Loved watching that. One of the few contact sports in the Winter games. Of course there is hockey!Do you know Australia's only gold medal in the men's speed skating came when our guy was well behind coming last into the home stretch when the lead skater fell taking every single other skater out - our guy being so far back had time to nicely skate around them and take Gold - woohoo - my dad laughed and laughed.
How come you posted an event in Germany from 16 years ago Bob? whats the point or issue you were getting at given its such old news???
Seems like common sense. However the Democrats won't vote for this. Nor will the more Libertarian Republicans. They will cite the 4th Amendment. They will also say why treat a private law abiding citizen who has committed no crime as if they are under suspicion for potentially committing a crime in the future.Following that shooting in Germany, a compulsory psychological test was brought in for anyone under 25 who wants to legally handle firearms. This is entirely logical considering that the median age of onset for mental illnesses such as schizophrenia is in the late teen and early twenties for males (slightly later for females).
I'm not well versed with American Politics in all its intricacies - but isnt that the Republican position to be pro-gun and very much against laws inhibiting access and use of guns? I thought the NRA was more Republican (Hard right leaning).Seems like common sense. However the Democrats won't vote for this. Nor will the more Libertarian Republicans. They will cite the 4th Amendment. They will also say why treat a private law abiding citizen who has committed no crime as if they are under suspicion for potentially committing a crime in the future.
Probably the only movement you will see is on the gun front. Meaning there will be more efforts at tightening background checks on the federal level and investing more money into states challenged to handle background checks .
There are a lot if things individual states can do to improve as well and not wait for the Fed.gov.
Yes the NRA is a pro 2nd Amendment political action group. It used to be just a gun owners club but that was a very long time ago even before my birth. So long time ago.I'm not well versed with American Politics in all its intricacies - but isnt that the Republican position to be pro-gun and very much against laws inhibiting access and use of guns? I thought the NRA was more Republican (Hard right leaning).
I have seen geographical analysis done on crime in America, and the vast majority of violent crimes are being committed in just a smattering of counties with extremely high crime rates. For the most part, outside of those counties, life in America is as safe as it is in Canada.We have a lot more angry, nihilistic and medicated people. Just a fact.
We also have jammed packed cities where more angry, nihilistic and medicated people are in close contact.
Can we send you a few million so you can spread them out over that vast Great White (snow folks not people) North?
(Disclaimer: some sarcasm was used in response to this post. No intention was made to culturally appropriate Canadian culture or cuisine)
Seems like common sense. However the Democrats won't vote for this. Nor will the more Libertarian Republicans. They will cite the 4th Amendment. They will also say why treat a private law abiding citizen who has committed no crime as if they are under suspicion for potentially committing a crime in the future.
Probably the only movement you will see is on the gun front. Meaning there will be more efforts at tightening background checks on the federal level and investing more money into states challenged to handle background checks .
There are a lot if things individual states can do to improve as well and not wait for the Fed.gov.
I don't know what the black market is like in Australia but in America you can buy anything you want so a gun ban wouldn't stop people from getting guns if they wanted them. One can even 3D Print most of a gun now and using one that can handle hardened metals you could make a gun. Bullets can be made, re-packed...
Part of the problem is guns are available for sale in a society which is nihilistic.
This is the society we live in all thanks to the counterculture. We reap what we show as a society.
The majority of America citizens are responsible lawful gun owners. If more stringent gun laws are enacted, the very same responsible lawful gun owners will obey.
The unstable violent types won't.
The only effective gun control measure would be the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Even then violent and unstable people will find a way to kill on mass levels.
What I don't understand is we have trained armed guards or peace officers stationed at every public building or site to include city hall, airports, sporting events, and city council buildings. Why not schools which are the most vulnerable and where our children reside during the day?
Instead we have gun free zones specifically targeted by these murderers. They know no one on staff or security is packing heat. Why attack a tiger when a lamb is readily available.
But a recent analysis of data in FBI and media reports over a nearly seven-year period shows that only 13 percent of mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2015 took place entirely in public spaces that had been deemed gun-free zones, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, which works to tighten gun laws. In a 2013 analysis of mass shootings going back 30 years, Mother Jones found zero of 62 shootings involved a gunman who had specifically targeted a place because it banned guns.
Just proves that strict gun control can't and won't stop people from getting guns and committing these horrible crimes.
Following that logic, why have any laws?Just to clarify (speaking as a non-American)... Are you saying that if you can't stop people getting guns altogether, there is no value in strict gun control?
Let's reframe this. "Just proves that strict drugs control can't and won't stop people from getting drugs and..." So may as well have not have strict laws against drug abuse?
I guess if a law isnt 100% effective then its totally worthless.
Well written and argued. I believe the answers are at the state level for now as I don't see the US Congress getting any bipartisan legislation other than tightening up background checks in the form of money to the states to come up to the larger states efforts. If they can get that passed I think Trump would sign it.I'm glad you agree it's common sense. Democrats have voted for similar common sense measures.
Last year the governor of Oregon - another state that has experienced the horrors of young people having their lives stolen or irrevocably impacted by shooting massacres at their school - signed gun control legislature creating a process for concerned family members and the police to petition the court to prohibit individuals presenting an imminent risk of harm to self or others from possessing firearms. The weapons are not merely seized without due process, though. In explaining the legislature, Brown stated that it's “the best way to ensure that a person who is at risk of harming themselves or others is identified, while still ensuring their rights are protected by a court review.” Brown is a Democrat, as are the lawmakers who pushed it into law by voting for it. Only one Republican voted yes.
Tracking Senate Bill 719 in the Oregon Legislature
The law is modeled on one adopted after a ballot referendum in 2016 in neighboring Washington, which had been initiated by a family hoping to help reduce the risk of other families experiencing a gun-related tragedy like their own. In turn, the Washington law had been modeled after one in California propelled forward after the Isla Vista massacre and the advocacy of the parents of the disturbed young man who committed it. They'd tried unsuccessfully to have the authorities confiscate his weapons after he'd exhibited increasingly disturbing behavior and written unhinged manifestos and YouTube diatribes. He was cogent enough with the police when they came to the door to convince them he posed no immediate danger, so his parents were powerless. As a legal adult, they could not have him committed against his consent to a mental health facility, and they could not merely take his legally-purchased weapons from him. The father of one of his victims joined forces with his father in promoting the need for the law.
The laws are what are known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders. In addition to California, Washington, and Oregon, Indiana and Connecticut also have statutes that can be used to temporarily take guns away from people a judge deems a threat to themselves or others. Prompted by a number of mass shootings, 32 ERPO bills were being considered in the legislatures of 19 states (including Florida) and Washington, DC, but are, as expected, receiving significant push-back from the NRA.
At the federal level California Democrats Rep. Salud Carbajal and Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation last May that would encourage states to adopt the approach.
But, in general, in the United States after a mass shooting, gun laws are loosened.
This is quite similar to family members and the state being allowed to commit people to mental institutions against their will. That no longer happens as many argued if they are an adult no one else should be able to commit them unless they have transgressed the law. There are other reasons why this was nixed years ago. For example, people who were not mentally ill were being committed because family members wanted to get rid of them or steal their money. Not to mention mental facilities more than willing to fill another bed and get the insurance money. Once again, the relevance of this is personal liberty and privacy.The laws are what are known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders. In addition to California, Washington, and Oregon, Indiana and Connecticut also have statutes that can be used to temporarily take guns away from people a judge deems a threat to themselves or others. Prompted by a number of mass shootings, 32 ERPO bills were being considered in the legislatures of 19 states (including Florida) and Washington, DC, but are, as expected, receiving significant push-back from the NRA.
We can maintain the 2nd amendment right while scaling back from high capacity semi auto firearms.Exactly, that's what is "funny" in this - Americans don't argue against drug laws because whatever you do, people will still get their hands on drugs. Same with guns. I noted the "Dunblane" comment by someone else, that incident led to massive reform of our gun laws, and gun crime has drastically dropped. I'd guess that injuries and suicide from guns has also declined. It's time the US joined the rest of the Western World and got a grip on this - how many more need to die for a "second amendment right" that was more relevant in the wild west than in 2018?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?