• Please visit and share your knowledge at our sister communities:
  • If you have not, please join our official Australia and New Zealand Homebrewers Facebook Group!

    Australia and New Zealand Homebrewers Facebook Group

Is Obama's carpet big enough to sweep this under.

Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum

Help Support Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
wide eyed and legless said:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/gunman-in-mass-shooting-in-california/story-e6frg6so-1227631887153

Last week he said,"Enough is enough" over the shootings at the clinic what will he do after this.
Not sure what he'll do, but here's what was reported in this article:

US President Barack Obama extended his condolences to the victims and their families and said it was clear there was a pattern of mass shootings in the United States that had no parallel anywhere else in the world.
As he has done after other massacres in recent months, Mr Obama emphasised the need for tighter gun control and said bipartisan action was needed.
"We have a no-fly list where people can't get on planes, but those same people who we don't allow to fly could go into a store right now in the United States and buy a firearm and there's nothing we can do to stop them," he told CBS.
"That's a law that needs to be changed."
"We should never think this is just something that happens in the ordinary course of events, because it doesn't happen, with the same frequency, in other countries."
According to figures compiled by the Mass Shooting Tracker there have been at least 1042 mass shootings in the United States since 20 students and six staff were gunned down in Sandy Hook, Connecticut in December 2012.
 
Obama wants it, he just understands the reality of it. Not only the gun lobby but the gun mentality of the US is too strong. Why sweep under the carpet what the community is willing to accept in order to preserve their "rights to bear arms"?
 
Being a lame duck president, doubt if Obama can do much. I expect Trump will now pipe up "serves the ******* right".

With 373 police per 100,000 population compared to 217 in Australia and a quarter of the planet's entire prison population incarcerated in a nation with only 4.4% of the planet's population they still have massive crime problems and there's probably not a lot more that they can do. One would conjecture that something in the USA is fundamentally and probably terminally broken.

Now for a few comments such as "I love the USA and have a wonderful time whenever I go there". Of course you do, as you can do in South Africa or even the former Soviet Union as long as you pick your areas.

Bet you never went to places like these, which is where many millions of Americans are condemned to live, and have a nice stroll around checking your wallet and i-phone as you go.
Not having a shot at Americans as people, the ones I've met have been good solid human beings (apart from my mate Steve the ex SEAL who returned and smashed up the ATM in Redcliffe when it took his card) but what hope do many of them have in a fractured society, and why would we be surprised that gun crime is rife.

Camden.jpg


baltimore.jpg


philadelphia.jpg
 
Is restricting the sale of guns going to change anything, even in the long term?

Not saying it wouldn't be a step in the right direction, but there's already millions of guns available in US society. You could shut down every gun shop in the country and there's enough guns already in circulation for mass killers to use for centuries to come.

To my mind the bigger problem are the violent computer games which desensitize people from childhood and trains them in the mental skills needed to carry out mass killings.
 
Have to remember the configuration of the US political system is vastly different to ours. He is elected by the people and can only ask Congress and the Senate to enact laws for him, that is it, "ask". Sure, he signs them if they are enacted and then they are laws on the books, but he cannot force legal change on his own, unless he wants to instigate martial law and then, every US citizen has the right to grab a gun and say hang on, you cannot do that, though, these days, they'd be called terrorists and not patriots, their constitution gives them the right to overthrow a corrupt and illegitimate government, but, it did not work out so well for McVeigh.
 
Feldon said:
To my mind the bigger problem are the violent computer games which desensitize people from childhood and trains them in the mental skills needed to carry out mass killings.
Really?
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1qE8eDkzgE
 
Feldon said:
To my mind the bigger problem are the violent computer games which desensitize people from childhood and trains them in the mental skills needed to carry out mass killings.
These are the recruits the US military are using the fly their drones and other remote controlled devices.
 
The US without guns would be like Netherlands with no windows or weed, Thailand with no ladyboys, let them kill each other so long as we can go there to visit ranges
 
As I understood it, the right to keep and bear arms is protected by a the 2nd amendment to the US constitution and therefore would need 2/3 support in both houses and would then need to be ratified by 75% of the States before any changes are made. Snowball and hell come to mind
 
booargy said:
The US without guns would be like Netherlands with no windows or weed, Thailand with no ladyboys, let them kill each other so long as we can go there to visit ranges
All round charming attitude to the world
 
Feldon said:
To my mind the bigger problem are the violent computer games which desensitize people from childhood and trains them in the mental skills needed to carry out mass killings.
Let's ban video games rather than guns? I'm not suggesting you said that, but if you were then that's putting the horse before the cart. People aren't killing people with video games.

It's been studied before and no link has been found. I am not familiar with the article(s) itself but google will find it pretty quickly.

Now for some anecdotal "evidence": I've grown up playing violent computer games. I started playing Wolfenstein when I was 5 or 6 (yeah I'm gen Y before the young'un comments appear), Duke Nukem a couple years later and so on and so forth as the realism increased to where we are today, with super-gore games like Left4Dead (which I do enjoy). I have no inclination to go on a "real" rampage. Nor do I feel mentally prepared for one. What it has done (I believe) is given me excellent spatial awareness and fine motor skills as well as fast reaction times.

I do not condone games like Carmageddon where the aim is to kill innocent people in the most gruesome way imaginable. But to say all violent video games are bad I believe is a very long bow to draw.

The USA is a perfect storm with a culture and history of violence and violent crime, a real gun "culture", huge levels of discontent and easily available, fully automatic, battlefield-grade assault rifles hanging on the bloody shelf at Walmart. If your ex-boss really had a lend of you and you saw red, it's as easy as buying a bloody loaf of bread, go shoot him in the head.
 
klangers said:
The USA is a perfect storm with a culture and history of violence and violent crime, a real gun "culture", huge levels of discontent and easily available, fully automatic, battlefield-grade assault rifles hanging on the bloody shelf at Walmart. If your ex-boss really had a lend of you and you saw red, it's as easy as buying a bloody loaf of bread, go shoot him in the head.
In all fairness, you aren't allowed to load the weapon, in this case a .45 auto S&W, until you exit Walmart. At least thats how they roll in Pahrump Nevada.
True story.
 
I always had a keen interest in US history. It really is one long read of bang bang shoot em up lawlessness. I can sort of understand why the right to bear arms became law but as someone said when it was enacted they only had flint-locks. I think if I lived in the US I would own a gun. You never know when some methed-up ****-wits may ride into camp. Who knows what to think. Glad I live in Australia.
 
brentice said:
Whilst the N.R.A has so much political pull I think Obama is powerless to do anything really
Yep. The NRA and the imbedded cultural mentality of most of the population as well. Obama is right but that doesn't way up to **** on the overall.
Besides that I think if came even close to capable of enforcing gun reform there's a million armed nutjobs who would line him up in the crosshairs, literally!
 
Blind Dog said:
As I understood it, the right to keep and bear arms is protected by a the 2nd amendment to the US constitution and therefore would need 2/3 support in both houses and would then need to be ratified by 75% of the States before any changes are made. Snowball and hell come to mind
Bit like the Libs pushing to get a 15%.......I doub I will ever see it

The "Right to bear arms" had to do with the Governemnt not being able to afford arms for the Army so they told the people that if they joined up to the malitia and bring there own weapons then the Government will never take those weapons off them. The ammendment was supposed to be repealed, but never happened..

Stolen for Wikiepeadia.......

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

The act also gave specific instructions to domestic weapon manufacturers "that from and after five years from the passing of this act, muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound."[116] In practice, private acquisition and maintenance of rifles and muskets meeting specifications and readily available for militia duty proved problematic; estimates of compliance ranged from 10 to 65 per

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[116]
 
Vini2ton said:
You never know when some methed-up ****-wits may ride into camp. Who knows what to think.
And are you suggesting that we don't have those sorts now on the streets in Australia!!
Have a read of the papers most days where there is someone in the law courts that did something bloody awful to his fellow man and his deffence is that he/she was high on some sort of ****
There is a guy currently in the Perth law courts on charges of killing a bloke and it is claimed he had been on a cannabis bender for a few days as though that in some way explained why he did it.

I agree it will be very hard to introduce gun control/ownership laws in the USA

Wobbly
 
wobbly said:
And are you suggesting that we don't have those sorts now on the streets in Australia!!
Have a read of the papers most days where there is someone in the law courts that did something bloody awful to his fellow man and his deffence is that he/she was high on some sort of ****
There is a guy currently in the Perth law courts on charges of killing a bloke and it is claimed he had been on a cannabis bender for a few days as though that in some way explained why he did it.

I agree it will be very hard to introduce gun control/ownership laws in the USA

Wobbly
Even cops are on the gear

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/perth-police-dog-shooter-stood-down-after-failing-drug-test-20151203-gle7yy.html
 
There is a part of that 2nd Amendment every man has a right to defend himself.
A bit different to running amok with an assault rifle.
It would be a tough job, and it would need a tough president to start the motions of bringing the guns under control, but not impossible.
 
Quite the eye opener listening to the 'ol ABC this morning and hearing an interview from an AUS journo with some dude whose wife, maybe child was in the building (either way..........he was quite involved) and luckily his family escaped unharmed..........he suggested that the problem was "crazy ********" and the journo then prompted him by saying that its too easy for the crazy ******** to get guns.........He responded with the thought that if their were more people with guns in there, shooting up the shooters, there would've been a better outcome.

He then said something along the lines of "Lady, if you're looking for someone who supports gun control, you've got the wrong guy"

Member/s of his ******* family were in there.

I'm in no way anti gun........ I enjoy hunting, and I associate with a lot of other like minded people who have access to firearms, but I consider myself lucky I live in a country whereby associating with those folk, I rarely encounter people with the attitude that that dude displayed.

Shoot rabbits, not people. Rabbits make better pies.
 
Back
Top