The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

I note that many people calling for disarmament don't seem to believe in the concomitant disarmament of government employees like the police. The suggestion to arm teachers is an extension of the belief that ordinary citizens are untrustworthy but government employees are not. This is, to my mind, a problem.

If the idea is to bar violent or unstable people from owning weapons then it must extend to all violent or unstable people, irrespective of whether they work for government or not. After all, elected officials are amongst the most violent and unstable people in any country and to only allow their employees access to weapons is as dangerous as arming the Mafia. These statists already believe themselves to be above the general citizenry (even though they are human too) and so believe only their agents should be armed. One wonders how easily Hitler and Stalin might have fared in their various pogroms had their victims been better armed.

But it goes even further than that, for governments also maintain ludicrously well-armed military forces which they throw into foreign countries for all kinds of nefarious purposes. Nobody seems to be calling for gun control to extend this far or for the manufacture of weapons to be criminalised.

People look to their governments for direction and, as in many aspects including but by no means limited to gun control, they see a disparity. "We, your rulers, can be armed but you, the ruled, cannot," introduces an element of danger. Is anyone comfortable with the idea of Trump being in charge of the only people allowed to carry guns? Let's say someone like Nigel Farage ascends to the office of prime minister, how many of us would be comfortable having that person in charge of armed police or extending access to weapons to lesser officials like traffic wardens, tax collectors or teachers?

I don't pretend to have any answers to this conundrum but I do see it as a bigger problem than just whether ordinary citizens should be permitted to bear arms or not. Weapons exist and the world is awash with them - from sharpened sticks to intercontinental thermonuclear missiles - so maybe the first step should be a conversation about all weapons. Maybe gun ethics and usage should be taught in schools so that everyone grows up with an appreciation and respect for what guns can do. It's an oft tripped out observation that automobiles are also deadly when misused but most people are happy to let anyone who passes a test to own one. Would it be possible to require anyone wanting a gun to take lessons and pass a test before owning one, both ordinary citizens and government employees alike?

Getting rid of weapons altogether is not a realistic target in the current world and so it seems to me like education might be one way forward. If one cannot prevent the waters rising then one must learn how to swim. Perhaps gun laws should be as simple as, if you pass your test, you can have a gun but it must only be used for hunting, target (sport) shooting or in self-defence and to extend these laws to all gun carriers from soldiers to citizens. If even our armies were only permitted to use weapons in self-defence, it would be much harder to justify the next Iraq or Afghanistan.

As I say, I don't have answers but I do believe that this problem must be seen in its entirety. If we want fewer weapons and tighter controls then we must push for fewer weapons and tighter controls across the board.

[K2]

*checks Google for stats on recent school massacres by machete in UK*
Your point?

My point being I'd say that you and I are done discussing this subject.  Thank you for your participation!

K2

[Leigh S]

But the UK is even more Godless and lacking in community spirit than the most barren backwater of the US- trust me on this, I'm from Chelmsley Wood!  But school children DON'T kill each other, or attempt to kill each otehr in mass numbers - it just doesnt happen.  What's keeping us from doing it?

[TordelBack]

*checks Google for stats on recent school massacres by machete in UK*
Your point?

My point being I'd say that you and I are done discussing this subject.  Thank you for your participation!

My pleasure.

[K2]

I'm not British, so it would be unfair and uneducated of me to comment as to why it's not happening in Chelmsley Wood.  I could make a few jokes as to why, but then only us barbarians would get it.

K2

[Jim_Campbell]

I'm not British, so it would be unfair and uneducated of me to comment as to why it's not happening in Chelmsley Wood.

I would suggest that it's the absence of guns.

[Big_Dave]

50-years ago firearms in the U.S. were not only easier to get, by virtually anyone, yet there was also no fear of a response (as in quickly alerted L.E., armed guards, etc.)  In fact in rural communities it was not that uncommon for someone to go out hunting in the morning and then take their firearm to school and it was not given a second thought.  By virtue of all of the suggestions, there should have been even more shootings then, though decreased proportionally due to population.

[K2]

I would suggest that it's the absence of guns.

Perhaps, though I'll still refrain from responding with a tasteless though witty reply. Though it is tempting

K2

[Leigh S]

I'm not British, so it would be unfair and uneducated of me to comment as to why it's not happening in Chelmsley Wood.  I could make a few jokes as to why, but then only us barbarians would get it.

K2

Make the jokes, everyone who knows the place does! But honestly, it is a desperately squalid and cheap and hopeless place where every neighbour depises their neighbour. What stops them from obtaining the most lethal item they can and trying to take out as many people as they can in Cash Generator?

I was thinking about the time when Heavy Metal music was blamed for these kind of things, and my response I'm sure was very similar to a pro-gun enthusiast - "I don't kill people - I'm a responsible user - dont' take away my fun!" - so on just that basis, I understand the protective impulse - lets say they did prove a link between a small number of suicides and murders with music - should we ban everyone from listening? Trump would presumably advocate playing Manson directly into classrooms.   Mental Health IS a factor that plays into this - but I'm not sure wishing that everyone could be like yourself and responsible and community minded is not really like wishing no one was mentally ill. It isnt a practical solution in the first place, and isnt the solution the UK or other countries use to keep the kill crazies at bay.

[Eric Plumrose]

Ban guns, and they'll still find them.  Destroy all the guns, and they'll use something else...

Those pesky laws. Making bad things more difficult for people to do be they mad, bad, or just dangerous to know.

[K2]

Make the jokes, everyone who knows the place does!

Oh no, you're not baiting me in with that one.  I've seen British TV and movies, I'm pretty sure you fellas don't have a sense of humor.

In any case... Once again, forget Trump who I personally refer to as the, hmm, how to say this... Posterior-Clown.  Trump is all about destroying America from the government on down.  As to mental health, there have always been depressed people, every war has produced people who suffer with PTSD, etc., etc. to flat out homicidal crazies.  This goes right back to responsibility to your community, and thusly, visa versa.  Now I agree that the old standard of "he's nuts, shun him or lock him up" isn't right, but in the same vein of being a responsible citizen and good neighbor you would offer help, and if you can't help (more than likely), than you alert others in your community who can, if anything for simply the safety of the community let alone the individual.

There are a gazillion examples I could use, yet even the old standard (not ideal) of excluding a person or family from interacting with yours, socializing with others and so on was better than nothing.  AND that also applies to when one in your own family goes off the rails.  Your responsibility is to their well being, and the community.  It forced someone to either interact properly, or they didn't get to interact... No doubt making things worse for them, but, they didn't have an opportunity to interact, influence, right down to even reproduce.  Eliminate that societal buffer yet don't replace it with a better way of which their are many, and crazy does what crazy does.

It's about being a good citizen, but you British know that very well being so domesticated and all that.

Finally, I'm Native American.  When faced with a government that had guns and we didn't, it didn't exactly work out so well.  Then again we're not a compliant lot when it comes to obeying our government.  So you've got us beat there

K2

[IndigoPrime]

I think the moment passed in the US. Once the national collectively decided it was fine to kill schoolchildren, they were done. In the UK, we had Dunblane. It shocked the country to its core. It was unthinkable. Two rounds of major gun control changes then happened. Since then: one mass shooting, in a country with 65 million people, and – as it turns out – still a fuck-load of guns in the wild. The difference is, they're controlled and licensed, and you can't just pop into your local supermarket and walk out with one (or grab a military grade weapon designed to destroy people's organs with a single shot, making it almost impossible for them to survive, rather than 'merely' being incapacitated).

But for some reason, it's never about the guns. It's about mental health, or videogames, or stopping the government taking over, or some other excuse. And now every other week, there's a massacre somewhere in the US, often in a school. But, like I said, when even the death of schoolchildren doesn't cause Americans en masse to rise up and scream ENOUGH, nothing will.

[Eric Plumrose]

Now I agree that the old standard of "he's nuts, shun him or lock him up" isn't right, but in the same vein of being a responsible citizen and good neighbor you would offer help, and if you can't help (more than likely), than you alert others in your community who can, if anything for simply the safety of the community let alone the individual.

There are a gazillion examples I could use, yet even the old standard (not ideal) of excluding a person or family from interacting with yours, socializing with others and so on was better than nothing.  AND that also applies to when one in your own family goes off the rails.  Your responsibility is to their well being, and the community.  It forced someone to either interact properly, or they didn't get to interact... No doubt making things worse for them, but, they didn't have an opportunity to interact, influence, right down to even reproduce.  Eliminate that societal buffer yet don't replace it with a better way of which their are many, and crazy does what crazy does.

Those with mental health issues are more likely to be a danger to themselves or themselves victims than a threat to society.

[K2]

Those with mental health issues are more likely to be a danger to themselves or themselves victims than a threat to society.

Agreed 100%... However, if no one stands up to help them, or directs them to help, or directs help to them, then I suspect it doesn't get much better.

In the end, though I don't like it I'm a firm believer in "to change the system, you have to be a part of the system."  That lends itself directly to what I've been saying about family/community/state/nation responsibility.  Therein lies one of the big problems.  No one wants to be responsible or have to contribute or participate, they all just want to do their own thing in their own little world hoping that everyone else will do their part too.

Finally as well although no one likes hearing this, that applies to this discussion.  We were each raised (though perhaps some hatched) and shaped by our families, our community and our national standards.  That goes back to again, responsibility in raising our own and responsibility for community.  So really us (the barbarian savages) and you folks from the UK are speaking totally different languages from totally different perspectives... Besides the fact the conversation is difficult with the British not speaking English, by not having the same values and viewpoints raised so differently, it makes finding a mutual resolution difficult at best.

K2

[Tjm86]

Secondly, the 2nd Amendment is not just about defending against other nations, or other individuals.  It is most importantly about defending against your own government if they decide that the constitution can be scrapped and they can just take charge (The Declaration of Independence spells it out much better than I ever could... Simply replace Great Britain with "the U.S. Government").

Thank you. There is a lot to deal with but I think this above all else.  The 2nd amendment was very much in response to the colonial wars and the threat of a foreign government.  As such it is a historical anachronism and needs to be viewed in that context.  Regrettably these days America is the greatest threat to national security but more importantly, this amendment is being abused in the name of internal security.  As such, it is incredibly damaging to America's international standing.