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

chrisonatrike wrote:

Change "did" for "achieved"

I think you're right but to be honest I was enjoying winding Rendel up. It's been a slow day and it helped to pass the time 😀

sparrowlegs wrote:

I think you're right but to be honest I was enjoying winding Rendel up. It's been a slow day and it helped to pass the time 😀

What an empty life you must have if you have nothing better to do than wind strangers up and find it enjoyable (or trolling, as I believe it's known). What did you do today, daddy? Oh, I acted like an arse on the Internet in order to annoy people, it was great. 

Empty? That from the man who has over 2500 posts on just one site. Yeah, my life is sad and empty doing everything but gatekeep every post on Road.cc 

I'll admit some of it was winding you up but more important was correcting you on how Obama did nothing to change the gun laws of America. You could have said "it's written in the constitution and is literally impossible to change". But no, you kept riding the fact he tried to change it just before he went on the lucrative after dinner speaking circuit. 

While you're reading and maybe replying to this, remember, another post may have been posted that you haven't seen or added to it yet!

2500 posts over multiple years. How many of your 300 + posts have been on pretty much one topic?

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

2500 posts over multiple years. How many of your 300 + posts have been on pretty much one topic?

I don't like this line of questioning

What topic would that be? No doubt, in your opinion a lot of them would be of some intolerable views? This ain't Twitter hawkinspeter, people are allowed to have differing views without the "pearl-clutchers" asking for them to be banned. 

.

Please, please, PLEASE - do not wind Trendy Rendy up.

.

If you do, he'll threaten to 'keep an eye on your posts'.

.

I know, I know, the horror - it simply doesn't bear thinking about, does it?

.

Says a child. 

I'm no expert but technically executive order I think.  Apparently there are precedents for some major policies being done that way.  However these are all subject to review, legal challenge etc. and neither he nor anyone else can alter the constitution (I think...).

Anyhoo it would have been for symbolic value only as - like others have been - I'm sure it would immediately be challenged and overturned.

Yes there is that but they only allow the President to say how existing laws should be enforced, not to introduce new ones without the approval of Congress, and, as you say, any attempt to (allegedly) subvert 2A would be instantly challenged and with a Republican-dominated Supreme Court 99% likely such challenges would be upheld.

The Constitution can be changed by the way, through amendments - it would be perfectly legal to pass an amendment rescinding the right to keep and bear arms, for example (e.g. prohibition, the 18th amendment, was repealed by the 21st amendment)  - the trouble is it needs a two-thirds approval from the joint houses of Congress or the approval of two-thirds of state legislatures, which is why there hasn't been an amendment passed since 1971 (OK, technically 27 passed in 1992, but it was actually proposed in 1791!), despite around 100 amendments being proposed in Congress each year.

As strange as it may sound these things change.  For a time in the South at least the Democrats were the face of white dominance and racism.  At another point we have Lincoln and the Republicans (him personally increasingly anti-slavery and his party against its expansion at the least.)

So in a sense I'd agree with the label being irrelevant.  Although it's intensely relevant if you're on the wrong side of any government, whatever name.

Be fair to The Donald - I believe he has just said he'd do something...

Given the US has the highest per capita gun ownership in the world (also at the BBC) and it's one of the easiest places to get a gun (with exceptions for a few states)* I'd say that the US needs more guns to fix the problem like a burning man needs more petrol to smother the fire.

Unfortunately for them they've lawyered themselves into a corner.  Although that's likely irrelevant given the overwhelming approval for *some* right to have guns.  So I don't see any way through this for them.  Like "accidents on the road" it's now become a terrible "cost of that freedom" they'll have to bear.

* I now think of Michael Moore as a modern day pamphleteer - kinda Cobbet for the 90s.  But a good question in "Bowling for Columbine" is why the US is so much worse on this than - say - Canada.  (Not that Canada's good compared to the UK. Plenty of guns there and not impossible to get them.)  I'm sure the metrics and data quality are also debatable but it's certainly an interesting story.  The US stands out in the high income countries - enhanced because the suicide rate.  For homicides poor countries in South and central America / Southern Africa top the league.

TheBillder wrote:

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.

Just for some context, the US also has around 4x the road death rate/head of populatoin of the UK.

OldRidgeback wrote:

Just for some context, the US also has around 4x the road death rate/head of populatoin of the UK.

Need more cars, don't they then?  Or more roads...

Interesting that two old documents (constitution, mostly from C18, and Bible, from C1 and C-40 if you believe the Ussher-Lightfoot-Chronology) drive so much of politics in the US. Equivalents here are few.

Magna Carta has mostly been replaced as we no longer have barons standing up for their rights beyond not wanting to decamp from Westminster, despite the beliefs of those who tried to occupy Edinburgh Castle (hint: Magna Carta never in force there in first place), and the Declaration of Arbroath isn't much use if the Pope is no longer the international arbiter for disputes and the authenticity of holy relics.

Those who think that some principles can never change need their thoughts challenged, I think.

My personal first step in the US would be either:

1) you can bear arms but only those current in the late C18

2) a ban on sales of ammunition - you can bear arms but loading may become problematic

TheBillder wrote:

Interesting that two old documents (constitution, mostly from C18, and Bible, from C1 and C-40 if you believe the Ussher-Lightfoot-Chronology) drive so much of politics in the US. Equivalents here are few. Magna Carta has mostly been replaced as we no longer have barons standing up for their rights beyond not wanting to decamp from Westminster, despite the beliefs of those who tried to occupy Edinburgh Castle (hint: Magna Carta never in force there in first place), and the Declaration of Arbroath isn't much use if the Pope is no longer the international arbiter for disputes and the authenticity of holy relics. Those who think that some principles can never change need their thoughts challenged, I think. My personal first step in the US would be either: 1) you can bear arms but only those current in the late C18 2) a ban on sales of ammunition - you can bear arms but loading may become problematic

How about only allowing people to bear arms at NRA conferences? (NB. guns were banned from the latest NRA conference despite their insistence that more guns makes everyone safer).

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/05/27/fact-check-guns-...

sparrowlegs wrote:

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/05/27/fact-check-guns-...

Thanks for that - although I just wrote that they were banned, I didn't know who in particular had banned them. It's still deeply ironic though and telling that the Secret Service don't subscribe to the "more guns, more safety" arguments.

Still being banned though. Surely all those 2nd ammenders should be "up in arms" that the federal governement is stopping their legal rights just because one person who "fully supports" that right happens to be there.

I'm sure the Orangina could order the SS to drop that demand or tell them he doesn't need them anymore. In theory that shouldn't be the case but he seemed to do that when he wanted to walk to the church which the Secret Service would have overridden but instead also took part in the clearing of the protestors. 

Yep. Still being banned. Well done you 👏🏻

Thanks.

Well they're not needed there obviously, they're the good guys.  But they need to be armed to the teeth elsewhere because they're living in a war zone. #gun-mans-burden

I was going to say that mass-shootings with cartridgeless weapons of the black powder era does sound unlikely but of course Ian at forgottenweapons will show the error in that thinking.

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/girardoni-air-rifle-video/

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/lorenzoni/

Capercaillie wrote:

It's the sort of murder that may not have happened if it were not for America's non-existent gun control.

 

Right -- because there's no way Armstrong could've simply gotten in her car and killed Wilson by running her down on a training ride, or while crossing the street in front of her house.  Which -- ironically -- she probably could've gotten away with, with nothing more than a slap on the wrist, if she said the magic words "SMIDSY".

If a crazy person wants to kill you, they are probably going to figure out a way to do it -- especially if you are a cyclist who spends considerable time vulnerable in public.

More to the point, Armstrong was a young woman herself.  Are you prepared to tell all young women that they cannot possess a handgun for their own safety?  Are you prepared to take responsibility for their safety?  Even the lowest estimates for incidences of defensive gun-use far exceed firearm deaths in the United States.  The highest estimates for defensive uses are orders of magnitude higher than deaths.  A person in the United States is far more likely to use a gun to protect themself than they are to be killed by one -- and that doesn't account for the many young women who are killed by other means, generally by bigger, stronger men, who might've been able to protect themself with a gun.

So you may want to be careful what you wish for.  Taking guns away from everyone is not as simple as you might like it to be.

Macho Australia managed to do something about it.

Thing is, most of the many, many ways of killing people are a bit incidental, the car, the kitchen knife, poisons (unless novichec). But guns are actually designed for killing people, especially the military stuff.

I did see a documentary a while back on the Swiss military designing a more humane bullet...

ktache wrote:

Macho Australia managed to do something about it.

How, exactly, does Australia prevent crazy people from killing?

https://theconversation.com/homicide-is-on-the-rise-in-australia-should-...

ktache wrote:

Thing is, most of the many, many ways of killing people are a bit incidental, the car, the kitchen knife, poisons (unless novichec). But guns are actually designed for killing people, especially the military stuff.

First off, much like a kitchen knife, a very large number of people use firearms to put food on their tables.  Many also use them for protection from animals -- both human and otherwise.

Second, draw a clear, legally-defensible line between "military stuff" and non.  No such distinction exists.  The 9mm handguns that are standard issue for many armed forces are the same ones that are most-commonly owned for personal self-defense.

Thing about guns is... if "more guns, less regulation" were the solution surely the US would be doing really well on the homicide metric (from here):

chrisonatrike wrote:

Thing about guns is... if "more guns, less regulation" were the solution surely the US would be doing really well on the homicide metric (from here):

I never said "More guns" was a solution, first off.  I said that the issue is much more complex than the anti-gun folks here realize, or are willing to admit.  I also said that if you are prepared to take personal defense firearms away from women, you also need to be prepared to take responsibility that.  How many additional rapes and murders of women are you willing tolerate, to prevent Ms Wilson from being shot?  While hopefully realizing that Ms Armstrong would still have been able to allegedly murder Ms Wilson with an array of other potential weapons.

Also, for the record, another explanation for that chart is that societies are complex, and no single issue explains everything that transpires.  Maybe more guns do work, but the United States has a raft of other problems that overwhelm that effect?

For just one example, a very large number of those homicides are related to gang activity.  The US isn't the only country with gangs, of course, but it does have the world's largest market for illegal drugs.

dh700 wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

Thing about guns is... if "more guns, less regulation" were the solution surely the US would be doing really well on the homicide metric (from here):

I never said "More guns" was a solution, first off.  I said that the issue is much more complex than the anti-gun folks here realize, or are willing to admit.

Complex - and yet you also said, in the next sentence:

dh700 wrote:

I also said that if you are prepared to take personal defense firearms away from women, you also need to be prepared to take responsibility that.  How many additional rapes and murders of women are you willing tolerate, to prevent Ms Wilson from being shot?  While hopefully realizing that Ms Armstrong would still have been able to allegedly murder Ms Wilson with an array of other potential weapons.

I'll question the "guns keep people safe" - particularly women (and children...) - as I did already.  And removing weapons is a bad idea because murders happen anyway?  That's not persuading me they're a good idea.

dh700 wrote:

Also, for the record, another explanation for that chart is that societies are complex, and no single issue explains everything that transpires.  Maybe more guns do work, but the United States has a raft of other problems that overwhelm that effect?

I quite agree with "it's complex".  But if you've got 35 other places on a similar level of development clustered in one place then there's one out on a limb there are surely one or two reasons which aren't that complicated to point to.  Bit like not being baffled by noting the high modal share for cycling in The Netherlands vs. most other places with a low modal share.  There are certainly details but a major factor (having ubiquitous excellent cycling infrastructure and the systems around it) is easily identified.

As to gangs or drugs - they're in most places and the market is big enough to fund or incentivise weapons most places.  For a comparison - there are gang murders in the UK including some are with firearms.  Most don't use firearms though.  Could availability be something to do with that?  The particular cluster of social factors in the US are obviously important - race relations, great inequalities of opportunity, disparities of wealth etc.  But again lots of those are found elsewhere.  As with Chris Rock's humorous take on this however availability "in the moment" counts for a great deal.

Anyway it's all moot as the US seems stuck with what they've got and it seems unlikely we'd add "more ranged weapons" to the UK's list of issues.

chrisonatrike wrote:

I'll question the "guns keep people safe" - particularly women (and children...) - as I did already.

You seem to have questions, but no answers.  How exactly, should a woman be allowed to protect herself, and her children?  Why, exactly, do you feel that you have the authority to dictate her options?

chrisonatrike wrote:

And removing weapons is a bad idea because murders happen anyway?  That's not persuading me they're a good idea.

I bet you thought that sounded clever, but it didn't.  Gun laws do not work.  There is no correlation between gun laws and homicide rates among US States.  The factors that influence the homicide rate are socio-economic -- basically wealth and population density.

chrisonatrike wrote:

As to gangs or drugs - they're in most places and the market is big enough to fund or incentivise weapons most places.  For a comparison - there are gang murders in the UK including some are with firearms.  Most don't use firearms though.

Oh, thank god those poor people were not shot.  I'm sure that eased their passing tremendously.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Anyway it's all moot as the US seems stuck with what they've got and it seems unlikely we'd add "more ranged weapons" to the UK's list of issues.

The huge majority of people in the US are not in favor of laws that would've prevented Ms Armstrong from possessing a handgun, which is the alleged murder weapon in this case.  So they are not "stuck" with that, it's their preference.

And, back to my original point and where the rubber meets the road in this case, had Ms Armstrong been unable to obtain a handgun, she still could have -- quite easily in this case -- killed her victim with another weapon, chiefly, her car.