vortexring

The problem with John's posts is simple. He is unable to understand the different mentality between most Europeans and North Americans regarding guns. I believe it frustrates him. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Must be the restrictions on guns finally taking effect Could do with a few more it seems.... 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I was generally referring to all the shootings committed by teens. It's too common-place to explain it through increasing population. The possible factors behind the individual motivation - well, isn't there some debating material here!? Like most areas of abnormal psychology, it's limitless. But gun accessibility is a key area. As is the popular culture surrounding them. We all know what cruel fuckers kids can be. We all know the emotional instabilty of young adults. Christ - can you remember pressure as a kid? Mental trauma? Most people can - and they might also remember overcoming these problems in one way or another. But obviously some don't. Add accessibility and the so called popular culture and there you go. And that's barely scratching at the surface... It's all happening far too often - it's a major issue! How could it not be? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I understand your point, but vortexring seems to really be interested in looking at this objectively, and has been posting rational and thoughtful responses to comments about the article. We may never agree (that's not my goal), but at least there's thoughtful and polite dialog going on. Cheers - couldn't agree with you more! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I didn't even get past the very first sentence, above, before I spotted a lie. The latest annual FBI crime report shows violence is down. And over the last 15 years, it has spiraled down to a 30-year low. The story is so full of lies it's ridiculous. But no lie is too great for the gun-o-phobes. You really should arm yourself with the facts, rather than the anti-gun hype, in order to make the proper judgements. Eh? Why did I post the article asking for peoples opinion? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

There are plenty of non-gun owners who find themselves non-law abiding too, and have the potential to become non-law abiding. Guns are not a common denominator amongst law-breakers. Once again, law-abiding gun owners do not deserve your blame for criminal acts. Just as responsible alcohol drinkers do not deserve to be blamed for drunk driving fatalities. Do you want to make it illegal to have a glass of wine with dinner, because that person might have the potential to become a drunk driver? Did I say I blame law-abiding gun owners for criminal acts? That's neither here nor there regarding my issue. Of course it's not. So whilst you're logic concerning the legality of drinking wine with dinner, and the possible potential circumstances; in comparison with whatever it is your comparing it to might make simple common sense...it's not the particular area I'm trying to address. America has an undeniable problem with guns at the moment. Are you doing anything to help solve it like Nightingale with her work in homeland security? If so, what? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

There isn't an outcry over the drownings in comparison to the school shootings because they didn't die in, as you put it, a 'special' way. So whilst a child drowning may raise questions, it doesn't quite raise the same questions that a school shooting may cause. I've had to very quickly read your link, and whilst there may be a belief of the press causing a 'moral panic' and people using the incidents to fuel their own anti-gun agenda's, what I did see from the article was an attempt to put the situation into a realistic context. Especially once statistics came to the fore: "In the academic school year 1997-1998, there were 44,351 public and private secondary schools and 91,661 public and private elementary schools for a total of 136,012 schools (Moody 1998). There are on average 180 days of school per year when schools are in session for a total of 24.5 million school sessions. The nine school shootings in this year represent .00003 percent of the approximately 24.5 million times school was in session for the day somewhere in America. As horrific and tragic as each of these events was, given the number of days individual schools in America are in session, on most days and in most places it is safe for a child to go to school." Now, most people don't pay too much attention to stats. But they'll certainly pay attention to the 9 school shootings that year. That, without shadow of doubt, is newsworthy information. In very basic terms you could ask, where shootings are being carried out by young teenagers; is it because they're becoming more twisted or evil than another nations children? Or is it through having easier access to weapons? But then, what about the many other nations where weapons are easily accessible, who don't they have such a high frequency of shootings? And does that then bring us back to the statistics to find an answer? Either way, you can't completely blame the media for any 'moral panic', or for the attention these incidents attract. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Nope - but I'll send them all you're pork pies.... How you doin' anyway?? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

You're more than welcome. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Thanks for the link. Where I have to disagree with you though, is in your statement that school shootings are rare. From your link it says there was 2 in 2005, 4 in 2006 and 3 in 2007. How can this be rare? What are the chances for another couple of such incidents in 2008? Very high? Very likely? By saying school shootings are rare seems to imply it's unlikely there will be any in 2008, yet past history indicates otherwise. Even with a few years being incident free from the list. Whilst most people are aware the media will dramatise anything it thinks will sell it's papers, it's still a massively unacceptable situation. And of course, the majority of them are happening in America. So that raises a question of why. Whilst I see the logic for non-criminal gun users often mentioned here, I struggle to understand this as an effective argument. Simply because of the number of shootings that have been carried out by previous non-criminals, or young male adults using their non-criminal parents weapons. I think this is an area where pro-gun owners can get a bit sensitive - there's almost an implication that all non-criminal gun owners are potential murderers or are irresponsible in the security of their guns. Although anyone with half a brain should know this isn't the case. But.... With almost half the country owning some sort of firearm and with possibly 200 million firearms within the country, you'll always have a significant amount of people who do become murderers, who don't secure their guns properly. So it seems this fact is disregarded to justify gun-ownership and even worse, the situation, whilst unacceptable, is essentially part and part of the parcel, as there aren't any apparant or effective solutions. If it's considered almost impossible to ban private firearm ownership and almost impossible to change peoples motivation to own a firearm, what are the solutions then? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Would the H&S supervisor have been so critical had it been his daughter? Whilst H&S in the workplace is generally a pain in the arse, it is at least beneficial in the long term. It's the fucking politically correct zealots who overapply it that should actually be given a proper job. Wankers. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Very nice, but shouldn't you secure the 'thing' before it jumps up and starts shooting people!? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

In a sense it doesn't matter at all what I think. But then, why ever post on an international forum? To answer your question properly, I think a lot of the heated debates (in SC) over American gun issues arrive through ignorance more than anything else. Regarding the issue being argued on an international forum, we can witness completely different mentalities providing their opinion. If you don't wish to read a non-American opinion, well, what can I say? Go to a national forum? I expect you may find it a bit insulting to have non-Americans saying what they're saying, as the role is often found to be reversed when John mentions British aspects to his arguments. But hey, that's the nature of the beast. And it makes the whole thing a bit more interesting, don't you think? Isn't it educational to hear such varied international opinions!? As an example, I've known for years how important gun issues are to a lot of Americans. I've also known how strange and almost weird a lot of Europeans think of this mentality. But, as an example, when you read Lefty's reply above, you can obviously see that in fact, it isn't strange or weird at all really. So you learn something. And by learning that bit more, it enables adult discussion on a relevant issue, with a bit less heat and pointless arguments spoiling it. As for my interest, I suppose it comes from travelling to the states quite often, and working with Americans. And I like to learn about all the countries I visit and work in. It's no big deal. So, to conclude, where in the past I've perhaps been a bit 'mischievous' in my arguments over this issue, I continue to learn. And I see the opposite argument with more clarity, and hope the same works both ways.

Fair enough. As I have learned from both ends, the tone and meaning can be hard to follow on a forum such as this Absolutely. Either way, we continue to learn, so it's all good.

Actually, they have. There was a campus full of helpless, defensless sheep who had been taught that gentle is the way to go. If they had been taught to defend themselves at all cost, instead of running hither and yon, causing confusion, maybe only ten people would have been killed. If every student, who could be considered a solid, sane citizen was carrying, the madman may not have even attempted it. He would have known that the odds were against him. Not if he was mad like you describe. He theoretically wouldn't give a fuck. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

What contest!? What you trying to say mate? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

No, your right. It's more of a counter-opinion, in regards to other opinions, where I questioned what you're questioning me. Er, do you understand now!? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Blimey. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

You know, I liked your answer so much, I'm going to wait until tomorrow to tackle the points I disagree with. I need a clear head.

Thanks for your time providing the stats. You asked; "Why would anyone who takes the issue seriously read any further?" I'd answer that other important areas of the debate are at least mentioned - so it'd be interesting to hear an opinion on these too. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Sure, no worries - I appreciate your input. When you've the time, have you an opinion on the claim that politicians run scared from the gun lobby - and of course, its influence on American politics? Also; "she argues that a way to make Americans feel safer from crime is not to arm them with guns but to tackle the causes of crime: urban poverty, joblessness, drug addiction and racial divisions." Now, I don't quite expect you to agree completely with this statement, but I feel it's a very important area that doesn't seem to get enough attention. Especially here on SC when gun issues are discussed, hence the reason I'll mention social issues so often. It's my opinion that this aspect is often disregarded in the gun debates, simply through the problem being seemingly unsolvable. But shouldn't everyones attention and priorities lie here? Where people might think I'm anti-guns through recent arguments, I'm actually more interested in looking at the social aspects and cultural areas surrounding the issue. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Despite the spiralling rise in the daily number of shootings in the US, its arms culture has a firmer grip than ever, reports Paul Harris in New York Sunday October 14, 2007 The Observer Shirley Katz is not afraid to fight for her rights. Last week the schoolteacher, 44, went to court in her home town of Medford, Oregon, to protest at her working conditions. Specifically she is outraged she cannot carry a handgun into class. 'I know it is my right to carry that gun,' she said. Katz was in court in the week that someone else took a gun to school in America. This time it was a pupil in Cleveland, Ohio. Asa Coon, 14, walked the corridors of his school, a gun in each hand, shooting two teachers and two students. Then he killed himself. Coon's attempted massacre made headlines. But a more bloody rampage, the murder of six young partygoers by Tyler Peterson, a policeman in Crandon, Wisconsin, got less attention, even in the New York Times - America's newspaper of record - which buried it deep inside the paper. Guns, and the violence their possessors inflict, have never been more prevalent in America. Gun crime has risen steeply over the past three years. Despite the fact groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) consistently claim they are being victimised, there have probably never been so many guns or gun-owners in America - although no one can be sure, as no one keeps a reliable account. One federal study estimated there were 215 million guns, with about half of all US households owning one. Such a staggering number makes America's gun culture thoroughly mainstream. An average of almost eight people aged under 19 are shot dead in America every day. In 2005 there were more than 14,000 gun murders in the US - with 400 of the victims children. There are 16,000 suicides by firearm and 650 fatal accidents in an average year. Since the killing of John F Kennedy in 1963, more Americans have died by American gunfire than perished on foreign battlefields in the whole of the 20th century. Studies show that having a gun at home makes it six times more likely that an abused woman will be murdered. A gun in a US home is 22 times more likely to be used in an accidental shooting, a murder or a suicide than in self-defence against an attack. Yet despite those figures US gun culture is not retreating. It is growing. Take Katz's case in Oregon. She brought her cause to court under a state law that gives licensed gun-owners the right to bring a firearm to work: her school is her workplace. Such a debate would have been unthinkable a few decades ago. Now it is the battleground. 'Who would have thought a few years ago, we would even be having this conversation? But this won't stop here,' said Professor Brian Anse Patrick of the University of Toledo in Ohio. Needless to say, last week the judge sided with Katz and she won the first round of her case. It is a nation awash with guns, from the suburbs to the inner cities and from the Midwest's farms to Manhattan's mansions. Gun-owning groups have been so successful in their cause that it no longer even seems strange to many Americans that Katz should want to go into an English class armed. 'They have made what was once unthinkable thinkable,' said Patrick, a liberal academic. He should know. He owns a gun himself. Even the US critics of gun culture are armed. To look at the photographs in Kyle Cassidy's book Armed America is to glimpse a surreal world. Or at least it seems that way to many non-Americans. Cassidy spent two years taking portrait shots of gun owners and their weapons across the US. The result is a disturbing tableau of happy families, often with pets and toddlers, posing with pistols, assault rifles and the sort of heavy machine-guns usually associated with a warzone. 'By the end I had seen so many guns and I knew so much about guns that it no longer seemed unusual,' Cassidy said. He keeps his in a gun safe in his home in Philadelphia. 'This turned into a project not about guns but about a diverse group of people,' he said. At the cutting edge of weapon culture remains the gun lobby and its most vocal advocate, the NRA. Founded in the 19th century by ex-Civil War army officers dismayed at their troops' lack of marksmanship, the NRA has transformed into the most effective lobbying group in Washington DC. It has scores of lobbyists, millions of dollars in funds and more than three million members. It is highly organised and its huge membership is highly motivated and activist. They can have a huge influence on politics. In 2000 Vice-President Al Gore supported stricter background checks for gun-buyers and the NRA organised against him, describing the election as the most important since the Civil War. It spent $20m against Gore in an election ending in a razor's edge result. Its influence was especially felt in Gore's home state of Tennessee, which he narrowly lost to NRA gloating. 'Their vote can select the President. They don't get to pick who goes to the White House. But they can tip the balance,' said Patrick. Democrats have learnt that lesson now. Many shy away from gun control issues, wary of taking on such a vociferous lobby group. In the 2006 mid-term elections the NRA was able to back a historically high 58 Democrats running for office. Every one of them went on to win. Such influence over the past three decades has seen the NRA fight a successful campaign against new gun laws. It has in fact loosened regulations, spreading the ability to legally carry concealed weapons across 39 states. And this has all been done in the face of a fight from anti-gun groups, backed by much of the mainstream media. 'Politicians are so afraid of the gun lobby. They run scared of it,' said Joan Burbick, author of the book Gun Show Nation But the key question is not about the number of guns in America; it is about why people are armed. For many gun-owners, and a few sociologists, the reason lies in America's past. The frontier society, they say, was populated by gun-wielding settlers who used weapons to feed their families and ward off hostile bandits and Indians. America was thus born with a gun in its hand. Unfortunately much of this history is simply myth. The vast majority of settlers were farmers, not fighters. The task of killing Indians was left to the military and - most effectively - European diseases. Guns in colonial times were much rarer than often thought, not least because they were so expensive that few settlers could afford them. Indeed one study of early gun homicides showed that a musket was as likely to be used as club to beat someone to death as actually fired. But many Americans believe the myth. The role of the gun is now enshrined in mass popular culture and has huge patriotic significance. Hence the fact that gun ownership is still a constitutional right, in case America is ever invaded and needs to form a popular militia (as hard as that event might be to imagine). It also explains why guns are so prevalent in Hollywood. Currently playing in US cinemas is the Jodie Foster film The Brave One, a classic vigilante movie of the wronged woman turning to the power of the pistol to murder the criminals who killed her boyfriend. Foster's character is played as undeniably heroic. 'There is a fascination with guns in our culture. All you need to make a movie is a girl and a gun,' said Cassidy. But this worship of the gun in many ways springs from economics and social problems, not the historic frontier. It took mass production and mass marketing to really popularise firearms. The Civil War saw mass arms manufacturing explode in America, including making 200,000 Colt .44 pistols alone. It saw guns become familiar and cheaper for millions of Americans. The later 19th century saw gun companies using marketing techniques to sell their weapons, often invoking invented frontier imagery to do so. That carries on today. There are more than 2,000 gun shows each year, selling hundreds of thousands of guns. It is big business and business needs to sell more and more guns to keep itself profitable. 'They will do anything to sell guns,' said Burbick. But there are deeper issues at work too. The gun lobby's main argument is that guns protect their owners. They deter criminals and attackers whom - the gun lobby points out helpfully - are often armed themselves. Some surveys estimate there are more than two million 'defensive' uses of firearms each year. But others say that this argument is a shield, using guns as a way of deflecting harder arguments about how crime is caused by economics, poverty and racism. 'The argument over guns redefines a lot of social issues as simple aspects of crime,' said Burbick. She argues that a way to make Americans feel safer from crime is not to arm them with guns but to tackle the causes of crime: urban poverty, joblessness, drug addiction and racial divisions. 'We have to take back the language of human security. To talk about solving those social issues in terms of safety, not just letting the gun lobby control that language,' she said. It is a powerful argument. Critics of America's gun culture often point to other nations with high levels of gun ownership - such as Canada and Switzerland - but much lower levels of violent crime. The fact is that America itself is equally divided. Patrick lives in a quiet, rural part of Michigan just across the state line from Ohio and the town of Toledo where he works. 'I would be amazed if anyone within four miles of me did not have a gun,' he said 'But our homicide rate is zero.' Then look at where Cassidy lives. He has an apartment in Philadelphia, a city that is just as flooded with guns as Patrick's rural idyll, but also suffers from inner-city social ills. It has a stratospheric murder rate. 'There is a murder here every day. This is something that America has to come to terms with,' he said. Yet the differences do not lie with the simple existence of guns. Both places are full of them. They lie with the root causes of crime and violence, such as poverty and drugs, that blight many big cities. Guns seem neither to be totally the problem and certainly not the solution. However, that is a debate few in America are having. In the meantime, the gun culture is so firmly entrenched and society so full of guns that there is little prospect of it retreating. Even those who advocate much tighter laws have long accepted defeat of the ideal of creating a society where guns are rare in public life, or even completely absent. 'That notion is absurd. There is no way to de-gun America,' said Patrick. To cap a grim week, as Katz was winning her court battle in Oregon police in Pennsylvania were giving details of a raid on the home of a teenager who was plotting to attack a school. They found seven home-made grenades and an assault rifle. His mother had bought it for him at a gun show. The boy was just 14. Quite an interesting article with areas I've found relevant highlighted. I tend to agree with what's said. Does anybody strongly disagree with any areas of the article? And why? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Sure - since you have nothing else of value to contribute. Well, naturally I'll disagree. If my contribution is identifying the need to change what's a blight on a society, what has been yours? To let the problem continue as it is? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

So, how much did they have to pay for you to take it back? Perhaps after it broke the mirrors, made the children cry, and the adults cross-eyed, it just seemed to come back magically on its own.

I would have thought that a few too many pints would lead to a double avatar not a missing one.... That's fair enough but where I am doesn't have much in the way of pubs or pints. Wonder what made it disappear for a bit though.... 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'