Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The reason why mutual armament is no defence against gun crime (and as the annual 11,000 US gun deaths demonstrate) is because the attacker has already decided to use their gun when the defender is still evaluating the situation.


Invariably the defender is a normal, rational, empathic human being whose natural resistance to murder means that they'll take the first bullet - by which time it's too late.

From a purely utilitarian perspective, 11 K dead isn't much compared to the many hundred millions who enjoy owning guns and want to own guns. Only a Kantian approach suggests that each life is valuable and each loss should be avoided in so far as it is possible. #late philosophical musings

We do seem to rate death emotively rather than by numbers alone.

11,000 dead is more than the entire aforementioned Troubles, about six months in the Libyan civil war, about a month worth of obesity related deaths in the US and about one in 30 of those killed in the great tsunami.


Of course gunning down six year olds is a bit more shocking than a fat bloke with type 2 diabetes.

It is however every bit the prognosis for a misogynistic macho gun culture as sure as those heart attacks are from the diet rich in sugar, read meat and processed fats.

Something fundamental and structural needs to be done if it's to change, but they don't want to any more than those 100000+ want to change their diet and exercise regimens.

So expect this tale in the news a couple of times a year...

Guns can be exciting, fascinating and cool though - as well as monstrous, can't they? It would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise when half the entertainment industry somewhat relies on them for the fireworks that powers our suspended-disbelief fun.


If you can't get enough of seeing Bruce Schwarzenegger, Private Ryan or The Corleones tooling-up to face their adversaries (choose your type of fix) then it's not so hard to see how popping-off a few caps of your own might be a rush - if it just happened to be readily available. And if you enjoy that, you might as well pick your own hardware.


We're quick to draw the line here in the uk - but in reality it's only a line that (over in the US) continues to a natural, unfettered, poorly-regulated conclusion.

My mates took me to Estonia for my stag do and one of the activties was an hour at a range firing increasingly large assault guns. I was very hungover and mildly bored. But two of my mates were well up for it and started asking questions like 'what sort of wound would this gun make?' and 'how far away from a person could you be and still kill them?'. One spent close to 100 euro on extra ammo. Both are otherwise 'normal' blokes. So while I don't get it myself, you don't need to be a cammo-wearing survivalist to enjoy firing a gun.

11,000 deaths annually in a population of 311,000,000 equates to a 0.00004% chance of being fatally wounded.


How much political capital is Obama likely to burn through in order to reduce that?


Consider your child's school contacting you to inform you that they were planning a new activity (some type of outdoor pursuit for example) and they need your consent. They tell they cannot guarantee 100% safety but they can guarantee 99.99996% safety. Would you be happy with that? If other parents campaigned against it would you view them as acting rationally?

Stats are great, but it's not all about the stats. It's about what feel right and wrong - or at least what ought to feel right and wrong.


Would you want your child to go to a school where some of the teachers were armed and classes practiced 'lockdown drill'? Would that seem reasonable, or would something in the back of your mind (or hopefully the front of it) be saying 'this feels a bit wrong'?

nashoi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 11,000 deaths annually in a population of

> 311,000,000 equates to a 0.00004% chance of being

> fatally wounded.

>

Equates to far too many. When are the Americans going to learn? Americans, not all I'll grant you, seem to think they still live in Wild West!!!!!!!!!!

New laws wouldn't make much difference or would banning guns thay will always be available legal or not just have to look closer to home to see that hand gun crime has gone up steadily since being banned in the uk after dunblane guns will always beavlible and there will always be one nutter ur local pub is often the place to. Buy guns even in dulwich

Some statistics to put the US in perspective relative to the UK


Total annual firearm related death-rate in US = 10.2 (UK = 0.25 i.e. US rate is over 40 times higher)

Annual firearm-related homicides = 3.7 (UK = 0.04 i.e. US rate is over 90 times higher))

Annual firearm-related suicides = 6.1 (UK = 0.07 i.e. US rate is almost 90 times higher)

(All figures are per 100,000 population.)


If anyone has an argument in favour of their approach to guns versus ours, I'd like to hear it.


As for the sacredness of the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms, it's only an amendment, which means that it can be amended, and so can the US Constitution itself (which it has been 27 times in less than 250 years!).

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The hardly left-leaning New York post reaction to

> the NRA speech

>

> http://twitter.com/TheObamaDiary/status/2824731779

> 32783616/photo/1

>

> Surely signs are there that there is the beginning

> of a culture shift?



I hear a senetor on Radio 4 the other morning, a liberal who wants gun law changed. He felt that the tide is turning, and that the more military type weapon could be banned from domestic use.


When asked about basic handguns in the home being banned though, he didn't hesitate in saying "that will never happen in the US".

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> PD - I think you're losing a degree of objectivity

> here. Some gentle teasing over 72 hours seems to

> ignited a degree of unnecessary anger.

>

> I like Foie Gras - get over it!


And some people put posts on the correct threads. He has got all the cerebal capacity of Foie Gras though.


No Hugo he's just lost the plot.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...