This thread title reminds me always of the small community of Fucking , Upper Austria.
After years of being plagued by anglophone visitors trying to steal the 'Ortstafel' (town name plate ?) or attempting to be photographed doing what the sign suggests, the community council have decided to alter from 1st Jan 2021 the spelling of the name to Fugging.
However there is still Oberfucking and Unterfucking to be dealt with later.
Looking at the report updated as of today, the man was shooting in the air and demanding the police to shoot him. In other words, probably suicide by cop.
I can't help thinking that if he'd asked a civilian to shoot him and the civilian complied, he'd be looking at a lengthy stretch of jail time.
The hypothetical "civilian" (above) would not be a sworn peace officer, trained and authorized to use deadly force in order to protect innocent people ...
I hate to use the word karma, but this story definitely tempts one. Preacher points a gun at an intruder; intruder overpowers preacher, takes gun, and kills him. Stupid stupid stupid.
I hate to use the word karma, but this story definitely tempts one. Preacher points a gun at an intruder; intruder overpowers preacher, takes gun, and kills him. Stupid stupid stupid.
Boulder, CO adopted a ban on assault weapons in 2018. It was recently blocked in court due to a lawsuit. 10 days later, someone killed 10 people at a Boulder grocery store. The Colorado State Shooting Association, part of that lawsuit, says "today is not the time" to talk about how this could be prevented.
Boulder, CO adopted a ban on assault weapons in 2018. It was recently blocked in court due to a lawsuit. 10 days later, someone killed 10 people at a Boulder grocery store.
Although the gunman didn't live in Boulder, and Boulder doesn't have fences and baggage inspections, so it's far from clear that Boulder's ban would have made the slightest bit of difference. (Compare, for example, the people who talk about Chicago having strict gun laws and lots of shootings. It doesn't really help you to have strict gun laws in one part of the country when they're free if you collect enough box tops in the state next door.)
Biden is advocating bringing the Federal assault weapon ban back. Depending on whose statistical analysis you believe, that ban either did or did not have an effect on mass shootings (it certainly doesn't make mass shootings impossible - the Columbine shootings, for example, used weapons that were legal under the AWB), and did not have a significant effect on overall gun crime (mass shootings are horrific, but are statistical outliers in terms of US gun violence. Most shootings in the US are with handguns.
At some point, the US has to actually figure out where it stands on guns. I think the following are true:
1. A significant number of mass shooters don't show detectable signs in advance of the shooting (the behaviour of mass shooters is indistinguishable from the behaviour of large numbers of Americans right up until it isn't.) This means that, so long as guns are widely available, there will be angry people committing shootings.
2. Features that you want in a gun if you want to commit a mass shooting and features you want in a gun if you want to use it to defend your home against home invaders are more or less the same. The gun doesn't care whether you're a "good guy" shooting "bad guys" or vice versa. If you want to get rid of guns that are good for mass shootings, you also need to get rid of the idea that you can have a gun battle and defend your home from armed invaders.
3. A complete handgun ban would probably have the biggest effect on gun crime in the US. It's also probably the least achievable.
It would take large-scale culture change to reduce the number of handguns in the US. It's not impossible, if it were treated as a public health issue. But I'm not holding my breath.
Probably a stupid question. But has not interpretation of the American constitution changed over decades? The example I'm thinking of is somehow it was fully legal to ban non-white people from some businesses and schools, and then it wasn't. What was the change process that led this is be constitutional and then not? -- Could it be that the legality of gun ownership is constitutional until it is isn't? How long did the change process take for the change when it came to legalized racism? Could this apply with guns?
Could it be that the legality of gun ownership is constitutional until it is isn't? How long did the change process take for the change when it came to legalized racism? Could this apply with guns?
Of course - there is a well-established process to change the US Constitution. There have been 27 successful amendments (although we can argue about whether the first 10 really count) and 6 that have been proposed but not ratified.
Amendments require either a 2/3 majority in each of the House and Senate, (or technically a Constitutional Convention) in order to be proposed. A proposed amendment must then be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
I didn't understand there was an amendment to end the racism and segregation in the 1950s and 60s. It seemed to be something interpreted instead. Could not the "right to bear arms" be interpreted more narrowly than it is now?
Could not the "right to bear arms" be interpreted more narrowly than it is now?
Interpreting the Constitution is the purview of the Supreme Court, which has in recent years taken a rather wider interpretation of the second amendment. See, for example, DC vs Heller, and McDonald vs City of Chicago, which made those city's effective bans on handgun ownership, and requirements that guns be stored unloaded and trigger-locked, unconstitutional.
These rulings also explicitly established the "right to keep and bear arms" as an individual right, rather than something that was contingent on militia membership or something.
It is, of course, possible for a future court to reverse these decisions.
That answers it. That court has to change how it interprets things. Unrelated prior news items indicate that the court has been stacked up with extreme people whose opinion on this was guaranteed before they were appointed to it, thus guaranteeing no change to gun laws until they are gone from the court. This court is a plaything of the president in function, or is that an excessively jaded view?
One would like to think that judges who are appointed because of how some President thinks they might vote, would instead be guided by sound principles of law as they apply to cases before them. Indeed, some recent decisions seem to fly in the face of what you-know-who was hoping for.
But one would also like to think that one can walk down any street day or night without fear of being set upon by hoodlums.
That answers it. That court has to change how it interprets things. Unrelated prior news items indicate that the court has been stacked up with extreme people whose opinion on this was guaranteed before they were appointed to it, thus guaranteeing no change to gun laws until they are gone from the court. This court is a plaything of the president in function, or is that an excessively jaded view?
Trump only cares about the courts insofar as they might or might not protect him from the legal reckoning he so richly deserves. This court is a plaything of the Federalist Society, a conservative organization dedicated to moving the American judiciary to the right. With 6 of the 9 justices coming from that group, there is no way they're going to reinterpret the Second Amendment to take into account the well-regulated militia clause Leorning Cniht refers to; they will continue to view gun ownership as an individual right.
"well-regulated militia" - interesting phrase. I looked it up. It's part of a badly written sentence. When I read it as commie socialist I think it has nothing to do with an isolated individual caressing a stiff loaded pistol... there was something about having a bad day as an sex addict who didn't hate Asians for one of those recent bullet ejaculators. I didn't get the church evangelical aspect about sex addiction, and why that's important when you're shooting people.
The amendment in question used to be -- within the last 30 years or so -- more narrowly construed. Interpreting the "right to bear arms" as a program entitling all citizens to arm themselve against each other on a 'just-in-case' basis seems blatantly and inherently self-destructive. How ironic that the political party most in favor of this mayhem is the same group so determined to oppose abortion.
I didn't get the church evangelical aspect about sex addiction, and why that's important when you're shooting people.
Most mass shooters are angry about something. They're angry that they're bullied at school. They're angry that nobody likes them. They're angry that they got fired from their job. They're angry that there are women out there tempting them into sex addiction by being all female in public. They're angry that nobody will date them. They're angry that they're unhappy. They're angry that their classmates are more successful than them.
I don't find the individual cause of the anger to be terribly interesting - the next shooter's going to be angry about something different.
That answers it. That court has to change how it interprets things. Unrelated prior news items indicate that the court has been stacked up with extreme people whose opinion on this was guaranteed before they were appointed to it, thus guaranteeing no change to gun laws until they are gone from the court. This court is a plaything of the president in function, or is that an excessively jaded view?
I wouldn't necessarily say "plaything". Presidents, when they have a chance to nominate a new Supreme, generally try to pick someone whose views and past rulings are in line with the views of the president, the president's party, and/or the views of possible voters. Then Congress does its interrogation. Snoops and media look for skeletons in the candidate's closet.
If we're lucky, we get a Supreme that maybe half the country can dare to hope might Do The Right Thing (whatever that is). When that happens, it's a relief that there might be a Supreme who can do battle with the Not-So-Supreme justices who don't do the right thing. If there are multiple slots open, it's an opportunity to "stack the court".
However...some Supremes don't vote the way you'd think. During their interrogation about their views, their standard answer is "I regret that I cannot comment on matters that might come before me in the court". (And some seem to enjoy saying that!) They might vote as expected, until one particular occasion.
~~~
You said "That court has to change how it interprets things. ".
Ummmmm...Getting that done would be nearly as difficult as repealing the 2nd Amendment. There are various views of constitutional interpretation, often deeply held--including by the Supremes. Many Americans revere the Constitution, the founders, etc.
I think one of our most fundamental problems is that the American Story (tm) is stuck. Origin story; mythos; history (whatever that really is); secrets; wishes and desires; folklore; propaganda...
The pages have gotten stuck together, and we're afraid of what might be in the next section. So we're trapped--kind of like wind-up toys that hit a wall in an enclosed room, and either keep trying to go through it, or bounce back into the room and get entangled with other wind-up toys.
We need to turn the page, open the door to that room--and do it in a way that respects all that we've been through up to now.
And I guess it reveals the problem as clearly as the politicisation of Covid-19 deaths and remedies does. When it comes to community divisions, facts don't seem to matter as much as loyal support. Which can of course be bought.
even more shocking, even if unexpected, is this immediate reaction from Ted Cruz
It's past due time for someone to tell Fed-Up Lose to "shut the f*ck up, you insufferable fat windbag, and start thinking about other people instead of yourself for a change."
It would take large-scale culture change to reduce the number of handguns in the US. It's not impossible, if it were treated as a public health issue. But I'm not holding my breath.
Covid-19 is a public health issue and look how well we've collectively handled that.
I'm afraid I just don't understand why Americans keep shooting each other.
There are more guns per capita in the US than in any other country -- the runner-up has half as many. There are more guns in the US than people. (Source: Wikipedia.) Inevitably, a certain number of them are going to be used.
Covid-19 is a public health issue and look how well we've collectively handled that.
True.
We've got a set of people who take sensible precautions, driven by things like data and science.
We've got a set of people who believe that it's their right as free Americans to go around with their faces uncovered, and the fact that they might kill people is irrelevant, but you can always step back if you're worried.
We've got a set of people who don't want to talk about actual facts about how viruses spread, because that would be inconvenient for them, so they latch on to bullshit data and decide that the way to avoid Covid is not talk to Chinese people.
We've got people who think it's all a government conspiracy.
These groups seem to apply equally well to guns and Covid.
Other nations are each some cute caricature or mascot, but the US is represented by one of its worst characteristics. It makes a point that we all are already well aware of using some cute rhetoric. England is a cup of tea? Sinead O'Connor said it's the home of police who kill black boys on mopeds.
I doubt very much that Turks think of an oompah band when someone mentions Germany. Or that the Irish think of a cup of tea when someone mentions England. The feelings of the Vietnamese about France might be a bit too complicated to make a fresh wheel of brief spring to mind.
Mr. Bilston is an Englishman. His associations are fairly normal ones that many similar English folk might make. Like @Ruth, I don't think they're in any way universal associations. Brazil's murder rate isn't really on the radar of the average Englishman. Brazil is the Copacabana, attractive young women in skimpy bikinis necessitating the eponymous waxing, and football.
American guns, on the other hand, are frequently featured on the news in the UK - usually when they've been used to kill several Americans.
This is true. We don't think of toxic air pollution or repressive government when we think of China. Now, chopsticks and dim sum, that's a different story.
I do think of repressive government when I think of China. The repression of people in Hong Kong is in the news all the time.
Yeah - my immediate associations are repressive government, trade wars, and cheap imports of variable quality, but I don't like Chinese food, so don't make that association. I know about the air quality, but it doesn't leap to mind because I'm not in China, and aren't going to visit China any time soon.
Comments
After years of being plagued by anglophone visitors trying to steal the 'Ortstafel' (town name plate ?) or attempting to be photographed doing what the sign suggests, the community council have decided to alter from 1st Jan 2021 the spelling of the name to Fugging.
However there is still Oberfucking and Unterfucking to be dealt with later.
... and he got his wish ...
The hypothetical "civilian" (above) would not be a sworn peace officer, trained and authorized to use deadly force in order to protect innocent people ...
Texas
The Onion runs its classic article for the 17th time since 2014: ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.
Guns, what guns?
Although the gunman didn't live in Boulder, and Boulder doesn't have fences and baggage inspections, so it's far from clear that Boulder's ban would have made the slightest bit of difference. (Compare, for example, the people who talk about Chicago having strict gun laws and lots of shootings. It doesn't really help you to have strict gun laws in one part of the country when they're free if you collect enough box tops in the state next door.)
At some point, the US has to actually figure out where it stands on guns. I think the following are true:
1. A significant number of mass shooters don't show detectable signs in advance of the shooting (the behaviour of mass shooters is indistinguishable from the behaviour of large numbers of Americans right up until it isn't.) This means that, so long as guns are widely available, there will be angry people committing shootings.
2. Features that you want in a gun if you want to commit a mass shooting and features you want in a gun if you want to use it to defend your home against home invaders are more or less the same. The gun doesn't care whether you're a "good guy" shooting "bad guys" or vice versa. If you want to get rid of guns that are good for mass shootings, you also need to get rid of the idea that you can have a gun battle and defend your home from armed invaders.
3. A complete handgun ban would probably have the biggest effect on gun crime in the US. It's also probably the least achievable.
It would take large-scale culture change to reduce the number of handguns in the US. It's not impossible, if it were treated as a public health issue. But I'm not holding my breath.
Often they're shooting themselves. Which is no comfort, either.
Because they can
Of course - there is a well-established process to change the US Constitution. There have been 27 successful amendments (although we can argue about whether the first 10 really count) and 6 that have been proposed but not ratified.
Amendments require either a 2/3 majority in each of the House and Senate, (or technically a Constitutional Convention) in order to be proposed. A proposed amendment must then be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
This is why constitutional amendments are hard.
Interpreting the Constitution is the purview of the Supreme Court, which has in recent years taken a rather wider interpretation of the second amendment. See, for example, DC vs Heller, and McDonald vs City of Chicago, which made those city's effective bans on handgun ownership, and requirements that guns be stored unloaded and trigger-locked, unconstitutional.
These rulings also explicitly established the "right to keep and bear arms" as an individual right, rather than something that was contingent on militia membership or something.
It is, of course, possible for a future court to reverse these decisions.
One would like to think that judges who are appointed because of how some President thinks they might vote, would instead be guided by sound principles of law as they apply to cases before them. Indeed, some recent decisions seem to fly in the face of what you-know-who was hoping for.
But one would also like to think that one can walk down any street day or night without fear of being set upon by hoodlums.
Trump only cares about the courts insofar as they might or might not protect him from the legal reckoning he so richly deserves. This court is a plaything of the Federalist Society, a conservative organization dedicated to moving the American judiciary to the right. With 6 of the 9 justices coming from that group, there is no way they're going to reinterpret the Second Amendment to take into account the well-regulated militia clause Leorning Cniht refers to; they will continue to view gun ownership as an individual right.
Most mass shooters are angry about something. They're angry that they're bullied at school. They're angry that nobody likes them. They're angry that they got fired from their job. They're angry that there are women out there tempting them into sex addiction by being all female in public. They're angry that nobody will date them. They're angry that they're unhappy. They're angry that their classmates are more successful than them.
I don't find the individual cause of the anger to be terribly interesting - the next shooter's going to be angry about something different.
I wouldn't necessarily say "plaything". Presidents, when they have a chance to nominate a new Supreme, generally try to pick someone whose views and past rulings are in line with the views of the president, the president's party, and/or the views of possible voters. Then Congress does its interrogation. Snoops and media look for skeletons in the candidate's closet.
If we're lucky, we get a Supreme that maybe half the country can dare to hope might Do The Right Thing (whatever that is). When that happens, it's a relief that there might be a Supreme who can do battle with the Not-So-Supreme justices who don't do the right thing. If there are multiple slots open, it's an opportunity to "stack the court".
However...some Supremes don't vote the way you'd think. During their interrogation about their views, their standard answer is "I regret that I cannot comment on matters that might come before me in the court". (And some seem to enjoy saying that!) They might vote as expected, until one particular occasion.
~~~
You said "That court has to change how it interprets things. ".
Ummmmm...Getting that done would be nearly as difficult as repealing the 2nd Amendment. There are various views of constitutional interpretation, often deeply held--including by the Supremes. Many Americans revere the Constitution, the founders, etc.
I think one of our most fundamental problems is that the American Story (tm) is stuck. Origin story; mythos; history (whatever that really is); secrets; wishes and desires; folklore; propaganda...
The pages have gotten stuck together, and we're afraid of what might be in the next section. So we're trapped--kind of like wind-up toys that hit a wall in an enclosed room, and either keep trying to go through it, or bounce back into the room and get entangled with other wind-up toys.
We need to turn the page, open the door to that room--and do it in a way that respects all that we've been through up to now.
I don't know how that can be done.
That the UK is in politically motivated denial about its history too, simply puts us all on a very low par.
Link to 2020 figures.
These are pretty shocking but even more shocking, even if unexpected, is this immediate reaction from Ted Cruz
Political comment link and donations link.
And I guess it reveals the problem as clearly as the politicisation of Covid-19 deaths and remedies does. When it comes to community divisions, facts don't seem to matter as much as loyal support. Which can of course be bought.
fixed broken link DT
It's past due time for someone to tell Fed-Up Lose to "shut the f*ck up, you insufferable fat windbag, and start thinking about other people instead of yourself for a change."
"‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens"
Covid-19 is a public health issue and look how well we've collectively handled that.
There are more guns per capita in the US than in any other country -- the runner-up has half as many. There are more guns in the US than people. (Source: Wikipedia.) Inevitably, a certain number of them are going to be used.
True.
We've got a set of people who take sensible precautions, driven by things like data and science.
We've got a set of people who believe that it's their right as free Americans to go around with their faces uncovered, and the fact that they might kill people is irrelevant, but you can always step back if you're worried.
We've got a set of people who don't want to talk about actual facts about how viruses spread, because that would be inconvenient for them, so they latch on to bullshit data and decide that the way to avoid Covid is not talk to Chinese people.
We've got people who think it's all a government conspiracy.
These groups seem to apply equally well to guns and Covid.
This might interest some people.
I'm honestly excited that the author of that article is called Wintermute.
I regret that it's true
https://medium.com/poem-of-the-day/brian-bilston-america-is-a-gun-e6a52d97c8d9
To me it seems completely the opposite.
Other nations are each some cute caricature or mascot, but the US is represented by one of its worst characteristics. It makes a point that we all are already well aware of using some cute rhetoric. England is a cup of tea? Sinead O'Connor said it's the home of police who kill black boys on mopeds.
But "Brazil is a football on the sand"...really? Brazil's murder rate is more than five times the USA's.
The point of the poem is association. What pops into people's heads from outside the country when that country's name is mentioned.
And for the USA, its guns.
American guns, on the other hand, are frequently featured on the news in the UK - usually when they've been used to kill several Americans.
Yeah - my immediate associations are repressive government, trade wars, and cheap imports of variable quality, but I don't like Chinese food, so don't make that association. I know about the air quality, but it doesn't leap to mind because I'm not in China, and aren't going to visit China any time soon.