[Archived] Gun Law Debate: Please keep posts civil and conversational

[Baz]

I see a link Baz, but regardless of that its non of our business what the gun laws are in the states, we need to get our own house in order.

Don't get your point Gav.

[Gav]

Don't get your point Gav.

Well the establishment have been covering up pedophilia for the last 40yrs that we know of, so why are we interested in the US 2nd amendment when we have more pressing issues swept under the carpet that have ruined families and ruined lives for generations right on our doorstep?

[Mike E]

Well the establishment have been covering up pedophilia for the last 40yrs that we know of, so why are we interested in the US 2nd amendment when we have more pressing issues swept under the carpet that have ruined families and ruined lives for generations right on our doorstep?

Not to mention the government cutting money to vital public services and subsequently blaming the poor sods at the bottom who bear the brunt of it all. All the while happy to spend willy nilly on lunches, their own drinking bar, and the absurd House of Lords.

[Gav]

Not to mention the government cutting money to vital public services and subsequently blaming the poor sods at the bottom who bear the brunt of it all. All the while happy to spend willy nilly on lunches, their own drinking bar, and the absurd House of Lords.

Members who are not paid a salary may claim a flat rate attendance allowance of £150 or £300 for each sitting day they attend the House of Lords. The lower rate of £150 is if you're doing other paid work on the same day, otherwise its £300 a day, TAX FREE!

All this whilst working low income families are having living allowance top ups cut and the poorest in society are left out to rot.

Disgusting Mike.

[Baz]

Well the establishment have been covering up pedophilia for the last 40yrs that we know of, so why are we interested in the US 2nd amendment when we have more pressing issues swept under the carpet that have ruined families and ruined lives for generations right on our doorstep?

I don't see why we cant deal with more than one issue at once, its what we do in the private sector Gav.

Do I believe there was a pedophilia cover up, yes probably, but I also think there was one on Hillsborough and another on the Miners strikes too. Does that stop me thinking people in America should have better gun laws? No.

If you don't want to debate, Im not stopping you. Otherwise Id suggest we stick to the topic?

[Gav]

I don't see why we cant deal with more than one issue at once, its what we do in the private sector Gav.

Do I believe there was a pedophilia cover up, yes probably, but I also think there was one on Hillsborough and another on the Miners strikes too. Does that stop me thinking people in America should have better gun laws? No.

If you don't want to debate, Im not stopping you. Otherwise Id suggest we stick to the topic?

You could be right Baz.

The thread has a 'holier than thou' feel about it, which prompted my response

We shouldn't throw stones at the States when we have so many problems on our own doorstep.

As for gun crime, in the UK we don't have a constitutional right to carry guns yet we have an average of 22 gun crime offenses reported each day apparently.

[Steve Moss]

Behave Steve!

All these senseless murders caused by fruitcakes getting hold of guns and going on killing sprees when they have a bad day!

How do you propose the problem is fixed? How many more senseless death do there need to be before action is taken?

Action? If the action proposed is banning guns, never.

If you action is defined as shooting back, that can happen immediately except in "gun free zones".

It's not for nothing that most of these crazies are killing in "gun free zones".

In Arizona, any law abiding adult can carry a weapon openly or concealed without a permit. However, out of a population of 6 million, there are about 250,000 concealed permit holders because it allows them to buy a weapon instantly (automatic background check) and some states allow reciprocity. One estimate has 1/3 of the vehicles on the Arizona roads have a weapon in them. I think this is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I've been shooting since I was a child (though I rarely actually carry a weapon in public, 3 or 4 times in my entire life). I'm teaching my children to shoot, bows, shotguns, rifles, pistols and revolvers. I spent four years as a United States Marine. Many of my neighbors have similar stories. I daresay my neighborhood, and the surrounding neighborhoods, are safer than England. I don't think I need give the slightest credence to your suggestion that I need to disarm myself or my family or my friends or my neighbors. And I refuse to violate the rights of those who are not my neighbors or friends by treating them as some "other" who I can act holier than though and say "disarm."

The way the political system works in the US. It fails to represent greater numbers every year that passes and the divisions between liberals and conservatives grow every year.

It's an issue in most developed nations but it is far more acute in the States than anywhere else.

Gun regulation is only one facet of this larger dynamic.

And banning guns would lead us to a closer understanding? Hardly. The exact opposite would occur. I suspect there would be armed resistance and States calling for a Constitutional Convention. The American character is vastly different than that of our English cousins, based on this post.

I shot 3 different types of guns in the US a few years back under supervision at a gun range, and to be honest, it was one of the worst experiences of my life! Well maybe a little over dramatic as it was nowhere near as bad as losing to Palace away in the play offs but you get my drift.

I was a shaking wreck by the end of it, adrenaline by all accounts, but to think I had the power to murder everyone in that room in under a minute was absolutely bonkers, never again.

All that said, the US constitution gives Americans the right to bare arms, simple as that, so thats the law of the land its got nowt to do with us. If you don't like it don't go, but its nothing to do with us.

In this country we've had systematic abuse of children going on since the 60's and probably earlier. This goes right to the top of the establishment, was, and still is being covered up.

Its illegal, its disgusting, its ruined thousands of lives of the victims and their families, and we should concentrate on getting our own house in order before telling others to sort out theirs.

In America, you have a right to firearm. As it is a right, you don't have to own, carry or use one, if you don't want to. It's your right to do or not to do as you see fit.

All in all, this post is very sensible. Some rights are not for everyone. As sensible adults, they should be allowed to chose what rights they will or will not exercise. In the meantime, they should return the courtesy of letting others decide for themselves.

And I'm sorry for the English child rape epidemic. I hope it is sorted out sooner, rather than later, so it won't happen again.

I would suggest you'd be better off if a parent were to put a bullet or six into these rapists as the law is apparently doing little or nothing. If the law won't act, it's forfeited its credibility and private justice is warranted. Law is based on the consent of the governed, and if it strays too far, the governed will cease to consent.

As far as I can see the right to bear arms is in the second amendment, which means it can be changed (there have been 27 amendments to date).

If they try, they'll lose. And the politicians who support such an amendment will lose election. Which is why the liberals tip-toe around the issue, unless they're in a safe seat.

I don't see why we cant deal with more than one issue at once, its what we do in the private sector Gav.

Do I believe there was a pedophilia cover up, yes probably, but I also think there was one on Hillsborough and another on the Miners strikes too. Does that stop me thinking people in America should have better gun laws? No.

If you don't want to debate, Im not stopping you. Otherwise Id suggest we stick to the topic?

Let's debate gun laws, not just American.

The English cannot own a weapon, a historic right of a free people. What exactly distinguishes them from medieval serfs?

[Baz]

Let's debate gun laws, not just American.

The English cannot own a weapon, a historic right of a free people. What exactly distinguishes them from medieval serfs?

The British can own a weapon, you just have to apply with good reason, and have a pretty comprehensive background check, as well as someone checking how and where it is stored in a secure location (eg a defined metal locked gun box)

I believe though that there is a massive difference in the type of weapon we can own, shotguns and hunting rifles make up nearly all legal gun ownership in the UK, because that's all that is needed.

[Mike E]

My own opinion on a compromise re: American gun laws would be to limit gun access to pistols, shotguns and hunting rifles, with thorough background checks re: crime and mental health.

Quite why autos and semi-autos are readily available is beyond me.

Then again I accept the culture is different in the US. To be fair, studies both in and out of the US show that most people who own a gun do NOT want to fire it at another person. Even when they do, they try to miss. This even applies to supposedly desensitised soldiers on the battlefield.

[Paul]

Freedom is walking down the street without having to even consider carrying a weapon. The only people who feel a need for weapons in the UK live violent lives.

[joey_big_nose]

Action? If the action proposed is banning guns, never.

If you action is defined as shooting back, that can happen immediately except in "gun free zones".

It's not for nothing that most of these crazies are killing in "gun free zones".

In Arizona, any law abiding adult can carry a weapon openly or concealed without a permit. However, out of a population of 6 million, there are about 250,000 concealed permit holders because it allows them to buy a weapon instantly (automatic background check) and some states allow reciprocity. One estimate has 1/3 of the vehicles on the Arizona roads have a weapon in them. I think this is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I've been shooting since I was a child (though I rarely actually carry a weapon in public, 3 or 4 times in my entire life). I'm teaching my children to shoot, bows, shotguns, rifles, pistols and revolvers. I spent four years as a United States Marine. Many of my neighbors have similar stories. I daresay my neighborhood, and the surrounding neighborhoods, are safer than England. I don't think I need give the slightest credence to your suggestion that I need to disarm myself or my family or my friends or my neighbors. And I refuse to violate the rights of those who are not my neighbors or friends by treating them as some "other" who I can act holier than though and say "disarm."

And banning guns would lead us to a closer understanding? Hardly. The exact opposite would occur. I suspect there would be armed resistance and States calling for a Constitutional Convention. The American character is vastly different than that of our English cousins, based on this post.

In America, you have a right to firearm. As it is a right, you don't have to own, carry or use one, if you don't want to. It's your right to do or not to do as you see fit.

All in all, this post is very sensible. Some rights are not for everyone. As sensible adults, they should be allowed to chose what rights they will or will not exercise. In the meantime, they should return the courtesy of letting others decide for themselves.

And I'm sorry for the English child rape epidemic. I hope it is sorted out sooner, rather than later, so it won't happen again.

I would suggest you'd be better off if a parent were to put a bullet or six into these rapists as the law is apparently doing little or nothing. If the law won't act, it's forfeited its credibility and private justice is warranted. Law is based on the consent of the governed, and if it strays too far, the governed will cease to consent.

If they try, they'll lose. And the politicians who support such an amendment will lose election. Which is why the liberals tip-toe around the issue, unless they're in a safe seat.

Let's debate gun laws, not just American.

The English cannot own a weapon, a historic right of a free people. What exactly distinguishes them from medieval serfs?

If you take Arizona in 2010 (the data I found) there were 3.6 gun related murders for every 100,000 of the population. In Canada which controls guns there were 0.5 per 100,000 of the population. Canada has many of the same cultural and geographical qualities as the US. It's vast country, hunting is popular and there is a long history of people owning weapons. However it manages to deal with the issue well enough, and in no way to my mind can Canada (or the UK or Ireland for that matter) be said to be any "less free" for having controlled guns. I'd like to hear the argument for our state of curtailed freedom, if you have a one with greater analytical power than gun ownership being the "historic right of free people"? Owning slaves was a "historic right of free people" as was the ownership of women whether they be wives or daughters. As US white men are no longer extended these rights does it make them less free than their 18th century forefathers?

You seem like a decent bloke and I don't mean this aggressively, but frankly 1000s of people are unnecesarily dying every year and will continue to do so as the result of people such as yourself refusing to recognise a problem when it stares you in the face.

[Steve Moss]

If you take Arizona in 2010 (the data I found) there were 3.6 gun related murders for every 100,000 of the population. In Canada which controls guns there were 0.5 per 100,000 of the population. Canada has many of the same cultural and geographical qualities as the US. It's vast country, hunting is popular and there is a long history of people owning weapons. However it manages to deal with the issue well enough, and in no way to my mind can Canada (or the UK or Ireland for that matter) be said to be any "less free" for having controlled guns. I'd like to hear the argument for our state of curtailed freedom, if you have a one with greater analytical power than gun ownership being the "historic right of free people"? Owning slaves was a "historic right of free people" as was the ownership of women whether they be wives or daughters. As US white men are no longer extended these rights does it make them less free than their 18th century forefathers?

You seem like a decent bloke and I don't mean this aggressively, but frankly 1000s of people are unnecesarily dying every year and will continue to do so as the result of people such as yourself refusing to recognise a problem when it stares you in the face.

So you proposition is that because some alleged "historic right of free people" were wrong, we should ban all historic rights of free people? Or is it just the right to own weapons which is still on your naughty list?

Arizona has a very large metropolitan area. You may have heard of it. It is called Phoenix, with over 4 million people living there. There are small parts of that metropolitan area that has huge problems. Same as Chicago, etc. Most of those deaths are generally associated with gangs and drugs.

The rest of Phoenix is very safe, probably safer than your England. The outlying communities even safer. My community of roughly 25,000 people hasn't had a murder in years, at least not that I know of, and the prevalence of firearms is much higher than the national average.

On the issue of murder rates, is it true that England only includes those murders into it's murder rate that actually result in a conviction for murder?

Also perhaps you might want to focus on preserving the right to free speech in England, which appears to be fast eroding, as opposed to limiting an American's right to own a weapon?

[Paul]

Interesting question re murder rates Steve and one I've never heard before. After a quick google it turns out UK homicide rates are compiled from the police record of the offence. If the crime is recorded as homicide this will only be changed if the police or courts deem a lesser or no offence took place.

In 2012/13 559 recorded homicides were reduced to 551.

From Office of National Statistics

Of the 551 cases currently recorded as homicide in 2012/13, data on the case outcomes of the principal suspects at 8 November 2013 showed (Appendix table 2.02 (1.38 Mb Excel sheet) ):

court proceedings had resulted in homicide convictions in 219 cases (40%);

court proceedings were pending for 209 cases (38%);

proceedings had been discontinued or not initiated or all suspects had been acquitted in 18 cases (3%);

suspects had committed suicide in 17 cases (3%); and

no suspects had been charged in connection with 88 cases (16%).

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime-and-sexual-offences--2012-13/rpt---chapter-2---homicide.html?format=print

[Paul]

Steve I was interested in this a few days back. I had one initial thought which I didn't post and now want to ask questions.

I would suggest you'd be better off if a parent were to put a bullet or six into these rapists as the law is apparently doing little or nothing. If the law won't act, it's forfeited its credibility and private justice is warranted. Law is based on the consent of the governed, and if it strays too far, the governed will cease to consent.

1. I believe you are a lawyer? If correct surely there is no argument in law which could support private justice being warranted.

2. Surely this is highly subjective? If, for example, members of the black community felt the law hadn't acted adequately in the cases of Michael Brown, Eric Gardner, Walter Scott and Freddie Gray and took the law into their own hands surely they would be guilty of murder if they effectively took vengeance on the police officers said to have been involved.

I pick those not because of race but because the high profile means I know about the cases.

3. Living as we do we submit to our country's laws. If people step outside and enforce their own justice, because they perceive the law inadequate, anarchy will follow.

[Steve Moss]

I pick those not because of race but because the high profile means I know about the cases.

3. Living as we do we submit to our country's laws. If people step outside and enforce their own justice, because they perceive the law inadequate, anarchy will follow.

Agreed. Which is why it behooves the law to recognize that it has credibility only so long as it retains the consent of the governed. If the law (or lawmakers) lose sight of this, then we'll have a period of anarchy when the law falls into a state of disrepute followed by new laws which conform to the sensibilities of the governed.

It's an insidious process. Ask yourself whether the parents of the Rotherham girls think the law is doing right by them. I suspect the answer is not. Add to those numbers as over the decades the law leaves more and more dissatisfied victims in it's wake. Eventually, a tipping point is reached.

Whether we are close or far from that tipping point is a matter of pure conjecture.

That's political science 101.

[joey_big_nose]

So you proposition is that because some alleged "historic right of free people" were wrong, we should ban all historic rights of free people? Or is it just the right to own weapons which is still on your naughty list?

This point doesn't make any sense? It was you who brought up "historic rights of free people" I simply made the point that passing of time and the development of society has changed what the rights of free people are. No longer is holding slaves seen as acceptable for example. All I am saying is that just because people have always had access to guns does not make it a good idea to continue that state of affairs.

Arizona has a very large metropolitan area. You may have heard of it. It is called Phoenix, with over 4 million people living there. There are small parts of that metropolitan area that has huge problems. Same as Chicago, etc. Most of those deaths are generally associated with gangs and drugs.

The UK has London, Manchester, Glasgow, Belfast, Leeds, Cardiff. Canada has Toronto, Vancouver, Quebec, Montreal. All have organised crime. Canada and UK (and Germany, France, Japan, Australia etc etc) all have much lower murder rates than the US. Hell the Netherlands is one of the most urbans nations in the world and has a much much much lower murder rate than Arizona.

I don't think urbanisation is a significant factor here.

The rest of Phoenix is very safe, probably safer than your England. The outlying communities even safer. My community of roughly 25,000 people hasn't had a murder in years, at least not that I know of, and the prevalence of firearms is much higher than the national average.

I've lived in Hackney in east end London for a total of eight years, south Edinburgh for five. It goes without saying that Ive never heard of any my friends or acquaitances being the victim of crime, let alone violent crime, let alone murder. But our personal experience is hardly representative. You need facts.

To give a flavour for just how out of step we are London - one of the largest cities in the world, with significant organised crime and street gangs, with many poor areas - had a murder rate (all types of wepons, not just guns) of 1.1 per 100,000 in 2010. That's under a third of the Arizona murder rate for guns alone - and that is comparing against all of Arizona, including the safe rural areas etc. Those are the plain facts.

On the issue of murder rates, is it true that England only includes those murders into it's murder rate that actually result in a conviction for murder?

No, unsolved murders are counted as murder.

Also perhaps you might want to focus on preserving the right to free speech in England, which appears to be fast eroding, as opposed to limiting an American's right to own a weapon?

You started the debate not me? The realisation that your opinions perhaps don't stand up to analysis is surely an opportunity to modify them rather than stop listening?

[joey_big_nose]

Great article here:-

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe

[Steve Moss]

This point doesn't make any sense? It was you who brought up "historic rights of free people" I simply made the point that passing of time and the development of society has changed what the rights of free people are. No longer is holding slaves seen as acceptable for example. All I am saying is that just because people have always had access to guns does not make it a good idea to continue that state of affairs.

The UK has London, Manchester, Glasgow, Belfast, Leeds, Cardiff. Canada has Toronto, Vancouver, Quebec, Montreal. All have organised crime. Canada and UK (and Germany, France, Japan, Australia etc etc) all have much lower murder rates than the US. Hell the Netherlands is one of the most urbans nations in the world and has a much much much lower murder rate than Arizona.

I don't think urbanisation is a significant factor here.

I've lived in Hackney in east end London for a total of eight years, south Edinburgh for five. It goes without saying that Ive never heard of any my friends or acquaitances being the victim of crime, let alone violent crime, let alone murder. But our personal experience is hardly representative. You need facts.

To give a flavour for just how out of step we are London - one of the largest cities in the world, with significant organised crime and street gangs, with many poor areas - had a murder rate (all types of wepons, not just guns) of 1.1 per 100,000 in 2010. That's under a third of the Arizona murder rate for guns alone - and that is comparing against all of Arizona, including the safe rural areas etc. Those are the plain facts.

No, unsolved murders are counted as murder.

You started the debate not me? The realisation that your opinions perhaps don't stand up to analysis is surely an opportunity to modify them rather than stop listening?

No. My opinion is that our murder rate is higher than England's. Our murder rate is lesser than other countries, some industrial, some not.

I also think UK government crime data is dishonest and artificially deflated.

Regardless of our relative murder rates, guns are not the major factor. There are more guns in the rural and suburban areas than there are in the inner cities. Despite this, the metropolitan areas are where most of the murders occur.

Ergo, it is logical that cultural or economic factors are more at play than the presence of guns.

I find it amusing that people would rather ban guns than deal with the much harder issues of cultural assimilation and economic adversity. Apparently it's better to limit rights than to raise people up.

As to crime in general, yes we have more homicides. But you have twice the rapes. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Rape-victims

There are a series of other crimes that you have more than the USA (home invasions, etc), which I believe are largely the function of a disarmed citizenry. When the average man is disarmed, the thugs are placed in a more advantageous position.

As to all homicides being counted, I'm skeptical. Here's the specific case of Gareth Williams:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Gareth_Williams

Common sense says its a homicide. The coroner thought so. The police declared it an accident, but didn't rule out homicide. How was his death counted?

As to your general homicide rate, your own Parliament appears to believe they are artificially lowered via reporting and/or recording requirements (Go to Part 2 for the paragraphs to match:

35. Homicide statistics too vary widely. In some developing countries, the statistics are known to be far from complete. Figures for crimes labelled as homicide in various countries are simply not comparable. Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise. This reduces the apparent number of homicides by between 13 per cent and 15 per cent. The adjustment is made only in respect of figures shown in one part of the Annual Criminal Statistics. In another part relating to the use of firearms, no adjustment is made. A table of the number of homicides in which firearms were used in England and Wales will therefore differ according to which section of the annual statistics was used as its base. Similarly in statistics relating to the use of firearms, a homicide will be recorded where the firearm was used as a blunt instrument, but in the specific homicide statistics, that case will be shown under "blunt instrument".

36. Many countries, including the United States, do not adjust their statistics down in that way and their figures include cases of self defence, killings by police and justifiable homicides. In Portugal, cases in which the cause of death is unknown are included in the homicide figures, inflating the apparent homicide rate very considerably.

37. Causing death by dangerous driving is not classed as homicide in England and Wales, but is classified as homicide in some countries. Over 200 such cases occur in England and Wales each year.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm

Then there is this statement from your Health Statistics Quarterly:

"If there is insufficient information received from the coroner, the death has to be recorded as accidental." See, page 17.

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/hsq2_tcm77-228999%20(1).pdf

Mostly this article focused on missed suicides, but other causes of death are also presumably being mis-coded due to the incomplete information problem.

On the issue of coding, looking at the UK case of death spread sheet alone casts doubt on your homicide rate. Take a look at Table 2, last 3 of 4 categories.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/death-reg-sum-tables/2011--final-/rft-death-registration-summary-tables-2011--final-.xls

Finally, if we accounted for our homicides the way the UK does, our murder rate would be around 2.26. http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/12/so-did-piers-morgan-and-christiane.html

So all in all, I'd prefer to do things our way. I think it is more honest. We should continue to trust our citizens, and that includes they continue to be able to own and carry a weapon.

[joey_big_nose]

Hi Steve,

Great post, lots of info in there to digest. I'll have a look through it and get a response together. The notion of homicides being classed differently is interesting and not something I've considered before.

Cheers,

JBN

[Steve Moss]

Thanks, Joey.

I'm certain of nothing as I'm not familiar with the English system. I read what I can and I'm more of an outsider looking in (as you also are, but in the opposite direction). That means We'll both get some things wrong and, maybe, some things right.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

You could be right Baz.

The thread has a 'holier than thou' feel about it, which prompted my response

We shouldn't throw stones at the States when we have so many problems on our own doorstep.

Couldn't agree more. 46 pages about a US domestic problem on a UK forum. How self-righteous, pompous and superior do people wanna get?

America is a shining beacon of light in the world compared to China and Russia. I've yet to see any 46 page threads slating problems in those countries, although if it were to be in proportion with the scale/severity of the problems, those 2 countries should have 4,600 page threads.

An insidious semi-xenophobic undercurrent has crept into UK society over the last couple of decades when it comes to America. I don't know whether its lefties in this country getting nasty over the contrasting political stance, I don't know whether its fuelled by Islamists' pretty much universal hatred of America. Either way its annoying and hypocritical. People in this country will happily scrap Trident and fall way below our Nato funding responsibility, therefore using US military power as a crutch to keep us safe. And at the same time are happy to pompously ridicule its inhabitants.

The fraudulent collosal prat that is Piers Morgan leading our busybody insertion into the US gun debate just about sums it up, we must come across as complete bellends.

[K-Hod]

Nowt to do with lefties SKH. I'd say if anything it's the opposite. People embracing American culture, slang, expressions and fashion in large parts.

As for the trident thing, it's only Corbyn who's shown an interest in that which I can see.

Must say though, I think you're bang on about Piers Morgan. What a goon.

[joey_big_nose]

Couldn't agree more. 46 pages about a US domestic problem on a UK forum. How self-righteous, pompous and superior do people wanna get?

America is a shining beacon of light in the world compared to China and Russia. I've yet to see any 46 page threads slating problems in those countries, although if it were to be in proportion with the scale/severity of the problems, those 2 countries should have 4,600 page threads.

An insidious semi-xenophobic undercurrent has crept into UK society over the last couple of decades when it comes to America. I don't know whether its lefties in this country getting nasty over the contrasting political stance, I don't know whether its fuelled by Islamists' pretty much universal hatred of America. Either way its annoying and hypocritical. People in this country will happily scrap Trident and fall way below our Nato funding responsibility, therefore using US military power as a crutch to keep us safe. And at the same time are happy to pompously ridicule its inhabitants.

The fraudulent collosal prat that is Piers Morgan leading our busybody insertion into the US gun debate just about sums it up, we must come across as complete bellends.

There is definitely a strain of superiority from all non-american developed countries (France, Australia, Canada, Germany etc etc) about US domestic policy.

Some of that's the standard reaction to pushing back against the single world super power that dominates every aspect of the market and culture. The global version of Europe pushing back against Germany or Wales or Scotland pushing back against England.

Another part of it is a fascination about how the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world performs so poorly compared to other countries in terms of levels of education, years of life, wealth inequality and the crime/murder rate which we are discussing now.

Also as the richest major democratic nation in the world (including on a per head basis as well as in aggregate) other countries look to the US for policy ideas both in terms of what to copy and what to avoid. The US has its foiables but also because of its diverse federal nature is very innovative with its law making. Indoor smoking bans kicked off there. As did deregulation of air travel which kicked off cheap flights. Or indeed deregulation of the financial markets which lead to the 2008 financial crisis..

For example if what Steve is proposing - guns reduce crime - convinces me (not had time to research it yet) then it would be sensible and logical for me to consider supporting the introduction of the policy to the uk.

Indeed the UK has over the years has adopted many policies that owe a heritage to the US - mayors and police commissioners being two of the most recent.

So while some of it is piousness for the sake of feeling superior, there are some genuine reasons to be interested in the US domestic policy.

Anyhow, what we can all agree on in Piers Morgan is a bellend of the highest order.

[Steve Moss]

. . .

Another part of it is a fascination about how the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world performs so poorly compared to other countries in terms of levels of education, years of life, wealth inequality and the crime/murder rate which we are discussing now.

. . .

For example if what Steve is proposing - guns reduce crime - convinces me (not had time to research it yet) then it would be sensible and logical for me to consider supporting the introduction of the policy to the uk.

It's interesting that some people will acknowledge American success, but then argue we should follow the example of those who have been less than successful.

On the guns reduce crime front, that's more of a hypothesis of mine. I think it does as it empowers people to protect themselves, even if they are small, weak, etc. in comparison to a home invader, rapists, thug, etc.. There are some adverse affects, more deaths, but those deaths are more the result of a culture of drugs and broken homes, in addition to education and economic adversity.

What I also believe is that child proofing society is a net negative. You cannot be absolutely safe unless you are willing to give up personal liberty.

[speeeeeeedie]

It's Oregon's turn this week.

10 dead in a university campus shooting; http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34419802

The shooter is dead. I'm going to guess that that whoever it was was male, white, 21-30, skinny, pale, longish hair, "loner type", loved computer games, rocky home life.