Only in America... | Page 50 | Vital Football

Only in America...

LA_Imp said:
You won't get an argument from me about any laws or regulations that remove guns from America's streets, although it is worth bearing in mind that in some places the wilderness really is a very natural place (very different to the UK) and guns, for different reasons, can be seen as a necessity. Wilderness Montana isn't really where the gun problem lies, although sadly the attitudes of those gun owners in places like rural Montana often seem devoid of nuance.

However, what you might be able to address through policy or statewide legislation is the systemic culture of racism and authoritarianism that runs rampant through so many police forces. Begin by hiring different police officers, require an education for a start, require continuing education hours once hired, train them to deescalate situations, and inform them they are their to serve, not subjugate, the public, and remove the automatic protections they get despite committing crimes while on the job. to the last point requiring them to take out civil insurance would be a good place to start. There are some good, if not great police officers, but sadly they appear to be in the minority.

I've been to the Salton Sea - yeah it's weird.
Click to expand...

Pardon my ignorance but would the federal system over there allow for places like Montana to retain some element of flexibility regarding gun laws factoring in the needs of farming etc, whilst more urban centers in California, Michigan or wherever can be more prescriptive, based on evidence of gun deaths?
 
LA_Imp said:
You won't get an argument from me about any laws or regulations that remove guns from America's streets, although it is worth bearing in mind that in some places the wilderness really is a very natural place (very different to the UK) and guns, for different reasons, can be seen as a necessity. Wilderness Montana isn't really where the gun problem lies, although sadly the attitudes of those gun owners in places like rural Montana often seem devoid of nuance.

However, what you might be able to address through policy or statewide legislation is the systemic culture of racism and authoritarianism that runs rampant through so many police forces. Begin by hiring different police officers, require an education for a start, require continuing education hours once hired, train them to deescalate situations, and inform them they are their to serve, not subjugate, the public, and remove the automatic protections they get despite committing crimes while on the job. to the last point requiring them to take out civil insurance would be a good place to start. There are some good, if not great police officers, but sadly they appear to be in the minority.

I've been to the Salton Sea - yeah it's weird.
Click to expand...
The wilderness areas probably aren't that problematic. I don't think I've met a British farmer yet without a shotgun certificate so they could probably get away in such US areas with shot guns and small magazine rifles. As you say those areas probably don't add much to the murder rate either, in the greater scheme of things.

The Salton Sea seems a bit of an ecological ticking time bomb that nobody wants to address. I wonder if the rich people of Palm Springs are ready for 75mph alkaline sand storms of biblical proportions when the lake evaporates a bit more.

Then again they've probably got enough cash to up sticks and build a new Palm Springs somewhere else; ironically not unlike what happened to Salton City and Bombay Beach on a less grand scale.
 
MaineRoad_96 said:
Pardon my ignorance but would the federal system over there allow for places like Montana to retain some element of flexibility regarding gun laws factoring in the needs of farming etc, whilst more urban centers in California, Michigan or wherever can be more prescriptive, based on evidence of gun deaths?
Click to expand...
I would say it is a key issue and one that should not be problematic but for the pig headedness of those that are gun obsessed.

To put it into context, when the 2nd amendment was drawn up I doubt that the weapon of choice was much more than a single action musket that took 'a while' to reload. They could not have envisioned hand held machine guns, knocking out 50 rounds a second; nor I doubt having the need for such in mind.

I can't see any reason why the 2nd amendment couldn't be 'respected' while severely rewriting the nature of what is an acceptable firearm and the health/character requirements to avoid being barred from exercising the right to bear arms.
 
hulloutpost said:
I would say it is a key issue and one that should not be problematic but for the pig headedness of those that are gun obsessed.

To put it into context, when the 2nd amendment was drawn up I doubt that the weapon of choice was much more than a single action musket that took 'a while' to reload. They could not have envisioned hand held machine guns, knocking out 50 rounds a second; nor I doubt having the need for such in mind.

I can't see any reason why the 2nd amendment couldn't be 'respected' while severely rewriting the nature of what is an acceptable firearm and the health/character requirements to avoid being barred from exercising the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...
I asked you a question in the GB News thread that I would appreciate an answer to please; in case you have not seen it
 
MaineRoad_96 said:
Pardon my ignorance but would the federal system over there allow for places like Montana to retain some element of flexibility regarding gun laws factoring in the needs of farming etc, whilst more urban centers in California, Michigan or wherever can be more prescriptive, based on evidence of gun deaths?
Click to expand...

It is within the federal system to enact legislation that supports the needs of rural gunowners, but the lobbying power and rhetoric generated by gun enthusiasts seeks to prevent such common sense measures. Behind it all is money. Gun manufacturer's make money if they sell guns, all types of guns, to everyone. They lobby politicians, and the political campaigns rock on.

Dead toddlers mean nothing. Money can be made by selling guns, more guns, always more guns. And there's always a scumbag politician available to take the lobby dollars to fund a war chest.

Just to repeat no amount of dead toddlers will shake some people from their indoctrination. It's very sad.
 
LA_Imp said:
It is within the federal system to enact legislation that supports the needs of rural gunowners, but the lobbying power and rhetoric generated by gun enthusiasts seeks to prevent such common sense measures. Behind it all is money. Gun manufacturer's make money if they sell guns, all types of guns, to everyone. They lobby politicians, and the political campaigns rock on.

Dead toddlers mean nothing. Money can be made by selling guns, more guns, always more guns. And there's always a scumbag politician available to take the lobby dollars to fund a war chest.

Just to repeat no amount of dead toddlers will shake some people from their indoctrination. It's very sad.
Click to expand...
Thanks for providing some insight.
 
hulloutpost said:
I would say it is a key issue and one that should not be problematic but for the pig headedness of those that are gun obsessed.

To put it into context, when the 2nd amendment was drawn up I doubt that the weapon of choice was much more than a single action musket that took 'a while' to reload. They could not have envisioned hand held machine guns, knocking out 50 rounds a second; nor I doubt having the need for such in mind.

I can't see any reason why the 2nd amendment couldn't be 'respected' while severely rewriting the nature of what is an acceptable firearm and the health/character requirements to avoid being barred from exercising the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile the US can save many, many lives by simply implementing a properly accountable police force which will take far less effort and has far more popular support...

Hell, even the person who lives in America agrees with me, so one of us is a bit out of touch with the short term possibilities of saving innocent lives I would suggest. (if saving innocent lives is really something you are concerned with of course)
 
Sincilbanks said:
Meanwhile the US can save many, many lives by simply implementing a properly accountable police force which will take far less effort and has far more popular support...

Hell, even the person who lives in America agrees with me, so one of us is a bit out of touch with the short term possibilities of saving innocent lives I would suggest. (if saving innocent lives is really something you are concerned with of course)
Click to expand...
Save many lives? Some lives I would suggest. A lot of the people who die in interactions with police (of all races) are in legitimate use of deadly force situations and even suicide by cop. The majority of people who die are not unlawfully killed by the US police. Most of them die because both the police and the subjects have ready access to guns in a wild gun culture.

By all means do the retraining, de-escalation and so on as well but it is not the priority. Ultimately until the threat of guns or other deadly force is significantly diminished, the police by human nature are going to be on edge. It may be an inconvenient truth but many police officers are murdered each year. It's a two way street whether people like or want to acknowledge that or not. Until the police don't significantly fear the outcome of any given interaction, all the classroom retraining in the world isn't going to over rule that basic human sense of self preservation.

Some negligence driven accidental deaths, manslaughter and homicide by the police will continue because the police and criminals will continue to operate in a real world where there is uncertainty, fear, mistakes and in some cases prejudice. But those unlawful deaths at the hands of the police are a tiny percentage of the thousands of all gun related murders every year and the number of lives to be saved, pale into insignificance to the numbers that can be saved by addressing the gun issue - the disease not the symptom.
 
hulloutpost said:
Save many lives? Some lives I would suggest. A lot of the people who die in interactions with police (of all races) are in legitimate use of deadly force situations and even suicide by cop. The majority of people who die are not unlawfully killed by the US police. Most of them die because both the police and the subjects have ready access to guns in a wild gun culture.

By all means do the retraining, de-escalation and so on as well but it is not the priority. Ultimately until the threat of guns or other deadly force is significantly diminished, the police by human nature are going to be on edge. It may be an inconvenient truth but many police officers are murdered each year. It's a two way street whether people like or want to acknowledge that or not. Until the police don't significantly fear the outcome of any given interaction, all the classroom retraining in the world isn't going to over rule that basic human sense of self preservation.

Some negligence driven accidental deaths, manslaughter and homicide by the police will continue because the police and criminals will continue to operate in a real world where there is uncertainty, fear, mistakes and in some cases prejudice. But those unlawful deaths at the hands of the police are a tiny percentage of the thousands of all gun related murders every year and the number of lives to be saved, pale into insignificance to the numbers that can be saved by addressing the gun issue - the disease not the symptom.
Click to expand...

"By all means do the retraining, de-escalation and so on as well but it is not the priority. Ultimately until the threat of guns or other deadly force is significantly diminished, the police by human nature are going to be on edge."

So if I understand you correctly, the incredibly disproportionate amount of deaths amongst ethnic minorities caused by the US police is because they are "on edge".

I'm sure all those people gunned down, beaten to the point of death or "died during arrest" would all attest to the cause as "the police being on edge" and furthermore would continue "if only the general population weren't armed I'd be alive today"

I'm equally sure their relatives and friends all believe the solution to stopping it is to wait until the US can somehow and miraculously take guns away from the hands of everyone who wants one. Those people by the way who have been on the front line of receiving this level of violence merely because of their ethnic background, they might have a clue

It is precisely the kind of argument you are proposing as a solution that makes people of ethnic minorities feel that no-one understands their situation, no-one cares about them, what happens to them or that anyone has any intention of doing anything about their situation. So what do they do? They protest violently to make people with your kind of argument sit up and realise they aren't interested in it as a solution, they want action NOW.

They want something better than they have NOW because that is what they are entitled to, both under the US constitution as their right as a US citizen and as is morally right in a supposed decent, civilised society.

Not some airy, fairy pie in the sky promise of jam tomorrow. Because tomorrow probably won't come for a significant number of them.
 
Sincilbanks said:
"By all means do the retraining, de-escalation and so on as well but it is not the priority. Ultimately until the threat of guns or other deadly force is significantly diminished, the police by human nature are going to be on edge."

So if I understand you correctly, the incredibly disproportionate amount of deaths amongst ethnic minorities caused by the US police is because they are "on edge".

I'm sure all those people gunned down, beaten to the point of death or "died during arrest" would all attest to the cause as "the police being on edge" and furthermore would continue "if only the general population weren't armed I'd be alive today"

I'm equally sure their relatives and friends all believe the solution to stopping it is to wait until the US can somehow and miraculously take guns away from the hands of everyone who wants one. Those people by the way who have been on the front line of receiving this level of violence merely because of their ethnic background, they might have a clue

It is precisely the kind of argument you are proposing as a solution that makes people of ethnic minorities feel that no-one understands their situation, no-one cares about them, what happens to them or that anyone has any intention of doing anything about their situation. So what do they do? They protest violently to make people with your kind of argument sit up and realise they aren't interested in it as a solution, they want action NOW.

They want something better than they have NOW because that is what they are entitled to, both under the US constitution as their right as a US citizen and as is morally right in a supposed decent, civilised society.

Not some airy, fairy pie in the sky promise of jam tomorrow. Because tomorrow probably won't come for a significant number of them.
Click to expand...
Nothing airy fairy about my proposals. They're actually proven methods of gun control. That the US public don't want to do anything is their problem.

There are black people, police officers; well actually all sections of society that are the victims of guns and violence, at hideous levels in the US.

If you want to simply focus on one group of people, bear in mind the overwhelming number of black people are killed by people who are not police officers. That simply highlights the point I am making.

I prefer to focus on a solution that benefits all (and by definition black people are included in the word all) and recognise that it is a complex situation that requires a long term commitment to change. If you wish to focus on one aspect of the overall problem, that's fine, that's your choice.
 
hulloutpost said:
Nothing airy fairy about my proposals. They're actually proven methods of gun control. That the US public don't want to do anything is their problem.

There are black people, police officers; well actually all sections of society that are the victims of guns and violence, at hideous levels in the US.

If you want to simply focus on one group of people, bear in mind the overwhelming number of black people are killed by people who are not police officers. That simply highlights the point I am making.

I prefer to focus on a solution that benefits all (and by definition black people are included in the word all) and recognise that it is a complex situation that requires a long term commitment to change. If you wish to focus on one aspect of the overall problem, that's fine, that's your choice.
Click to expand...

Without the will to implement gun control among the general population it is "airy fairy" I'm afraid. It's a political problem not a legal one.

I'm not the one focussing on one aspect of the problem, it's the people who are being systematically victimised (the one's whose opinion actually matters I would venture) who believe it is the solution...
 
Sincilbanks said:
Without the will to implement gun control among the general population it is "airy fairy" I'm afraid. It's a political problem not a legal one.

I'm not the one focussing on one aspect of the problem, it's the people who are being systematically victimised (the one's whose opinion actually matters I would venture) who believe it is the solution...
Click to expand...

You mean, people like this:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...isconduct-inquiry-over-bianca-williams-search

Luckily for them, this *didn't* occur in the US. Had it done so, they'd probably be dead.
 
Sincilbanks said:
I bet those notes don't suggest injecting bleach to cure Covid, it has to be a step up from that...
Click to expand...
Indeed. 'The pair' of them should think about putting their differences aside and form a new comedy duo. The only problem is that they both qualify for the clown role and they would be left without a straight man.

Perhaps one of BoJo or Jezza could sign up and then they could reprise the Three Stooges.
 

No shocks in that mini documentary. You're either for BLM or against BLM. Yer pays yer money and takes yer choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.