The Humour Club discussion
General
>
Politically Incorrect
message 151:
by
Jilly
(new)
Sep 30, 2015 04:33PM
Think of it this way, Will, the hunt for your murderer "Colonel Dickie Head, formerly Major Dickie Head," will bring thousands of news readers joy for days, even weeks of coverage.
reply
|
flag
Will wrote: "Not sure where this fits, but I bring tidings of great sadness and great joy. Let's do the good news first. I stumbled across the quite wonderfully named Major Dickie Head:
http://news.bbc.co.uk..."
Will- I've taken the liberty of forwarding your comment to the head of the Head family, knowing they'd seriously appreciate your thoughtfully glowing tribute to Dickie Head.
Oh sorry, I didn't get as far as the murder part of your post.
It is good to know that I have such firm friends!
Oh Will, I doubt he'll kill you with a bent pin. I would think his parents would be first in line for that. He's young enough that his folks should have known better than to let that epithet be applied to him. He must have been a rotten two-year-old.
Mod
What I want to know is whether they ate the pig afterwards.No, on second thoughts I really don't want to know that.
Will wrote: "It is good to know that I have such firm friends!"I would advise you stay away from the windows and when going outdoors dress like a babushka. Rotten luck!
Could be worse, Will. As in Michael Hunt (Mike) ;-)
Mike Hunt - was that in the movie Porkys?
When it comes to unfortunate names, I was always partial to Cardinal Sin:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Sin
Or, if we are being politically incorrect:
http://www.horlicks.co.uk/
then you'll no doubt also be partial to unfortunate domain names:http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/networ...
http://www.boredpanda.com/worst-domai...
Paula - priceless! That gave me a good chuckle. Speedofart!
These aren't political names, but I can't help but long for one of these kids to grow up and become president. How about President Alias Smith? or President Awesome Jones?http://nameberry.com/blog/words-you-w...
My friend's dad (cop) once pulled over a woman for a traffic violation and couldn't believe her license. He asked her to pronounce her name -- she said 'Pahjuhmay.'The spelling, though, was "Pajama."
Mod
Jeb! happens
And once again Obama opened his mouth and seemed to forget his own hometown averaged about 25 per week. We all wish there were no violent murders but if you're going to take guns away from people, have them try grabbing some from the Bloods, Crips and Aryan Brotherhood first. Then I'll be on board.
I think that was precisely what Obama was remembering. If you want fewer violent murders then make it harder for everyone to get hold of guns. The fact that gangs have guns is no excuse whatsoever.The US fascination with gun ownership is looking more and more behind the times with every atrocity like this.
If someone wants a gun they'll get a gun. Sad to say there are so many out there, even if you had to go underground to get it, there will always be a seller. Or he could always load the back of a van with fertilizer and kill just as many people. The present laws aren't even being enforced so should they make more?. Yes, our whole culture, as Obama said, has become numbed to it. So stop the violent video games and movies, and shut down violent web content. Do you really think they'll do that? Just as likely as they would collect all the guns in this nation and prevent them from being smuggled over our borders. I know there has to be a beginning point like halting the sale of uzis, and other automatic firepower. But I still believe it's the person and not the means and it's impossible to get into every home or screen for every psycho before they can do harm.
But I must agree Jeb does come off kind of putsy.
I live in the UK. I don't have a gun. I have never owned a gun. My neighbours don't have guns. If I get into an argument with someone in the street it is highly unlikely that they are going to have a gun.Because of that, the UK has a very low level of gun related crime. Here are the stats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
USA - 10.64 gun related deaths per 100,000 population. The UK 0.26.
The UK has more or less the same video games and films as the US. We have gangs, criminals and terrorists. But we have a much lower rate of gun crime.
If guns are harder to get, fewer people will have them. It does't mean that no-one will have guns. The fact that you can't eliminate something doesn't mean that you don't try to reduce it.
Sorry, but I haven't yet seen a remotely credible argument for the US's gun culture. Obama is 100% right. It's a shame that the US population isn't ready for him yet.
Mod
The population of America is 320 million. So if you are talking percentages, then the nine people recently killed in Oregon recently are indeed a small proportion of the total population. As are the 994 people killed in mass shootings in the USA in the past 1004 days:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng...
Or the 32,000 killed in gun deaths each year:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamon...
Or to put it another way, roughly 3,000 people were killed in 9/11. That is less than 10% of the people killed by guns in America every single year.
Or the statistics that shocked me - more people have died by guns in the USA since 1968 than in every US war combined:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/...
Extremely tiny? Microscopic?
Mod
After seeing the rigmarole my son has had to go through to obtain a driver's license - apply in person for a learner's permit, take a written test, pass a physical, spend required hours behind the wheel in the company of a licensed driver, pass the driver's test, own insurance - yet he can march in to Walmart, or better yet, a gun show where there are no background checks, plunk down his cash and buy a gun.
Am I happy about this? No.
Will the laws ever change? No. Never.
History has shown us many things that someone said could not be changed. Abolishing slavery. Giving women the vote. Ending apartheid. Tearing down the Berlin wall. Anything can be changed if people want it badly enough.
Mod
I think only when we reach the point where each family has lost one member to gun violence will the people want it badly enough. Though that will undoubtedly inspire some to BUY MORE GUNS!
And then there's the NRA to contend with...
Mod
Mod
That sounds idyllic. Where I live, public transportation is virtually nonexistent.
Why do people need more than a bicycle to get around on? Could it be because people need to travel further than a bike and they need to carry stuff? Why is public transport non existent in a country with very high levels of car ownership?
Now tell me why you absolutely need to have guns when most other countries manage to get along just fine without them? Just what do you do with all those guns? What practical purpose do they serve?
Defence? Ah, no. Your guns aren't defending you. They are killing more people than cars or wars do.
Mod
Um - there is a world of difference between a car and a gun. A car has a positive and peaceful purpose - it takes at least a driver plus passenger and luggage from A to B.A gun exists to kill. A handgun exists to kill people. It has no positive purpose whatsoever. And given America's woeful record on gun crime, owning a gun is clearly no defence against other guns.
Drunk driving is dangerous, so most civilized countries have made it illegal. Owning guns is dangerous, so most civilized countries have made that illegal.
The argument about banning an activity (drink driving) and not banning an item (cars or guns) is specious. Both the US and the UK have a mixture of laws which ban both items and activities. Automatic weapons, landmines, nuclear devices. So the principle of "you should ban the activity and not the item" is a non-starter.
So yes when there is a shooting people say that the US should take the guns away. Because it's what the rest of the world has long since realised and it works.
Mod
In 30 years of driving, I've never killed anyone either.
It's funny when you think about who caused us to arm ourselves in the first place. King George's colonialist aspirations. So, after we won that war we realized it worked so well for the Brits, why not arm ourselves even more and do our own bit of colonizing.I may never need to use my MP5 and rocket laucher but with burglaries and home invasions on the increase, I'm not going to challenge the thugs to a round of fisticuffs (King's rules, of course) or pummel them about the head and shoulders with the nearest heavy object.
I'm much more comfortable taking them out the easy way- with less bloodshed on our end. Bang- bang- good riddance! In an idealistic society we could just wish these bad things away and everyone would simply hold hands and fall into place.
Like Melki's great grandmother, there was a ninety year old woman in the news recently who had shot a burglar in her kitchen, the only thing she regretted was the hole it made in the cabinet. More stories are out there where a gun in the right hands avoided innocent deaths. Like the shooter (I refuse to use his name) in Roseburg, once he saw that he was in for a real shootout he turned the gun on himself.
Yes there are those that yell the loudest after one of these tragedies, to get more donations and not to extend those funds to community projects (Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to name a couple) or non-violent programs but rather supplement their own coffers. But when you talk about the huge amount of shootings here, they are mostly gang or cartel related. I haven't shot any of my neighbors, yet, over a disagreement but, I guess, there are news outlets worldwide that suggest that all americans are cowboys and draw their guns out over traffic accidents (though I'm sure it's happened).
But then, Mao Tse tung in his infinite wisdom successfully disarmed the nation then proceeded to slaughter between 18-45 million which is even more frightening than a nation that can purchase arms to defend itself from any kind of oppression.
But that's just false logic, isn't it? Just because someone occasionally uses a gun to stop a crime or defend someone, it doesn't mean that all guns are used for a good reason. One incident does not create a general principle.Likewise, one dictator disarming a nation and then massacring millions does not mean that the two are linked. Mao Tse Tung was as mad as a box of frogs and hardly an indicator of what will happen when the US finally sees sense and introduces gun control.
We need to talk big numbers to iron out any outliers or freak events. Since 1968 there have been more than 1.5 million firearms related deaths in the US. That is more than the 1.4 million US citizens killed in wars from the revolutionary war through to the current day. And there have been roughly 1,000 people killed in mass shootings in the last 1,000 days.
Yes, there might be the occasional granny shooting a burglar. Yippy doo. And sure most people with guns haven't shot anyone yet. But the US has more than 10 gun related deaths per 100,000 population and the UK has 0.26.
Whatever you are doing isn't working, no matter how much false logic you try to throw at it.
Mod
Joel wrote: "None of the best people have."
Guess this rules out Caitlyn Jenner.
Ease up, Melki, Caitlyn was going through a big change.Will- It's like trying to control the flow of drugs. They've tried to regulate drug trafficking with the War On Drugs. What happened? The demand increased, the drugs are more powerful and now some states here allow recreational use. Sure there is a need for medicinal marijuana nation-wide but recreational? I don't see many guns locally, but I do see many red, bleary-eyed lethargic teenagers in the park and it breaks my heart.
But back on course - Supply and demand. How many billions (Trillions?) spent on this war on drugs? A War on Guns will not succeed as any of the previous wars on drugs. But, think of the alternative, had there not been some regulation in place. Most of us level headed people could never hurt someone, but we need to weed out the tilted headed people before they do harm.
Mod
We can Baker Act some people here, but the family has to do that. We can't punish their parents for negligence when their son finally bursts, although in this case she, the mother, should bear a certain amount of guilt for helping him amass a small arsenal knowing her child's propensities. But I guess a mother's love and all that.
How can you be so sure that it won't work? What you are doing at the moment clearly isn't working. Other countries with gun controls have far lower levels of gun related deaths. The evidence is overwhelming.I have not seen a single credible argument against gun controls. You don't see guns locally? Maybe not, but you watch the news, don't you?
Sure you could try to lock up all the bad people. And the people who haven't done anything bad yet, but are exhibiting suspicious behaviour. And the people you just don't like. But that's not the problem. The problem isn't "other people". The problem is that you allow far too easy access to lethal weapons for anyone.
Goodness, but y'all really turned up the heat this weekend!There are so many facets to this gun thing that there is no easy fix. It's just not as simple as make the guns more difficult to buy. There are over 300 million legally owned guns in this country and yet there's still a thriving black market for those who cannot buy them legally to get them easily. Very easily. As in for $15 you can get a handgun in Camden, NJ with no questions asked.
The problem with the Guardian article you linked to, Will, is that it combines all gun shootings together and the causes of them are different.
There are only a couple "true" mass shootings -- and they were all done by emotionally/mentally unstable people. Which tells us that we are miserably failing that segment of our population. I am affiliated with a non-profit whose sole goal is to serve the abused and neglected youth in NJ and get them the help they need. It's unbelievably frustrating to see how our hands our tied by bureaucratic bullshit. Umqua, Newtown, etc. were all massacres done by people who didn't get the right help they needed. There are measures in place to prevent people not of sound mind to get guns -- but they don't always work because not everyone of unsound mind is recorded.
However, if you look closely at that Guardian article, you will see the overwhelming majority of the shootings took place as part of gang warfare (except for a few where southern rednecks got in a barroom brawl), and not mass shootings as in a mentally unstable person walks into a school or church and shoots a bunch of innocents.
I'm not saying that gang shootings are less violent than mass shootings, but there is a difference. Most gangs don't bother to buy legal guns. Depending on whose statistics you use, between .5% and 2% of shooting-related deaths during crimes come from legally-owned guns. Therefore tighter gun control laws won't really matter -- remember, $15 in Camden.
Also, years ago I used to teach "Lifestyles and Values" classes to women in prison. The goal of the program was to teach the inmates how to make choices that would not put them back into prison when they were released. At that time where I worked in south Florida, the recidivism rate was 94%. The program was a miserable failure because you can teach people how to make pro-social choices when they live in an anti-social environment; those choices will more than likely get them killed then help them rise above the violence.
The problems with guns isn't more control -- the problem is that we have large numbers of people who are disenfranchised. Who are desperate and have no concept of a healthy life. They live by the rules of kill-or-be-killed or at least defend-the-home-turf-at-all-costs. It's not unlike a third-world country in many parts of this "fabulous" 1st-world nation.
The US has 10 gun related deaths per 100,000 population.The UK has 0.26 gun related deaths per 100,000 population.
We have disenfranchised people too, but somehow we don't have such a gun problem. We have gangs and criminals. We watch the same moves and play the same computer games.
Only a couple of "true" mass shootings? Huh? How are you defining "true"? According to some sources there have been 994 shootings involving four or more people since 2013. That's roughly one incident per day.
I would certainly agree that gun control on its own won't solve all of the US's problems, but it's part of a package of reforms that you need. Have you cleaned up from Hurricane Katrina yet, 10 years on? Or only in the rich and white parts of town?
The UK has at least two things that the US doesn't have - a universal welfare state and gun control. Two things that Obama has lobbied for and he is right. One day the US will realise it.
Mod
I will not ask how you know that.
Will wrote: "The US has 10 gun related deaths per 100,000 population.The UK has 0.26 gun related deaths per 100,000 population.
We have disenfranchised people too, but somehow we don't have such a gun proble..."
You're right. And you're right that we haven't finished up cleaning from Hurricane Katrina. Hell, for that matter, you will find people in Homestead, FL who will tell you we're not done cleaning up from Hurricane Andrew from 1992. We treat our downtrodden like shit. I won't argue with you over that at all.
However, what I was trying to say was tighter gun controls will only affect the people who buy guns legally -- and that accounts for .5% to 2% of those 994 shootings you mentioned. The other 975 or so were via illegally obtained guns, of which no control measures will impact.
I live within a 15-minute drive from the aforementioned Camden, NJ. Camden has the nickname of The Murder Capital of the nation. http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/nj/c.... The only murders committed there with legally purchased guns are those committed by the police officers.
Meanwhile, in my little township, a white-collar suburban area, it's estimated that one in four households have a legally-owned gun. In the 10 years I've lived here the most violent crime as been when a kid ran across the street without looking and was hit by a car and killed.
Melki wrote: "Lisa wrote: "... for those who cannot buy them legally to get them easily. Very easily. As in for $15 you can get a handgun in Camden, NJ with no questions asked."I will not ask how you know that."
A policeman told me. And I guess that means inflation affects the black market, too. Back in the 1990s, I interviewed for a job in what's affectionately called "Little Haiti" in Miami. The human resources manager told me I was "too white" to be driving in the area unprotected and said that if I couldn't afford a decent gun, he could make arrangements for me to get one for less than $10.
I declined the job, by the way.
Little Haiti? And now, down the road from The Murder Capitol? God bless you Lisa, you got some chutzpa! I can see where you, maybe, get some of your material from!Stay dry! And alert.
BTW- If Obama had been more committed to gun control legislation, he could've worked it through when he had the backing of congress, but he concentrated more on affordable health, and dismantling Guantanamo. Of course he had his hands full dealing with a sinking economy left by our previous administration, but he still could've proposed some tougher gun laws, if he was that way inclined.
When we say gun controls, we don't just mean making guns illegal. We also mean confiscating guns in greater numbers, whether legal or not. It means banning the sale of guns. Cracking down on gun import and sale. It is enforcement as well as legislation.It also means overturning a culture where it's seen to be okay to own and carry a gun. I think that is why gun control is such a difficult thing for many Americans. You have grown so used to having guns around that you can't imagine a world without them. You come up with all sorts of implausible reasons why it won't happen here. Or why it affects those people over there but it doesn't affect your community.
And this attitude of "I'm okay, but I don't trust those others" is actually part of the problem. No wonder they feel disenfranchised.
Gun control is as much about overturning a culture as it is about physically taking guns away. And that culture is partly about the right to own a gun and partly about a divide between "our kind of people" and "those people".
It won't be easy. It won't happen overnight. It won't stop all illegal imports (although it can make them much more difficult). But you will do it one day. And when you do you will agonise over why it took you so long.
Will wrote: "When we say gun controls, we don't just mean making guns illegal. We also mean confiscating guns in greater numbers, whether legal or not. It means banning the sale of guns. Cracking down on gun import..."Oh, well, when our politicians say "gun control" they mean restricting access to buying guns, period. But honestly, they would have a tough time selling their constituents on your plan because it would require massive taxes to pay for it and they would NEVER convince us that they'd be able to get all the guns, particularly the illegal ones, because we do not have a large enough police force nor do we have a large enough population of wanna be cops to create such a force.
Will wrote: "And this attitude of "I'm okay, but I don't trust those others" is actually part of the problem. No wonder they feel disenfranchised." Where did that idea come from? Having personally grown of as "one of those" -- the disenfranchised -- and perpetually been of service in one way or another to "those over there" throughout my adult life either as part of my job or as a volunteer, I can assure you most Americans do have hearts. Most Americans do care. Most Americans want everyone to live "the American dream."
Will wrote: "Gun control is as much about overturning a culture . . ." I totally agree with that statement, but I think the work needs to happen directly with the people most at risk of dying from gun violence ("those people over there") to empower them, to give them opportunities for education (and I'm not talking college here; many of "those over there" don't even finish middle school), to help 10-year-olds whose parents or whatever adult is around intentionally got them addicted to heroine so they could assist in scoring score drugs or at least be willing lookouts and shields for the police, to help the child sex slaves escape from "the life" as they call it and rehabilitate them into some form of normalcy (but recently, our organization took in a 12-year-old pregnant girl with STDs who is suffering PTSD so badly she cannot remember her last name or from where she was kidnapped so the odds of that happening anytime soon are slim for her). Unfortunately, guns are present in their lives as a matter of normalcy, but really the guns are not the most pressing issue for them. And my organization has been at this long enough to know that our programs work -- the kids we're able to rehabilitate get out of their situations, stay out of their situations, and don't kill people with guns once they're out.
And finally, back to your point about ...confiscating guns in greater numbers, whether legal or not. It means banning the sale of guns. Cracking down on gun import and sale... Is that why car bombs were so prevalent in Northern Ireland back in the day? Because the people there had a tough time getting guns? People will find ways to kill each other with or without guns as long as they are hurting enough, angry enough, desperate for survival enough, or just plain insane enough.
The Humour Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Unfinished Business (other topics)The Office (other topics)
Pacific Crucible: War at Sea in the Pacific, 1941–1942 (other topics)
Pacific Crucible: War at Sea in the Pacific, 1941–1942 (other topics)
The Glass Castle (other topics)
More...
