Fuck me... USA does it again -- kids with guns!

[bma1983]

You forget to notice one simple yet MAJOR point on this article... it is BELFAST!

The place has masses of munitions littering the area.. do you god damned research. The British Army is still stationed out there.. you Americans still quantify it as a War Zone!!

I'm sorry. I always thought Belfast was part of the country named The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

 

[just_mills]

I thought you were hitting specifically on England, bud..?

 

[bma1983]

I thought you were hitting specifically on England, bud..?

Well the thread is about the whole USA, not just any one state. So I thought comparing the whole USA to the entire country of the UK instead of just the constituent country of England would make more sense.

 

[bma1983]

IT is.. but Belfast is also home to the IRA and the source of many troubles over the years. The British ARmy are still deployed on operations there to keep the peace.

WHAT!!! You mean to tell me the UK is not without its problems. OMG!!!!

 

[bma1983]

You've missed the point mister. Totally missed the point.

You posted the report about the 17yo kid with the Shotgun to try and paint the UK as being as bad as the USA... then i pointed out that this isnt true as Belfast is actually still defined as a war zone, and it is no surprise that you can get your hands on firearms there.

Anyone with a smithering of an understanding of the UK would pick up on this, and realise that it doesnt even constitute a viable argument point.

Anyone with a brain will see I didn’t miss the point. The fact remains Belfast is still part of the UK. And someone was shot in the UK. I never said it was as bad as the US. My point was that it still happened. Crime is crime. Your country is not immune to gun violence. And you have the nerve to point out the USA’s problems, when a part of your own country is defined as a war zone.

 

[Yves]

The recognition of the problem of gun violence in the US should not be interpreted as an attack to the American people. We are all affected by the problem of violence in some degree. This is basic epidemiology, the idea is to try to describe the distribution of a problem (gun violence) in a given context. In this particular example the US doesn´t have the best indicators (but something can be done to correct the current situation).

If we look at the data, the US has the highest rates of gun violence among children just like Finland and Japan have high rates of suicide or France and Chile have high rates of cirrhosis of the liver. This is not a question of nationalism. Societies have their own problems and diseases vary according to context. Infectious diseases are not the main health problem in the US but injuries and violence are according to American experts and officials. The evidence is solid, it´s not propaganda.

Northern Ireland (Belfast) is usually top 3 in terms of gun violence. The top 3 are:
1. United States
2. Finland
3. Northern Ireland

The magnitude of the problem is significant. The "us vs. them" approach is not helpful.

 

[bma1983]

The recognition of the problem of gun violence in the US should not be interpreted as an attack to the American people. We are all affected by the problem of violence in some degree. This is basic epidemiology, the idea is to try to describe the distribution of a problem (gun violence) in a given context. In this particular example the US doesn´t have the best indicators (but something can be done to correct the current situation).

If we look at the data, the US has the highest rates of gun violence among children just like Finland and Japan have high rates of suicide or France and Chile have high rates of cirrhosis of the liver. This is not a question of nationalism. Societies have their own problems and diseases vary according to context. Infectious diseases are not the main health problem in the US but injuries and violence are according to American experts and officials. The evidence is solid, it´s not propaganda.

Northern Ireland (Belfast) is usually top 3 in terms of gun violence. The top 3 are:
1. United States
2. Finland
3. Northern Ireland

The magnitude of the problem is significant. The "us vs. them" approach is not helpful.

I agree with you. We all have our problems.

 

[pjlikesporn]

TonyBoy.....

We dont have kids about to slaughter 1400 kids... any beleif that we do, is steeped in total bollocks.

As your fore-fathers, it is our DUTY to point your issues out to you - bare in mind.. you have 200 years of history.... we have closer to 2000! Whatever you think is new to you... chances are we've been through it already...

As i have already stated... the issues we have, are NO WHERE NEAR as serious as the ones that you guys are suffering.

I'm all for the US looking to and receiving advice from other countries about how to solve our problems, but I found something you said here very confusing. First you say that with 2000 years of history,* you've likely experienced (and presumably solved) all of our problems. But then you point out that you don't have this problem to contend with--on what will you base your advice?


*Also, I calculated that American civilization (i.e., with white people) is around 500 years old and British civilization is about 1000 years old, but my numbers could be off. Also I'm part Asian, so any of those numbers look quite young for civilizations in our eyes.

 

[NameTaken]

Mate our problems are NOTHING compared to yours... trust me..

That's not true, every country has some majorly fucked up problems that need dealing with, though they may be different.

 

[glo-unit]

Does anyone have a link to a story with actual facts about this, because I have seen no news stories about it. Also jack just because a person is not from the US doesn't mean they can't give good advice to Americans, and Joe yes you have had a "holier than thou" attitude almost this entire thread and yes it's very annoying.

 

[gsdx]

But don't go blaming all your problems on us.

Please tell me where I even implied that? I am not aware of it, but if I said it, then I will take responsibility for it. Otherwise, please do not imply that I said something that I didn't say simply to make your argument.

 

[punkyboi]

...This is not a "them and us" posting ...

You've contradicted that comment a few times over the course of this thread...

Actually i have been back Slobone... and i've explained what it was i was saying since everyone bar the Americans seems to have understood it, i figured i'd better explain it for you...

... The British Army is still stationed out there.. you Americans still quantify it as a War Zone!!

I think it's important for everyone to remember the populations of countries and the diversity as well. The United States is a unique country and with come many distinct problems, but also many distinct benefits as well.

It's also interesting to note that the report saying we have the highest rate of gun deaths comes from our own country. That shows that we are clearly aware and making efforts to control this problem, but it doesn't change overnight.

It's just my opinion, but I think it's best to end this thread and focus on matters at home, rather than abroad. The grass is never quite as green when viewed from across an ocean.

 

[Kurn]

What is it we're waking up from??
Some people say the violent children come from broken-down family structure.
I say it's clueless people who can't see that this breakdown is programmed into our wonderful American system.
An old winebag isn't much good for carrying new wine.
The brokedown family structure argument won't help much.
It's mashing mashed potatoes.
Our traditional morality is the very source of our traditional immorality.
LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE. Not just the post-card and pledge-allegiance parts.
I thank Joe of York for his interest.
I thank the Americans for demonstrating our penchant for Denial.
I thank the Canadians for being Canadians. sigh

 

[Nonimus]

I thank the Canadians for being Canadians. sigh

Yeah, you gotta give it to them - they are kinda Canadian in a Mountie-Maple kinda way.

 

[gsdx]

I think it's important for everyone to remember the populations of countries and the diversity as well. The United States is a unique country and with come many distinct problems, but also many distinct benefits as well.

Canada is equally unique and diverse as well. We, too, are a 'melting pot' of sorts for many diverse cultures. The difference is the ideals upon which our two countries were founded.

From the time of slavery when slaves travelled the underground railroad north across the border, Canada has been a haven for people escaping the injustices done to them.

We must be doing something right.

 

[codixx]

I have appreciated reading all the opinions and thoughts posted to date, and although some comments have appeared to be a bit inflamatory in nature, overall I feel each person has given their honest opinion of the issue. That said, I still assert that the complex nature of this gun issue does not lend itself to an easy solution. There are over a million registered gun owners that have never been involved in a crime, or used their guns for violence. My family has always been into hunting, competition shooting, and collecting. There is no denial that there are groups, gangs, and individuals that will use a firearm for illegal purposes. I suppose guns could be outlawed for personal ownership, but a very healthy and thriving black market will always have guns for sale to anyone with cash. I don't know of any country that has been successful in sealing its borders to prevent guns, drugs, criminals, or undesirable persons from entering. As an american, and more importantly, as a man I am deeply troubled when I hear or read about gun violence in this country. But thinking that any government can enact a law to stem violence is wishful thinking. Our government has pushed itself so deep into our personal lives I shudder to think of giving up anything else. I also wish to comment on use of my guns for defense of my family, or myself. I would not hesitate for one second!!!! And I don't think there is a man out there that would not use anything within reach to protect his family, or himself from harm. That said, it is also my responsibility to keep my guns safe and secure, to prevent unauthorized use. Individuals who fail to keep their guns under control should be held responsible, liable, and loose the right to own a firearm. Perhaps this law will bring about change without interfearing with the rights of responsible gun owners.

 

[MRMATTX2]

It really is no wonder the world has little respect for us. It's not just things like this, it's the whole image we have under the current administration.

As for guns, it will only get worse. I don't understand why they won't/can't "amend" the amendments. OK, so we have the right to bear arms.
That was written in the 18th century, wouldn't you think it's time to re-look at it, considering it's now the 21st? I think our forefathers would think we are complete idiots.

 

[gsdx]

I don't understand why they won't/can't "amend" the amendments.

Two words: Political Suicide.

It might interest you that the original wording which went to congress for debate was:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person, religiously scrupulous, shall be compelled to bear arms.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm

Had the bolded phrase survived, I believe the United States would be a completely different country today, but that is just my opinion. By removing it, however, it made the amendment completely ambiguous and, to this day, no-one can agree upon what it really means.

 

[chris0626]

Two words: Political Suicide.

It might interest you that the original wording which went to congress for debate was:



http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm

Had the bolded phrase survived, I believe the United States would be a completely different country today, but that is just my opinion. By removing it, however, it made the amendment completely ambiguous and, to this day, no-one can agree upon what it really means.

You have hit the nail on the proverbial head.

It's amazing how many of our rights we're willing to give up (or have impinged) but still hold this 'right to bear arms' as sacrosanct. Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Croynan]

Suggestion...how about a 2nd amendment sub paragraph A...

You've not amended the right to bear arms, instead you've just removed the ambiguity of the wording... the right still stands... its just changed and clarified it.

THere was hell to pay when labour introduced the Firearms Act (Amendment) 1997 after dunblane.. but we survived, and i think nearly all citzens now agree 10 years later that we are a better country for it.

Sure, it would be hell in the USA initally following such an amendment.. but things will calm down and the shit storm blows over... there'd some be some other major issue which replaced it in the media... like.. gay marriage for example.

I think you have either misjudged and or do not understand the political mentality and or climate within this country these days. To try and get an amendment to our contitution over this issue would be like what Adlai E. Stevenson said to the Russian United Nations Representative - about 40 years ago regarding getting an answer from him - that he was willing to wait until there "was a snow ball in hell."

You have, in my opinion, misjudged the political apathy in this country to altering our constitution about any thing, from guns to (fucking) gay marriage - an issue which people continue to focus on that one shows one's lack of knowledge of the Puritan influence that still exists in this country.

If Homosexuals had any brains in this country they would be better off dealing with the issue of gay marriage on a local basis, state by state, and forget about anything on the national level until they had done so. Probably about the only amendment you might get to pass in this country at this time - is an anti gay marriage amendment to the constiution - not unless the Supreme Court stepped in somewhere along the line and had the guts to state the issue has nothing to do with the constitution and throw the matter out in the street on its ass.

just the local thoughts of a local village idiot, who seems to often have some insights as to issues in this country - even when he does take a position that is perceived as "off the walls."

pax, from the other side of the pond.