Moriah Wilson murder: Colin Strickland ‘in hiding’ until suspect Kaitlin Armstrong found

Mitt, is that you?

Roulereo wrote:

Seems rather sick fairly natural that people would step over in addition to sympathising with the poor woman's death to rant on with might also share their views about gun laws for a society thousands of miles from their own, of which they probably have very little connection with or interest in of our closest ally, a country that was once part of our own, with which we have more in common than any other nation on earth in which many of us have friends and family to furher push their political views as a matter of natural concern for anyone who cares about that country and its people. I would much rather people just offer condolences to her and her family shouldn't be telling people how to react just because I don't happen to like their opinions.   

Capercaillie wrote:

79% of murders in America are carried out with guns compared with 4% in the UK.

Guns make it far too easy for a normally "sweet nice person" with no previous violent tendencies to kill. 

 

That 79% doesn't really tell the story - more useful is that the USA has five times the murder rate of the UK, which in many other ways is fairly similar (rates of mental illness, family breakdown, etc). While the UK does at least have universal healthcare, mental health treatment is very hard to get and waiting lists are very long.

Oddly, Americans are much more likely to claim adherence to a religion that has "love your enemy" as well as "love your neighbour" in its philosophy that British people. But perhaps some read as far as Cain and Abel and conclude that they've learnt enough.

Guns are an enabler of the carnage, that's undoubtedly true. At the heart of this is a dysfunctional democracy with legislators for sale and gerrymandering.

TheBillder wrote:

Oddly, Americans are much more likely to claim adherence to a religion that has "love your enemy" as well as "love your neighbour" in its philosophy that British people. But perhaps some read as far as Cain and Abel and conclude that they've learnt enough.

What I find incredibly offensive about U.S. politics is how the Republicans that receive huge donations from the NRA are now standing up and "sending thoughts and prayers" to the families of the latest school shooting victims. It's typically considered to be a sin to pray for something that you are not prepared to do anything towards (as opposed to being unable to control).

From what I've seen it's mainly the democrats that have tried to make the current gun related atrocities in to political point scoring. Well, only those committed by a white perpetrator.

Obama even used a tweet decrying one of the atrocities to remind everyone that it's 2 years since George Floyds death. Fucking deplorable. 

sparrowlegs wrote:

From what I've seen it's mainly the democrats that have tried to make the current gun related atrocities in to political point scoring. Well, only those committed by a white perpetrator.

Obama even used a tweet decrying one of the atrocities to remind everyone that it's 2 years since George Floyds death. Fucking deplorable. 

I wasn't referring to political point scoring. It'd be difficult for NRA sponsored senators to make a political point about how more guns makes everyone safer just after a school shooting. Instead they are trying to move it into a religious arena and declare things like "now is not the time for gun discussions".

I'm not trying to say that the Democrats are innocent as some of them also receive money from NRA-related groups (far fewer of them though and significantly less money). Personally, I think the Democrats are as corrupt as the Republicans - it's a problem with a two-party system in that it doesn't matter if you vote for a douche or a turd sandwich.

Here's a handly little spreadsheet of career donations that U.S. politicians have received from the NRA and related groups: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-7PdCI2NawSgP1QE-cGYVYedetYqepR-4jBweaJyqFo/edit#gid=1782600961

Incidentally, gun deaths have now overtaken road deaths for young people in the U.S.

(Remember, Giro is owned by a significant donor to the NRA)

hawkinspeter wrote:

Here's a handly little spreadsheet of career donations that U.S. politicians have received from the NRA and related groups: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-7PdCI2NawSgP1QE-cGYVYedetYqepR-4jBweaJyqFo/edit#gid=1782600961

 

I applaud you for posting data, even if I suspect you were trying to make the opposite point that your data does.  I try to explain this to people frequently, but the NRA is just a near-fictional bogeyman.  The NRA simply does not have that much money.  Look at the numbers.  Only 19 of 533 politicians on that list have received over $1M dollars from the NRA ( and associated groups ) over their entire careers.  In some cases, those careers span four decades.  That's a relative pittance compared to the money involved in US politics -- on average $16M for a Senate campaign and $2M for the House.  And almost exactly half of those politicians received either nothing from the NRA, or the NRA funded their opponents.

By far the biggest spend on that whole list was Independent groups funding ads attacking Obama ( in support of Romney )!  And how did that work out for them?

The US has the gun laws we have because about half the country wants them -- not because of some relatively tiny, not-particularly well-funded lobby, with only at-most 5M members ( more likely far less ).

sparrowlegs wrote:

Obama even used a tweet decrying one of the atrocities to remind everyone that it's 2 years since George Floyds death. Fucking deplorable. 

Although he actually didn't, but let's not let that get in the way of some good outrage.

Rendel just posted it mate. 

That's not 'a tweet decrying one of the atrocities' - it's a tweet about the Floyd anniversary. It's just prefaced with a recognition that people's attention is, understandably, dominated by the recent shootings. It doesn't suggest any link, equivalence, or comparison between the two, even if many people have (mostly, one suspects, intentionally) misinterpreted it as doing so.

sparrowlegs wrote:

Obama even used a tweet decrying one of the atrocities to remind everyone that it's 2 years since George Floyds death. Fucking deplorable. 

He posted a series of moving and well-considered, as one would expect of him, tweets about Uvalde, and then asked that people also remember that it was the anniversary of Floyd's murder. Pretending that's fucking deplorable is...fucking deplorable.

What does George Floyds death have to do with the recent shootings? Put that in a completely different tweet, not whilst mentioning the Uvalde atrocity. 

sparrowlegs wrote:

What does George Floyds death have to do with the recent shootings? Put that in a completely different tweet, not whilst mentioning the Uvalde atrocity. 

It's perfectly reasonable to say while we grieve for this, don't let's forget that. I'm afraid your revolting comments about Democrats trying to make capital out of mass shootings only if they're white remove any credibility you have and show your agenda.

My agenda? Spit it out Rendel, let's not deal in nuance here. 

Barrack Obama had 8 years to do something about the gun laws in the US. 8 years! He was the President of the United States for 8 years and did nothing about the gun laws.

Think Biden or Trump or whoever else gets in next will do something?  

sparrowlegs wrote:

My agenda? Spit it out Rendel, let's not deal in nuance here.

Your agenda appears to be a fairly rightwing "lefties do nothing" one with a hefty side order of race baiting.

sparrowlegs wrote:

Barrack Obama had 8 years to do something about the gun laws in the US. 8 years! He was the President of the United States for 8 years and did nothing about the gun laws.

You appear to be confused as to how the US constitution works. The President does not have the power to pass or amend laws, he can only send laws and amendments to the legislature for approval. Obama can certainly be accused of a lack of action on gun control in his first term, as he knew that it could lose him some major states that he needed for re-election. In his second term, after Sandy Hook, he sent a radical (for America) series of proposals to Congress, including more stringent background checks, bans on assault weapons (the ones used in the vast majority of atrocities) and armour-piercing bullets and a limit on the size of magazines. They were all thrown out by the Republicans. He didn't do nothing, when he tried to do something he was thwarted by the legislature.

So, he only TRIED to do something when he thought it could cost him votes and his next term. He then used a tradgedy to again make it look like he wanted to do something, then could blame it others for him not being able to do something?

So, my original point still stands. He did nothing. 

As for my "race baiting" you are dead wrong. I see that there's a narrative in the US that must be adhered to. A narrative designed to split the country along racial lines instead of trying to bring the country together. The democrats used to be a party for the people but lately have become the biggest race baiters going. They used to want to tax huge companies and make them pay their fair share, not any more. They're all the same though, no matter who gets in, no matter who is running the country because they run it to suit them, not the people who put them there. 

sparrowlegs wrote:

So, he only TRIED to do something when he thought it could cost him votes and his next term. He then used a tradgedy to again make it look like he wanted to do something, then could blame it others for him not being able to do something?

Did you actually read what I wrote? I can only assume not, so to recap, Obama sent a radical package of gun control measures to Congress, which were voted down by Republicans. That's how the US Constitution works, the President has no power to pass laws. This is US democracy 101, it's not difficult, if you don't understand it I can't help you, I'm afraid. Do please tell me what Obama could have done differently to impose gun control?

I read and understood it very well.

Instead of requesting tiny changes, something that would probably get passed and start the ball rolling in a "waterfall starts with one drop of water" way, he went balls deep, probably knowing full well (I'm assuming he knew how the constitution works too) that it wouldn't get passed but he could ride off in to the sunset saying he tried his darnedest. 

Was that any closer or are you going to come up with yet more excuses for him having done cock-all to help gun control? As per usual in any democratic society, he only did something when he thought it would directly or indirectly affect his seat on the gravy train. 

sparrowlegs wrote:

As per usual in any democratic society, he only did something when he thought it would directly or indirectly affect his seat on the gravy train. 

Given that he proposed the gun control measures in his second term, and that US presidents can't run for a third term, it was of no personal advantage to himself to propose them. Can somebody please recommend a good basic primer on US politics for sparrowlegs? Because I'm out on trying to explain to someone who can't listen and is on a repeat loop.

Seems like we both are. Except one of us is a realist.

I have no interest in the minutiae of US democratic workings. All I see is bluster, from both sides. But back to Obama. What he did was allow himself to leave office with what he considered a clear conscience. Nothing more. No amount of you jingling shiny keys in front of me will prove otherwise. But by all means, you carry on proving me wrong by offering nothing but more bluster with a huge side order of arrogance. 

sparrowlegs wrote:

No amount of you jingling shiny keys in front of me will prove otherwise. 

AKA facts.

Facts they may be but one fact which is also undeniable, and one it sounds like we both agree on, is that he did absolutely nothing, not one thing to help gun control during his 8 years in office.

This is the part where you fall back on your "facts" now and prove me right. Again. 

sparrowlegs wrote:

Facts they may be but one fact which is also undeniable, and one it sounds like we both agree on, is that he did absolutely nothing, not one thing to help gun control during his 8 years in office.

I give up. He sent gun control measures to Congress. That is the only way a President can have gun control measures passed. Congress voted them down. You say that's the President's fault and he did nothing? I am well and truly out, as Professor Dawkins so wisely said, don't enter into an argument with an idiot, the best you can hope for is to say you won an argument with an idiot. Cheerio.

When you fail to win an argument, resort to name calling. That always wins. 

sparrowlegs wrote:

When you fail to win an argument, resort to name calling. That always wins. 

sparrowlegs earlier:

Quote:

But by all means, you carry on proving me wrong by offering nothing but more bluster with a huge side order of arrogance.

Change "did" for "achieved" and I think the pair of you'll then need to find something else to argue about.  I believe Obama said that himself.

I'm sure you will though!

(Meantime have some bonus opining on what the "gun problem" is and why it's hard for legislators.)