How frequent are mass shootings in the USA? You might be surprised

Retracted. Not getting sucked in.
 
Last edited:
dejongj said:
Surely it's the law makers that have to answer for listening to the points against?
Click to expand...
The lawmakers?No, it's the NRA who have massive Republican backing... Typical right wing my-right-to-kill-you comes first nonsense. I'm not whining or wingeing. Just appalled that this happens EVERY Day in the U.S. They love their guns more than their children.
 
Chipper said:
The lawmakers?No, it's the NRA who have massive Republican backing... Typical right wing my-right-to-kill-you comes first nonsense. I'm not whining or wingeing. Just appalled that this happens EVERY Day in the U.S. They love their guns more than their children.
Click to expand...
Hmmm interesting so the nra makes the law now? I think you misunderstood my point. It is just a lobby group, a powerful one at that absolutely, but a lobby group nevertheless.
 
dejongj said:
Hmmm interesting so the nra makes the law now? I think you misunderstood my point. It is just a lobby group, a powerful one at that absolutely, but a lobby group nevertheless.
Click to expand...
So, you misinterpret or fail to understand and then make silly disingenuous comments. The comment about your posts earlier is perhaps one you should re read.
 
Last edited:
Chipper said:
So, you misinterpret or fail to understand and then make silly disingenuous comments. The comment about your posts earlier is perhaps one you should re read.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I do not understand what you mean. I thought I was factually correct, perhaps you should try and correct the point if I wasn't right instead of attacking me as a person.
 
dejongj said:
Sorry but I do not understand what you mean. I thought I was factually correct, perhaps you should try and correct the point if I wasn't right instead of attacking me as a person.
Click to expand...

JP, I think you really should be less tetchy and a little more thick-skinned. You haven't been "attacked as a person", merely somebody pointing out that your comments were silly and disingenuous.
 
It would really be good if there could be one conversation / discussion on here that didn't end up like this.
 
Rapscallion said:
JP, I think you really should be less tetchy and a little more thick-skinned. You haven't been "attacked as a person", merely somebody pointing out that your comments were silly and disingenuous.
Click to expand...
But I thought they were factually correct. How can that possibly be disingenuous, then there would be an element of intend involved which there isn't. Ergo it is incorrect, nothing to do with thick skinned or not, not like I hit the report post button or anything. It is just unnecessary to insinuate intend by utilising comments like disingeneous or silly. By all means argue the point or demonstrate where they are legally appointed law makers.
 
Chipper said:
It would really be good if there could be one conversation / discussion on here that didn't end up like this.
Click to expand...
Then play the argument and not the person.
 
Llamaman said:
I'd hazard a guess in both situations things happened so quickly that even if you'd had a gun in the glove box you wouldn't have had time to reach it.
So it would serve no purpose other than to give bravado that gets you killed, or to escalate a road rage incident into something far worse.
Click to expand...

I think DeJong is South African (and used to live there) so was brought up with a different culture towards guns
 
I said that Your comments were sillY as Rapscallions pointed out. You seem to want to provoke, having just read many comments of yours about your "balls" in another thread.
 
Come on children, play nicely. We were having an interesting discussion here before all the personal digs started.
 
dejongj said:
As I said they are a very powerful lobby, but they do not make the law.
Click to expand...

Yes. If you want to be that technical then here in the UK, our parliament doesn't actually make the law. They effectively lobby the queen to do it for them.

dejongj said:
Don't people vote in their law makers and isn't it therefore representative of what the people want?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. I'm not American. But the lobbying industry in the US is massive and from my research watching the West Wing their laws are always a tricky negotiation with self interested groups.
 
Phil V said:
Signs of mental illness?

The rest? I'm not an expert, but @Garry Edwards or @Cobra can probably fill in the blanks.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about within the UK?
If so, in theory then signs of mental illness will result in refusal or revocation of a firearms certificate, but that is just theory.
An applicant is required to state whether or not s/he has ever suffered from any form of mental illness, including depression, and is also required to give permission to the police to contact their GP. And the police write to the GP, and invite relevant comments. And, if the GP bothers to reply, this can affect the outcome.
And, in theory, the police do a home visit at which they have an opportunity to pick up on anything that may be wrong with the applicant, but that's only once every 5 years and a lot can happen in 5 years. And, in practice, due to funding cuts, some police forces are now doing "telephone interviews" instead.
 
JonathanRyan said:
Yes. If you want to be that technical then here in the UK, our parliament doesn't actually make the law. They effectively lobby the queen to do it for them.
Click to expand...
Good point totally forgot about that one. Out of interest has the Royal ascent ever refused or declined a proposed law? Interesting point.


I'm not sure. I'm not American. But the lobbying industry in the US is massive and from my research watching the West Wing their laws are always a tricky negotiation with self interested groups.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, it is a profession. :thumbs:
 
dejongj said:
Good point totally forgot about that one. Out of interest has the Royal ascent ever refused or declined a proposed law? Interesting point.



Absolutely, it is a profession. (y)
Click to expand...
Royal assent hasn't been refused here in over 300 years.
 
dejongj said:
Good point totally forgot about that one. Out of interest has the Royal ascent ever refused or declined a proposed law? Interesting point.
Click to expand...

IIRC they had to change a law because nobody would explain to Queen Victoria what a lesbian was.
 
viv1969 said:
Royal assent hasn't been refused here in over 300 years.
Click to expand...
Although that's not to say HM doesn't interfere in politics.
When Tam Dalyell tried to force a vote on the second Iraq war, HM refused to allow the House to debate it, citing Royal Prerogative.
 
Llamaman said:
Although that's not to say HM doesn't interfere in politics.
When Tam Dalyell tried to force a vote on the second Iraq war, HM refused to allow the House to debate it, citing Royal Prerogative.
Click to expand...

Prerogative is often used though.
Not least in the regular dissolution of parliament, and the in the approval of the honours list. Completely different to Royal assent.
 
Last edited:
Chipper said:
I said that Your comments were sillY as Rapscallions pointed out. You seem to want to provoke, having just read many comments of yours about your "balls" in another thread.
Click to expand...
Just some harmless innuendo in that thread, I'd argue that it is totally different compared to a serious subject like this. :thumbs:
 
viv1969 said:
Prerogative is often used though.
Not least in the regular dissolution of parliament, and the in the approval of the honours list. Completely different to Royal assent.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Preventing a debate and a vote is little different to refusing assent, just nipping it (democracy) in the bud a bit earlier.
 
Llamaman said:
I disagree. Preventing a debate and a vote is little different to refusing assent, just nipping it (democracy) in the bud a bit earlier.
Click to expand...

The difference being if she decided to exercise assent, the PM is obliged to resign.
In legal terms they are very very different.
 
boyfalldown said:
It's not large Caliber I meant...but large capacity semi auto assault weapons.
Click to expand...
Actually so did I, and yes they do use them for hunting !
But seriously WTF?

Rapscallion said:
Fighter pilots would be unable to fly their planes at all without software adding corrections to their inputs......The fly by wire systems are massively complex and the jets are now designed for efficiency over stability.
Click to expand...
I thought we were discussing commercial flights, but either way there is still a driver or two should things go tits up.

andy700 said:
Unfortunately, their RTA death rate per 100K is three times higher than ours, so what does that tell you about them?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
Click to expand...
That they can "shoot" better than they can drive?


Phil V said:
Signs of mental illness?

The rest? I'm not an expert, but @Garry Edwards or @Cobra can probably fill in the blanks.
Click to expand...
When applying for a grant or renewal the police always refer back to "your" GP to check for any reason reason why you should be precluded from owning one. ( or so)
And that includes mental instability.

But just to give you a little more fuel, Thomas Hamilton was refused a licence, I think on the grounds of "instability", on the word of his Dr.
He appealed and won. This is the guy that shot up the school at Dunblane that resulted in the hand gun ban.
Unfortunately the system was at fault, and let us all down!
 
andy700 said:
Yes he is, but he is being stopped by the Republican party and the NRA lobbyists (who own the Rebuclican party).
Click to expand...
Yep, and I guess it will be the same for anyone else that tries too.
 
The PM isn't obliged at all to resign. The refusal might even be on his/her advice!
It's pure supposition what would happen as it's not happened in recent times and is unlikely to.
 
Cobra said:
I thought we were discussing commercial flights, but either way there is still a driver or two should things go tits up.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't put too much faith in that. Read the transcripts from Air France flight 447!
 
Llamaman said:
I wouldn't put too much faith in that. Read the transcripts from Air France flight 447!
Click to expand...
At least (driver less) cars can't plummet out the sky!
Because actually what we were talking about.
That doesn't alter the fact that I still don't trust them for the reasons I gave previously.
 
Cobra said:
Actually so did I, and yes they do use them for hunting !
But seriously WTF?


I thought we were discussing commercial flights, but either way there is still a driver or two should things go tits up.


That they can "shoot" better than they can drive?



When applying for a grant or renewal the police always refer back to "your" GP to check for any reason reason why you should be precluded from owning one. ( or so)
And that includes mental instability.

But just to give you a little more fuel, Thomas Hamilton was refused a licence, I think on the grounds of "instability", on the word of his Dr.
He appealed and won. This is the guy that shot up the school at Dunblane that resulted in the hand gun ban.
Unfortunately the system was at fault, and let us all down!
Click to expand...
No, although it suited the police to say this.
What actually happened was that a local police officer wanted to refuse his renewal application, possibly because of what he knew or thought he knew about his erratic behaviour, but he couldn't prove his suspicions and so his stated grounds for refusing renewal were that Hamilton hadn't belonged to a shooting club for many years and hadn't bought any ammunition either, and because he only had a "half licence" that allowed him only to shoot at a licenced club, not belonging to a club and not buying any ammunition meant that he had no good reason for possession of a firearm, which was obviously correct.
Unfortunately though, the officer was overruled by his superior senior and Hamilton was allowed to keep his guns, which cost 16 lives. Other shooters were then punished for the incompetence of the police by changing the law, moving almost all handguns from S.1 certification to S.5, which made them almost impossible to obtain because, AFAIK, the only good reason that is now acceptable is for the humane destruction of animals, so it's only horse slaughterers, country vets and very occasional farmers who now qualify.
 
Garry Edwards said:
No, although it suited the police to say this.
Click to expand...
Ah Ok that was the "report" that I read, but I stand to be corrected.

But which ever way you look at it, the fact remains..
Garry Edwards said:
Other shooters were then punished for the incompetence of the police
Click to expand...
And not forgetting the government, that totally ignored the recommendations of the Cullen report.
 
Llamaman said:
The PM isn't obliged at all to resign. The refusal might even be on his/her advice!
It's pure supposition what would happen as it's not happened in recent times and is unlikely to.
Click to expand...

I should have been clearer.
If she exercises it against the PMs wishes the obligation, in theory, remains.
But yes, it's all supposition.
 
viv1969 said:
Dim comment of the day award recipient.
Click to expand...
The people behind the NRA, the Republicans whose bidding they do... Why is it dim? If they cared a damn thing about what happens there sometimes more than once every day of the year, if they weren't more intent on owning guns than preserving human life, then perhaps I would withdraw the comment.
 
Fair point. I'm checking out of this one now. Have a good evening....
 
Chipper said:
The people behind the NRA, the Republicans whose bidding they do... Why is it dim? If they cared a damn thing about what happens there sometimes more than once every day of the year, if they weren't more intent on owning guns than preserving human life, then perhaps I would withdraw the comment.
Click to expand...

because you have no knowledge or insight as to their feelings towards their children.
Still....the line makes an eyecatching (albeit ignorant) post element.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top