have a screening for psychiatric medications to be part of the process for legally purchasing a gun that would violate HIPPA, a different Federal law.
9 people were killed at that college in Oregon--that is a tragedy, but we can easily see vigils held for them and find their names and faces relatively easily. Did you know that 62 people were killed in the Greater Chicago Metropolitan Area in September? No, of course you didn't because they weren't involved in a mass shooting so I suppose their deaths don't matter--they don't get their names in the news, or pictures on the TV, or candlelight vigils, or politicians talking about them. Compared to that, is Oregon really a tragedy? Isn't the greater tragedy that we treat Chicago murders as "just another day in the big city"?
the relevant problem here is not anything other than school shootings. it's a usa specific cultural phenomenon. something is not alright in your society that enables this to keep happening.
it might be gun politics, it may be something else, but it's obviously something worth looking into. claiming that there are bigger tragedies means accepting the continuation of this tragic phenomenon.
They do have mass shootings too, but smaller population so doesn't get in the news so often.
This was made after the charleston shooting.
Hmm...
Anyway. One tidbit of fact. British police do not carry guns. Reason. They do not want to up the anti with criminals. In other words criminals do not carry guns because the police will not shoot them. Our police wear stab vests instead.
However. If you carry a gun. Seen with a gun. Suspected to have a gun. You will end up shot dead by a specialist firearm (sniper) unit. They do talk to the criminal first but you have to be an idiot or want to die first to carry a gun in a public space in Britain explaining the deaths. In fact the unit gets into trouble, not for the deaths, but when a gun is not found.
Guns are not rare in Britain, but they are not easily available. Even replicas and air pistols require special markings and licensing.
Gun crimes are rare in Britain.
Can America replicate this? Why not? (Although Australian gun controls could fit the bill better) I could forsee a need for a gun amnesty.
But there is no will. Guns are... fun.
Lastly. The thought about arming the teachers was hilarious! Give teachers in most countries guns and most parents would have to go home disappointed at the end of the school day!
therefore america can never diminish the gun ownership rights, they can only remove loopholes that enable virtually everyone to buy guns. other things they could do is institute mandatory gun education and a raised minimum age.
This is an article from a South African paper (The City Press) about crime statistics in SA which show, amongst other things, a murder rate of 49 PER DAY.
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/9-crime-facts-you-may-have-missed-20151003
This includes myself... when I hear about a tragedy in a third world nation, my initial reaction is usually "we don't need to get involved in another violent foreign entanglement". But then I think to myself, what if my parent's country (Greece) went into a downward spiral more so than it already has and our current Maoist government follows its intellectual forefathers and becomes increasingly violent? Would I really want the world to turn a total blind eye to atrocities? I don't think that is the correct approach, and the US, being the main superpower in today's world and having what I believe to be slightly more moral clarity than say the PRC, would surely be at the forefront of any movement opposing the atrocities.
That being said, the current state of gun violence in the US is hardly at that level. Also when it comes to a purely domestic problem that the rest of the world (including our good friends up North) are fairly insulated from, it doesn't seem to be the sort of place where intervention is warranted
To be honest, people do scold them for those actions, but with far less media attention. I think the US gets more scrutiny since our country is supposed to be (and often claims to be) the "leader of the free world" slash "The West".
I think people are just more comfortable scolding the United States because
1) the US is the most powerful nation, and therefore should be held to a higher standard. The US is in the position to do, as a collective, the most good, but also the most evil. This should make us weary.
2) our people tend to take a self-deprecating and often humorous take on this. We tend not to be too touchy. This is good when it encourages self-reflection and debate, but could work against us when we give in to certain misguided voices.
3) we have a pretty open society, and our dedication to free speech (not just as a right protected by government but also as a value protected by people who hold it dear) allows us to accept criticisms in ways that many (particularly in the Muslim world) do not. All I can say to this is AMEN
...
Not that any former colonies have not humiliated us recently.
(Curse you Australia! Curse you and the egg shaped balll! )
We win.
BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH!