International News Americans with guns ....

@Ricky Otto what are general crime levels like out there, aside from crime involving guns?

I should imagine mugging, burglary etc must be very low based on the odds of getting shot in the process?
 
A question I want to ask @tonyw @Ricky Otto the fact that guns are legal and having seen a few news clips obviously with massacre recently in the Texas school where everyday folk are wearing thek
In their holsters in open display, is that allowed in every state?
 
bazzer9461 said:
A question I want to ask @tonyw @Ricky Otto the fact that guns are legal and having seen a few news clips obviously with massacre recently in the Texas school where everyday folk are wearing thek
In their holsters in open display, is that allowed in every state?
Click to expand...

No, it's allowed in most states - but here in New Jersey, you need a permit and the courts will only grant you one if you have 'good cause'......which usually means you have to be an officer of the law or serviceman.

It's similar in New York and that is what the recent Supreme Court case was about. Because a couple of gun lovers in NY challenged the state's rules because they wanted to openly carry their firearms, and believed that the were entitled to under the second amendment of the US constitution. And they won, which is why NY (and NJ) are now scrambling to decide what to do with their gun laws.

I always tell people that, in my opinion - aside from the (mostly) common language - there's really more difference between the states in the US than there is between the countries of Europe.
 
tonyw said:
No, it's allowed in most states - but here in New Jersey, you need a permit and the courts will only grant you one if you have 'good cause'......which usually means you have to be an officer of the law or serviceman.

It's similar in New York and that is what the recent Supreme Court case was about. Because a couple of gun lovers in NY challenged the state's rules because they wanted to openly carry their firearms, and believed that the were entitled to under the second amendment of the US constitution. And they won, which is why NY (and NJ) are now scrambling to decide what to do with their gun laws.

I always tell people that, in my opinion - aside from the (mostly) common language - there's really more difference between the states in the US than there is between the countries of Europe.
Click to expand...
Thanks
 
Essexyellows said:
@Ricky Otto what are general crime levels like out there, aside from crime involving guns?

I should imagine mugging, burglary etc must be very low based on the odds of getting shot in the process?
Click to expand...

Interestingly the US is nowhere near the top for homicides, it does have an above average rate for the wealth/organisation of the country which is probably down to the ease of getting a gun though (it’s the easiest way to kill someone obviously). Poverty and corruption are the biggest causes of murders and crimes worldwide though, Latin America, the Caribbean and South America make the US look like a nursery and have varying gun laws.

Don’t think having fewer mugging justifies the ease of shooting up a classroom of kids though anyway, better I lose my wallet than kids get shot dead.
 
I get the American obsession with 'freedom', but adhering to the fabled Second Amendment so strictly is just archaic.

Fun fact I learned yesterday, the Second Amendment was drafted in 1791 - 58 years before the invention of bullets.

Safe to say their 'founding fathers' might have put in some provisos themselves if instead of single-shot muskets, everyone was able to carry high-capacity super rifles.

Not to mention the fact that it's already an Amendment to the original, why do they not think their constitution is able to be further tweaked?
 
beyondthefourth said:
I get the American obsession with 'freedom', but adhering to the fabled Second Amendment so strictly is just archaic.

Fun fact I learned yesterday, the Second Amendment was drafted in 1791 - 58 years before the invention of bullets.

Safe to say their 'founding fathers' might have put in some provisos themselves if instead of single-shot muskets, everyone was able to carry high-capacity super rifles.

Not to mention the fact that it's already an Amendment to the original, why do they not think their constitution is able to be further tweaked?
Click to expand...

It can be tweaked but politically it isn't going to happen unless the Democrats get sufficient numbers to vote it through.
 
Essexyellows said:
Couple of news reports - one bloke got shot at 90 times by the police.

And 3 coppers were killed when serving a warrant.
www.bbc.co.uk

Three police die in 'pure hell' Kentucky shooting

The officers are killed along with a police dog as they try to serve a warrant for domestic violence.
www.bbc.co.uk

Americans eh?
Click to expand...

Sadly, it is expected pretty much daily now which makes it all nuts. I appreciate what Ricky Otto and TonyW have said about the American perspective as it puts a different spin on it but it is still nuts.
 
Don’t get me started. Some of the things I see on the news just blow my mind. There’s far less use of horns or road rage in Houston Texas….reason? So many guns in the glove boxes. Every so often you see a story about people shooting at other cars because they’re pissed off

I’ve had the conversation about the constitution and how archaic it is. It depends obviously on my protagonist but they either :

1. Present it as an unchallenged and unchangeable Bible
2. Counter attack on the British system of government with unnecessary but convenient focus on the role of the monarch
3. Agree that I’m absolutely right but recognize how hard it is to dislodge the American mindset (see point 1)

What’s your experiences on this @tonyw?
 
Last edited:
Ricky Otto said:
Don’t get me started. Some of the things I see on the news just blow my mind. There’s far less use of horns or road rage in Houston Texas….reason? So many guns in the glove boxes. Every so often you see a story about people shooting at other cars because they’re pissed off

I’ve had the conversation about the constitution and how archaic it is. It depends obviously on my protagonist but they either :

1. Present it as an unchallenged and unchangeable Bible
2. Counter attack on the British system of government with unnecessary but convenient focus on the role of the monarch
3. Agree that I’m absolutely right but recognize how hard it is to dislodge the American mindset (see point 1)

What’s your experiences on this @tonyw?
Click to expand...

Most of the people I discuss politics with around here are lefty liberals (for America as a whole, at least), so I find it tough to get into any really good arguments!

But there's still a lot of love for the constitution in general......and I have to say, I agree with a lot of that. It is a quite brilliant piece of political adminstrative legislation.

And it should be changed. That was the whole point of the way the Founding Fathers set things up. The House of Representatives was supposed to be a body that had high turnover based on national sentiment, and there were supposed to be clear mechanisms for amending the constitution as and when circumstances changed.

The problem is that those Founding Fathers failed to anticipate how depraved and power-hungry the political classes were going to get, and how they would exploit every tiny loophole for their own ends. So now we've got gerrymandering ensuring that most Representatives never have to worry about their seats, extreme bipartisanship ensuring that Congress never passes any meaningful legislation and everyone has to rely on the courts to move their agenda, and Twitter ensuring that debate on the issues has to be compressed into 140 characters.......

John Adams saw it coming - "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"
I don't know about the religious part, but the last decade has shown that the constitution doesn't work when you have a mostly amoral political class.
 
In the lurch to the far right in certain states some of the laws being passed are draconian. Arizona has just passed a law making it an offence to film a police officer "conducting law enforcement activity" within 8 feet of the officer. So if you are stopped by the police you cannot film their actions otherwise you face 30 days in prison. Given the many cases where smartphone footage has stopped miscarriages of justice, and even led to convictions of police for murder, this can only be seen as somewhat dystopian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom