That's so awful JediJudy, I'm sorry for your loss. FL is certainly in quite a state - I follow a couple who rescue golden retrievers and live in the Keys, so I get to hear about the particularly odious things DeSantis does that other Brits might not know about (and also that DeSantis really hates the Florida Keys).
Bingo, Pomona. Odious is one of the many accurate descriptors of DeSantis. Hating the Keys, hating those of us who love and have compassion for people who don't fit his mold, lying about his claim of keeping Florida open during the pandemic (like it was a good thing), and telling teachers what they can and cannot teach. I could go on and on.
The man is vile.
What people planning a vacation would want to visit the Sunshine State when they don't have a clue who might be carrying a gun? Guns in the hands of folks with no training, and who might be prone to hotheadedness is terrifying.
Not that we're particularly blessed here in the UK right now but I do feel sorry for the US with one party, to which the elections are skewed in favour, torn between a corrupt narcissistic moron (mind you the last bit probably vitiates the other two a bit) whose only challenger appears to be this man you describe as odious and vile and the other party headed by an octogenarian.
Putin and Xi must be sleeping easily in their beds.
Biden isn't the leader of the Democratic Party though (and neither is Trump the GOP leader) - US political parties do not work like they do here where the PM is also the party leader. The chair of the Democratic National Committee (nearest equivalent to party leader, but that isn't really a role) is a Black man in his 40s, Jaime Harrison (he was the Democrat running against Lindsey Graham in 2020). The chair of the Republican National Committee is Ronna McDaniel, a member of the Romney family and BYU alum - so unlikely to be a moron if nothing else.
Aside from anything else, party leadership has zero to do with gun laws in the US, so not sure how that is relevant.
While the chair of a Democratic National Committee is Jamie Harrison--I had to look that one up---Biden, as president of the United States, sets the overall tone of the party. People will naturally think Biden is the leader of the party. Just the fact I had to look up who is the chairman of the party that does the leg work says a lot.
BTW, the chair of the Republican National Committee is Rona McDaniel. She actually has more influence in the GOP because there is no clear presidential leader in the party.
I apologise for misunderstanding who was supposedly the leader of the parties but perhaps like the Tory party chairman in the UK, that person is appointed and "dis-appointed" by the PM who really is the leader in fact as well as name it all seemed the same.
It does seem to me that the US Republican party has been for some time in lockstep with DT even when he threatened the very fabric of what passes for democracy in the US. Maybe that is crumbling a bit - in favour of DeSanits (pause to puke) - and will crumble a bit more if DT does finally get charged for his numerous and glaringly obvious crimes. what are they waiting for????.
The connection with guns is that if they had a proper leadership rather than people with inflated egos on the one side and someone too old to take decisive action even against the crimes of his predecessor on the other they would grasp this nettle and bring gun ownership under control - and carry the people with them, repealing or at least clarifying the second amendment if they had to.
It is just so glaringly obvious to everyone but US folk that that's what has to happen if they aren't to carry on treating these frequent gun outrages as some kind of natural disasters rather than something they have it in their hands to stop.
While the chair of a Democratic National Committee is Jamie Harrison--I had to look that one up---Biden, as president of the United States, sets the overall tone of the party. People will naturally think Biden is the leader of the party. Just the fact I had to look up who is the chairman of the party that does the leg work says a lot.
BTW, the chair of the Republican National Committee is Rona McDaniel. She actually has more influence in the GOP because there is no clear presidential leader in the party.
I literally said that Ronna McDaniel is the chair of the Republican National Committee.
Could people outside the US remember to be tactful in commenting on US politics? Most US shipmates are perfectly aware of the state of US politics. Also UK shipmates are in no position to cast nasturtiums.
@John Collins sorry but what you say is a load of hurtful and harmful nonsense. Aside from the ageist idea that Biden hasn't acted decisively due to his age, any bill would have to get through the House and the Senate which he has no control of due to the very strict separation of powers in the US which means the legislative office is completely separate to the executive office. This is why Obama had to resign as a senator before he could become President because he couldn't be both. This is obviously very different to the UK where the PM is also party leader and also a constituency MP like all other MPs. The US system is not a Parliamentary system and works completely differently. I would suggest doing a bit more research into US politics before talking about issues you clearly know nothing about (and no, the President does not select the national committee chair!).
This thread is full of Americans who are angry and frusrated that nothing gets done. However unlike you, they also understand that the President can actually do very little and that it depends on the House and Senate along with state legislatures. A huge amount of US law is exclusively formed at the state level, not federally. Did you somehow miss Obama crying on camera after the Sandy Hook massacre? Do you not think he would have forced bills in if he could?
I really don't understand why saying that the US has a problem with guns that it needs to take seriously and take serious action if they don't want lots of innocent people, such as the person known to a previous poster, to be needlessly murdered, is either hurtful or harmful.
This is supposed to be the Hell forum where robust opinions and words such as that in the title of this thread are to be expected in any case.
I do understand about the US system. I still think that whatever the theory is, the President (and former president) has a whole load of clout with his party and as I understand it heads the ticket on the ballot papers, with most people choosing to vote for candidates of the same party as their presidential choice. (Possibly DT and latterly Kari Lake in Arizona are miffed when people who otherwise voted Republican departed from this and didn't vote for them so they say the system is rigged. Or maybe they're just sore losers).
The separation of powers is probably a good thing and better than what we have in the UK, where the PM has, in proportion, powers far greater than that of a US president and routinely abuses them, but it has its disadvantages. This is an example of where it isn't working too well and sensible gun controls cannot be implemented because of the Second Amendment, passed in the wake of the revolutionary war, that from its wording is more about keeping a standing army in place than allowing every Tom Dick and Harry to go around toting guns.
I really don't understand why saying that the US has a problem with guns that it needs to take seriously and take serious action if they don't want lots of innocent people, such as the person known to a previous poster, to be needlessly murdered, is either hurtful or harmful.
If you make a statement then assuming it is not phatic, as when you talk about the weather, and assuming you don't indicate otherwise you imply that what you say is:
1) true;
2) better known to you than to your addressees.
Just saying that it is true that the US has a problem with guns is not sufficient defence. You also have to be addressing people who don't already know that or don't already care. And US shipmates do already know, do already care, and don't need outsiders lecturing them on the need to take it seriously when they already do so.
If your purpose is to express solidarity then phrase your post in such a way as to make it clear that's what you're doing.
Even in Hell, we frown upon pond wars. Also, where shipmates are directly affected we expect posters to bear that in mind when they post: permission to use robust language in Hell does not trump the obligation to treat Epiphanies matters in a way appropriate to Epiphanies.
It is not pond wars to compare and contrast UK and US systems where appropriate and think this is.
I think both systems have their advantages and disadvantages. Personally I think that the UK system is worse overall than the US one.
But this is an area where the US one breaks down and an obvious solution never happens and probably never will whilst one political part is so implacably opposed to gun control.
I make no claim, other than recognising the expletive-deleted obvious when I see it, that I know or understand the system particularly well.
The issue is that your post suggests that somehow Americans aren't aware that there is a gun problem, when this thread specifically is proof that this isn't true. The issue isn't robust language, the issue is that you are saying things which are factually incorrect and presenting them as obvious solutions that Americans are just too stupid to choose. Just like how Trump deserves due process like any other American which is why his investigation is taking a long time, the 'solutions' you present show zero understanding of the legal complexity involved. The US is much more like a multi-nation group like the EU, made up of 50 countries.
Clearly you don't understand the US political system if you think gun control is an issue that the Democratic Party can somehow sort out just within themselves. The Democrats do not have a majority across both Houses, and Republicans won't vote for federal gun control bills because it will lose them votes locally. It's as simple as that. The President is, again, not part of the legislative office and has zero legal rights when it comes to their choices. The US system doesn't have a whip system like UK Parliament. Then you also get the Supreme Court who are entirely independent as the judiciary and the President has zero legal right to interfere with their decisions.
Currently, as far as this UK resident understands it, there is a real chance, given the present makeup of the Supreme Court, that any federal legislation on guns risks being struck down as unconstitutional. This means that the avenue for substantive change would need to be amendment of the constitution.
an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.
I don’t think that this has been remotely possible at any time I can remember.
Anything else, even if not struck down would probably make only a small difference and would only really be tinkering at the edges.
I really don't understand why saying that the US has a problem with guns that it needs to take seriously and take serious action if they don't want lots of innocent people, such as the person known to a previous poster, to be needlessly murdered, is either hurtful or harmful.
It is just so glaringly obvious to everyone but US folk that that's what has to happen if they aren't to carry on treating these frequent gun outrages as some kind of natural disasters rather than something they have it in their hands to stop.
But for what it’s worth, I don’t find that particularly hurtful or harmful. I’m just grateful we US folk have helpful people like you to point out the obvious for us.
And, how many Jehovah Witnesses were killed by a licensed gun owner in Germany, even after the police were advised of the man's potential to harm others?
And many countries such as Norway and Finland have widespread gun ownership but barely any gun violence. I don't think people from the UK generally understand the extent to which things like widespread gun ownership can be done safely, and a very different culture around things like hunting for food. I'm supportive of the right to own guns as long as appropriate training, licensing, and background checks are done.
Just out of curiosity I checked Norway’s gun laws. They are regulated fairly strongly. From here in the UK that seems to be the difference. Guns seem to be pretty much unregulated in the US. You can get hold of types of guns you cannot in other gun ownership countries. It seem the gun lobby is against any regulation. They seem to be winning. I am happy to be contradicted. I live in the UK.
Just out of curiosity I checked Norway’s gun laws. They are regulated fairly strongly. From here in the UK that seems to be the difference. Guns seem to be pretty much unregulated in the US. You can get hold of types of guns you cannot in other gun ownership countries. It seem the gun lobby is against any regulation. They seem to be winning. I am happy to be contradicted. I live in the UK.
Technically, the Gun Lobby as exemplified by the National Rifle Association is next to bankrupt. They are facing a lawsuit in New York State which will have the potential of disbanding them.
Yes, other groups have taken up the cause, but they have other things on their plate as well.
The gun lobby is not as focused as it was two years ago.
Just out of curiosity I checked Norway’s gun laws. They are regulated fairly strongly. From here in the UK that seems to be the difference. Guns seem to be pretty much unregulated in the US. You can get hold of types of guns you cannot in other gun ownership countries. It seem the gun lobby is against any regulation. They seem to be winning. I am happy to be contradicted. I live in the UK.
Technically, the Gun Lobby as exemplified by the National Rifle Association is next to bankrupt. They are facing a lawsuit in New York State which will have the potential of disbanding them.
Yes, other groups have taken up the cause, but they have other things on their plate as well.
The gun lobby is not as focused as it was two years ago.
Just out of curiosity I checked Norway’s gun laws. They are regulated fairly strongly. From here in the UK that seems to be the difference. Guns seem to be pretty much unregulated in the US. You can get hold of types of guns you cannot in other gun ownership countries. It seem the gun lobby is against any regulation. They seem to be winning. I am happy to be contradicted. I live in the UK.
No, you are pretty much correct - with the caveat that gun legislation is usually decided at the state level in the US, leading to what we would call a postcode lottery (but at a more extreme level). Some states like California have much stricter rules akin to much of Europe and Australia. Florida, as has been mentioned, have much looser rules.
The NRA is the biggest terrorist organization in the world.
No argument. I’d add “cult” to the label, though.
The damage here seems irreparable.
Do you see effects of this U.S. perversion in the culture of the UK? Or even wider?
The UK has some of the strictest gun laws in the world and they will likely get even stricter in the wake of the Plymouth shooting. Mass shootings are extremely rare in the UK yet we still manage to have Olympic success in gun sports - so I would say no, fortunately.
Part of the difference is that Georgian-era Enclosure means that hunting for food is mostly illegal unless you have permission from the landowner (most UK land is owned by a handful of people plus the Crown Estates - which don't actually belong to the King personally but to the Crown as an institution). Hunting is mostly associated here therefore with rich people and blood sports rather than hunting for food. I actually think being able to legally hunt for food (with licenses and limits on seasons etc) would be a much better solution to deer overpopulation in the UK - I have no moral issue with hunting for food, and in many ways wild game is ethically preferable to intensive rearing of domesticated animals.
I get the impression round here that if you fancy shooting geese for the pot the crofters (and the estate) will gladly supply the ammunition and bid you take as many as you like. Of course we do still get shiny Land Rovers full of Tarquins and Ruperts parked in passing places while they work off the stresses of being merchant bankers (or whatever it is they do) slaughtering wildlife for the fun of it.
When my son was at school he took part in a government survey about how safe children feel in their neighbourhoods (I think). He ticked "no" to gang violence, knife crime and everything else except "gun crime" which he ticked "yes."
I said to him "There's no gun crime here!"
He replied "If there's no gun crime how do the pellets get into an out-of-season pheasant?"
I conceded that there is some gun crime hereabouts.
Scotland of course is a different kettle of fish with regards to right to roam, which probably makes the odd bit of under the table game shooting a lot easier to get away with. Artificial grouse moors for rich bankers (and often American bankers at that) are an environmental disaster though, not least due to the raptor persecution that goes on. Unfortunately as American shipmates may be able to tell, hunting laws in the UK are very confusing and the US hunting laws are actually much better. I know Americans who hunt (only for food and every part of the animal is used - they live in Maine and animal skins make good cold-weather gear) and it seems much more civilised and egalitarian.
It helps, of course, that the US has a whole lot more land compared with the population size. But yes, I agree the class profile of hunting in the US is very different.
I make no claim, other than recognising the expletive-deleted obvious when I see it, that I know or understand the system particularly well.
I (US citizen who owns no guns, does not shoot wildlife for food or sport though I once did, and who has lived for extended periods in high-crime neighborhoods in major US cities absent ready access to firearms and who has also been the victim of a violent crime) come days late to this brouhaha with a few possibly relevant comments:
First, congratulations on recognizing the expletive-deleted obvious -- assuming, that is, some common UK / US understanding of what that expletive-deleted obvious actually is. I question whether such a common understanding exists, though I'm ready to be proved mistaken.
Second, every culture has its mythologies, for good or ill. I'm in my late 70s, on the fringes of the so-called Baby Boomer generation. We were/are the exuberant population explosion which followed WWII. How that played out in the UK may have been quite different than what went on here in the US.
Here, I seem to recall our popular getting beefed up and masculinized. We had to create all kinds of room, opportunity, and support for our returning soldiers. Women who filled in for absent men-at-war at all levels of the economy were summarily pushed back into the domestic sphere; off with the business suit or factory uniform (and the paychecks!) and back to the unpaid labor in kitchen and nursery. Popular entertainment celebrated (in TV series after TV series) the heroic gun-toting men who won the Wild West as the charming "little women" wrung their hands in worry at home or soothed their heroes' battle wounds and fried their bacon.
I can remember, after school and at recess, that kids' play often centered around these theme; boys splitting off into competing (warring) groups and girls expected to stand by, watch, and cheer on "their" heroes. On the lumbering yellow bus to school, the whole bus singing every single verse to "Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier" every single morning en route to school. How that poor driver survived the 9-month school year I'll never know.
A generation steeped in and brought up on this mythology gets addicted to individualism, heroism, and conflict, even though what we need now is cooperation, collaboration, and bridge-building.
Yes. The myth of redemptive violence. The UK had its own homegrown products (usually war films) as well as what it imbibed from the output of Hollywood.
The director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, said authorities sent “heartfelt prayers to the families … of these victims”.
He added: “Now I know there’ll be people who want to criticise us for prayers. That’s the way we do that in the south. We believe in prayer and we believe in the power of prayer. So our prayers go out to these families.”
He really doesn’t get it does he? The criticism isn’t for praying - not in the least. It’s for assuming that thoughts and prayers are the only actions available.
My prayers go out to these families too.
But where is the strong advocacy and work for banning these terrible killing machines - especially from people in positions power like this man?
Well, an unarmed human is also a 'terrible killing machine' - humans sadly don't need weapons to kill others. Banning guns wholesale isn’t necessary for effective gun control, after all the UK has some of the strictest gun laws in the world but guns are still not banned, just highly restricted. I would argue that given hunting culture in the US (which is arguably ethically much better than in the UK) and the vast quantity of real wilderness, it's reasonable to have fewer restrictions than the UK but to have a Nordic-style policy. Norway has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world (disproportionately amongst those in the far north, to defend against polar bears) but many times fewer gun deaths.
It's about more than the guns themselves, it's a particular type of paranoia amongst those who resist reform. And unfortunately given the fact that the perpetrator was a trans woman in the South (and it is easy to guess at the motive sadly), things may get very nasty.
Thoughts and prayers are great when they're accompanied by action to help those affected and prevent future recurrence of the events. Or, for those without any power to do anything.
And unfortunately given the fact that the perpetrator was a trans woman in the South (and it is easy to guess at the motive sadly), things may get very nasty.
Trans man, I think. The news reports are using the name he was known as when a pupil at the school. Reuters says he used he / him pronouns.
I should have been clearer - by 'terrible killing machines’ I meant the kind of automatic and semiautomatic firearms that absolutely nobody needs outside the military.
Ban them. Agitate for banning them, especially if you are a person in power.
Why isn’t Biden working towards this? Votes? How many votes are worth the lives of schoolchildren? Not just those directly affected but those going to every day school in fear. 😢🙏🕯️
And unfortunately given the fact that the perpetrator was a trans woman in the South (and it is easy to guess at the motive sadly), things may get very nasty.
Trans man, I think. The news reports are using the name he was known as when a pupil at the school. Reuters says he used he / him pronouns.
Ah thanks for the information, the initial Guardian article said they were a trans woman but that has now been edited. Unfortunately given the location and the nature of the school there may be problems with more accurate information.
I should have been clearer - by 'terrible killing machines’ I meant the kind of automatic and semiautomatic firearms that absolutely nobody needs outside the military.
Ban them. Agitate for banning them, especially if you are a person in power.
Why isn’t Biden working towards this? Votes? How many votes are worth the lives of schoolchildren? Not just those directly affected but those going to every day school in fear. 😢🙏🕯️
As has been said before on this thread, Biden has very little power to change this due to the nature of separation of powers in US politics. Biden has zero input into the legislative and judicial branches of government aside from being able to appoint Supreme Court judges when a vacancy becomes available, which is not currently the case.
It would be seen as *extremely* unconstitutional to do so since it would be viewed by many as violating the Second Amendment - and would all but be guaranteed to be overturned by the Supreme Court. That would then in turn harm the chances of any subsequent bill getting through Congress.
There actually has been movement on the issue but at the state level, particularly in Michigan. State laws changing is much more achievable than Biden being able to do anything.
The power to regulate commerce (like the sale of certain weapons) is granted to Congress. The president can act in this sphere if Congress has delegated to him the authority to do so. Banning certain weapons by presidential decree would be very unconstitutional. Congress issued such a ban in 1994 with the federal assault weapons ban, and let that ban expire in 2004. Any federal court would take this as dispositive on the matter; Congress has chosen to re-instate the legal status of these weapons and could presumably re-enact the ban if it chose to.
The director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, said authorities sent “heartfelt prayers to the families … of these victims”.
He added: “Now I know there’ll be people who want to criticise us for prayers. That’s the way we do that in the south. We believe in prayer and we believe in the power of prayer. So our prayers go out to these families.”
He really doesn’t get it does he? The criticism isn’t for praying - not in the least. It’s for assuming that thoughts and prayers are the only actions available.
Bless his heart. (Another thing we do in the South.)
Last night, Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, started her show with a 15 minute video on how Gun Violence extends across communities. I cannot link directly to the video, but you can find it through this link. It talks about how reporters have direct links to mass shootings. One reporter shared how she had been a victim of a mass shooting when she was in school. Several reporters talked about how their children have been victims of mass shootings, some of them even relying on their kids as sources for what was happening in a school during a shooting (kids have cell phones and they are texting to their reporter parents as a shooting is happening).
As of yesterday, the US has had 127 mass shootings this year. That is more than one a day.
I am a Brit so an outsider. I agree with strong legislation around guns very strong. My question is can a big ban be policed? Are there enough officers to enforce it? How much will go underground? What do you do with those military type weapons that are already owned by ordinary people?
I am a Brit so an outsider. I agree with strong legislation around guns very strong. My question is can a big ban be policed? Are there enough officers to enforce it? How much will go underground? What do you do with those military type weapons that are already owned by ordinary people?
I suspect a ban on possession would be impossible even if you could get a constitutional amendment. To my mind it's about harm reduction. How do you secure weapons in people's homes so they're not stolen or used accidentally? Can it be done in a way that still allows access in the emergency situation of gun owner fantasy? Perhaps gun storage that requires a combination lock to open but also has an emergency quick-release that immediately alerts police and/or sounds an alarm? There is also ammunition control. Register who buys a particular box of ammo, require them to register sale, loss or usage.
The problem is that the US gun lobby isn't interested in regulation. Like US evangelical Christianity it is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP.
[<snip>
The problem is that the US gun lobby isn't interested in regulation. Like US evangelical Christianity it is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP.
I wonder if it isn’t the other way round: the GOP is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the US gun lobby.
Practically, you start with a ban on the sale of specified types of gun and ammunition for which there's no realistic justification for people having (eg: semi-automatic rifles or armour-piercing bullets). Which stops the problem of too many guns getting much worse, especially those guns you want removed from private hands. And, a voluntary scheme for people to hand back any guns or ammo that's surplus to their requirement, which starts to reduce the number of guns (especially the more problematic ones).
[<snip>
The problem is that the US gun lobby isn't interested in regulation. Like US evangelical Christianity it is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP.
I wonder if it isn’t the other way round: the GOP is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the US gun lobby.
Comments
The man is vile.
What people planning a vacation would want to visit the Sunshine State when they don't have a clue who might be carrying a gun? Guns in the hands of folks with no training, and who might be prone to hotheadedness is terrifying.
Putin and Xi must be sleeping easily in their beds.
Aside from anything else, party leadership has zero to do with gun laws in the US, so not sure how that is relevant.
BTW, the chair of the Republican National Committee is Rona McDaniel. She actually has more influence in the GOP because there is no clear presidential leader in the party.
It does seem to me that the US Republican party has been for some time in lockstep with DT even when he threatened the very fabric of what passes for democracy in the US. Maybe that is crumbling a bit - in favour of DeSanits (pause to puke) - and will crumble a bit more if DT does finally get charged for his numerous and glaringly obvious crimes. what are they waiting for????.
The connection with guns is that if they had a proper leadership rather than people with inflated egos on the one side and someone too old to take decisive action even against the crimes of his predecessor on the other they would grasp this nettle and bring gun ownership under control - and carry the people with them, repealing or at least clarifying the second amendment if they had to.
It is just so glaringly obvious to everyone but US folk that that's what has to happen if they aren't to carry on treating these frequent gun outrages as some kind of natural disasters rather than something they have it in their hands to stop.
I literally said that Ronna McDaniel is the chair of the Republican National Committee.
This thread is full of Americans who are angry and frusrated that nothing gets done. However unlike you, they also understand that the President can actually do very little and that it depends on the House and Senate along with state legislatures. A huge amount of US law is exclusively formed at the state level, not federally. Did you somehow miss Obama crying on camera after the Sandy Hook massacre? Do you not think he would have forced bills in if he could?
This is supposed to be the Hell forum where robust opinions and words such as that in the title of this thread are to be expected in any case.
I do understand about the US system. I still think that whatever the theory is, the President (and former president) has a whole load of clout with his party and as I understand it heads the ticket on the ballot papers, with most people choosing to vote for candidates of the same party as their presidential choice. (Possibly DT and latterly Kari Lake in Arizona are miffed when people who otherwise voted Republican departed from this and didn't vote for them so they say the system is rigged. Or maybe they're just sore losers).
The separation of powers is probably a good thing and better than what we have in the UK, where the PM has, in proportion, powers far greater than that of a US president and routinely abuses them, but it has its disadvantages. This is an example of where it isn't working too well and sensible gun controls cannot be implemented because of the Second Amendment, passed in the wake of the revolutionary war, that from its wording is more about keeping a standing army in place than allowing every Tom Dick and Harry to go around toting guns.
1) true;
2) better known to you than to your addressees.
Just saying that it is true that the US has a problem with guns is not sufficient defence. You also have to be addressing people who don't already know that or don't already care. And US shipmates do already know, do already care, and don't need outsiders lecturing them on the need to take it seriously when they already do so.
If your purpose is to express solidarity then phrase your post in such a way as to make it clear that's what you're doing.
Even in Hell, we frown upon pond wars. Also, where shipmates are directly affected we expect posters to bear that in mind when they post: permission to use robust language in Hell does not trump the obligation to treat Epiphanies matters in a way appropriate to Epiphanies.
I think both systems have their advantages and disadvantages. Personally I think that the UK system is worse overall than the US one.
But this is an area where the US one breaks down and an obvious solution never happens and probably never will whilst one political part is so implacably opposed to gun control.
I make no claim, other than recognising the expletive-deleted obvious when I see it, that I know or understand the system particularly well.
Clearly you don't understand the US political system if you think gun control is an issue that the Democratic Party can somehow sort out just within themselves. The Democrats do not have a majority across both Houses, and Republicans won't vote for federal gun control bills because it will lose them votes locally. It's as simple as that. The President is, again, not part of the legislative office and has zero legal rights when it comes to their choices. The US system doesn't have a whip system like UK Parliament. Then you also get the Supreme Court who are entirely independent as the judiciary and the President has zero legal right to interfere with their decisions.
Anything else, even if not struck down would probably make only a small difference and would only really be tinkering at the edges.
But for what it’s worth, I don’t find that particularly hurtful or harmful. I’m just grateful we US folk have helpful people like you to point out the obvious for us.
Bless your heart.
Technically, the Gun Lobby as exemplified by the National Rifle Association is next to bankrupt. They are facing a lawsuit in New York State which will have the potential of disbanding them.
Yes, other groups have taken up the cause, but they have other things on their plate as well.
The gun lobby is not as focused as it was two years ago.
It hardly needs to be now they've stacked SCOTUS.
No, you are pretty much correct - with the caveat that gun legislation is usually decided at the state level in the US, leading to what we would call a postcode lottery (but at a more extreme level). Some states like California have much stricter rules akin to much of Europe and Australia. Florida, as has been mentioned, have much looser rules.
But the supporters of the gun lobby are scared, which is even more dangerous. Lobbiests are terrible, but vigilantes are terrifying.
No argument. I’d add “cult” to the label, though.
The damage here seems irreparable.
Do you see effects of this U.S. perversion in the culture of the UK? Or even wider?
Coding fixed. Dafyd. Friendly Neighborhood Hell Host.
Part of the difference is that Georgian-era Enclosure means that hunting for food is mostly illegal unless you have permission from the landowner (most UK land is owned by a handful of people plus the Crown Estates - which don't actually belong to the King personally but to the Crown as an institution). Hunting is mostly associated here therefore with rich people and blood sports rather than hunting for food. I actually think being able to legally hunt for food (with licenses and limits on seasons etc) would be a much better solution to deer overpopulation in the UK - I have no moral issue with hunting for food, and in many ways wild game is ethically preferable to intensive rearing of domesticated animals.
I said to him "There's no gun crime here!"
He replied "If there's no gun crime how do the pellets get into an out-of-season pheasant?"
I conceded that there is some gun crime hereabouts.
I (US citizen who owns no guns, does not shoot wildlife for food or sport though I once did, and who has lived for extended periods in high-crime neighborhoods in major US cities absent ready access to firearms and who has also been the victim of a violent crime) come days late to this brouhaha with a few possibly relevant comments:
First, congratulations on recognizing the expletive-deleted obvious -- assuming, that is, some common UK / US understanding of what that expletive-deleted obvious actually is. I question whether such a common understanding exists, though I'm ready to be proved mistaken.
Second, every culture has its mythologies, for good or ill. I'm in my late 70s, on the fringes of the so-called Baby Boomer generation. We were/are the exuberant population explosion which followed WWII. How that played out in the UK may have been quite different than what went on here in the US.
Here, I seem to recall our popular getting beefed up and masculinized. We had to create all kinds of room, opportunity, and support for our returning soldiers. Women who filled in for absent men-at-war at all levels of the economy were summarily pushed back into the domestic sphere; off with the business suit or factory uniform (and the paychecks!) and back to the unpaid labor in kitchen and nursery. Popular entertainment celebrated (in TV series after TV series) the heroic gun-toting men who won the Wild West as the charming "little women" wrung their hands in worry at home or soothed their heroes' battle wounds and fried their bacon.
I can remember, after school and at recess, that kids' play often centered around these theme; boys splitting off into competing (warring) groups and girls expected to stand by, watch, and cheer on "their" heroes. On the lumbering yellow bus to school, the whole bus singing every single verse to "Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier" every single morning en route to school. How that poor driver survived the 9-month school year I'll never know.
A generation steeped in and brought up on this mythology gets addicted to individualism, heroism, and conflict, even though what we need now is cooperation, collaboration, and bridge-building.
He really doesn’t get it does he? The criticism isn’t for praying - not in the least. It’s for assuming that thoughts and prayers are the only actions available.
My prayers go out to these families too.
But where is the strong advocacy and work for banning these terrible killing machines - especially from people in positions power like this man?
It's about more than the guns themselves, it's a particular type of paranoia amongst those who resist reform. And unfortunately given the fact that the perpetrator was a trans woman in the South (and it is easy to guess at the motive sadly), things may get very nasty.
Trans man, I think. The news reports are using the name he was known as when a pupil at the school. Reuters says he used he / him pronouns.
Ban them. Agitate for banning them, especially if you are a person in power.
Why isn’t Biden working towards this? Votes? How many votes are worth the lives of schoolchildren? Not just those directly affected but those going to every day school in fear. 😢🙏🕯️
Ah thanks for the information, the initial Guardian article said they were a trans woman but that has now been edited. Unfortunately given the location and the nature of the school there may be problems with more accurate information.
As has been said before on this thread, Biden has very little power to change this due to the nature of separation of powers in US politics. Biden has zero input into the legislative and judicial branches of government aside from being able to appoint Supreme Court judges when a vacancy becomes available, which is not currently the case.
Surely these could be used to make significant changes in policy without going through Congress?
I seem to remember that Biden signed several executive orders, including ones related to the COVID-19 pandemic, immigration, and climate change.
There actually has been movement on the issue but at the state level, particularly in Michigan. State laws changing is much more achievable than Biden being able to do anything.
Biden has been fairly vocal about re-instating the federal assault weapons ban, including after this most recent school shooting.
The kinds of things that can be dealt with through Executive Orders is actually fairly limited, and doesn’t extend to matters that belong to Congress.
As of yesterday, the US has had 127 mass shootings this year. That is more than one a day.
Nor those that belong to the States. Would these be so limited in the US?
Yes, it would be.
Executive orders are only limited to federal agencies under the control lo the executive branch. It does not apply to state governments.
Moreover, the executive action of one president can be revoked by the next president if s/he had a mind too.
And they can also be stayed by a court. And, congress can refuse to fund an executive order.
I suspect a ban on possession would be impossible even if you could get a constitutional amendment. To my mind it's about harm reduction. How do you secure weapons in people's homes so they're not stolen or used accidentally? Can it be done in a way that still allows access in the emergency situation of gun owner fantasy? Perhaps gun storage that requires a combination lock to open but also has an emergency quick-release that immediately alerts police and/or sounds an alarm? There is also ammunition control. Register who buys a particular box of ammo, require them to register sale, loss or usage.
The problem is that the US gun lobby isn't interested in regulation. Like US evangelical Christianity it is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP.