When he was a young man, Alexander Skarsgard served for 15 months in the Swedish Navy. He was 19 years old and a sergeant in the Swedish Navy’s antiterrorist division SäkJak. He was armed and ready to go at a moment’s notice. After his military service was done, Alex later moved to America and found international stardom, obviously. But he still references his time in the military in interviews, and he’s done work with military/veterans’ charities, and he’s played military characters in film and television. As it turns out, his history in the Swedish Navy has also given him strong opinions about the abundance of automatic weapons in America.
Alex sat down with Andy Cohen for Cohen’s SiriusXM radio show. Cohen referenced Alex’s military service and asked him what he thought of the proliferation of automatic weapons in America. This is what Alex said:
“I had an AK-5 assault rifle that I used every day for a year and a half, so I know what those weapons can do and what they’re for. And I just have a hard time understanding why civilians should have those weapons. I don’t think they belong in the hands of civilians. I think they belong in the military and nowhere else.”
“It just feels like Groundhog Day, it keeps happening. And then it’s status quo. You have the same debate, after something like Orlando… and nothing changes. It’s not only about banning assault rifles. You need something more comprehensive, and there are a lot of issues with mental health. It’s a very complex issue. But to answer your question, [as] someone who served in the military and used those weapons, I don’t think civilians should have them.”
I’m including the SoundCloud recording below. Alex is right, because of course he is. We may associate Sweden with social liberalism, ABBA and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but the Swedish Viking has experience with these weapons and he knows they have no place in civilian life. Unfortunately, just this week, FOUR SEPARATE bills and amendments were rejected in the Senate on Monday. It is like Groundhog Day because no one can really muster up the energy to be surprised by the fact that nothing has changed or will change in the near future.
You know what else sucks? I bet Alex will get hammered by pro-NRA people for saying this.
Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet.
He’s absolutely right. No civilian ‘needs’ an assault weapon, and I would offer my support to any legislation that banned civilian purchase.
I agree. They are anti-personnel weapons, nothing less. I am fine with hunting rifles and hand guns as long as proper legislature is in place, and we have the ability (i.e. funds) to support it. But just because automatic weapons exist doesn’t mean they belong in the hands of the public anymore than anti-personnel mines do.
Edit to add I just went to the NRA’s website to read their stance on automatic weapons. Apparently they are quibbling about what constitutes an ‘automatic’ weapon. B*tches.
That’s there whole spiel on automatic and assault weapons. They argue the definition. They also attack the honor and character of veterans who support assault weapon bans. They’re trying to do a number on Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts who has been speaking out and explaining how combat weapons inflict different damage than handguns and hunting rifles.
I’m utterly pro gun-control. But I do see their point. If no-one can agree on the definition of something, you can’t write a law banning it. That’s just asking for trouble.
Here in Oz we’ve ended up with 6 separate categories (none of which rely on the vague phrase “assault weapon”), and there are STILL complaints and confusion about where some guns fit. Writing sensible laws is hard, because guns don’t fall into nice simple categories. It’s more of a continuum with fullly-automatic machine-gun on one end and paint-ball gun on the other. Where to draw the line isn’t that clear.
Lucrezia, you are absolutely right. For starters, fully automatic weapons are no longer legal to manufacture or import to the US (although you can jump through a bunch of licensing hoops to make it legal for you to convert a semi-automatic to full auto for personal use); existing full-auto weapons in the US cost upwards of $10K to buy legally. The weapons most people think of when discussing “assault weapons” are semi-automatic rifles which can take extended magazines, like the AR-15. IMO, the biggest issues with the firearms themselves are extended magazines (I’d like to see anything above 10 rounds banned for civilian use) and semi-automatic firearms which take rifle rounds (higher velocity than standard handgun rounds; I would like to see all semi-automatic rifles banned, but I think that would be a very difficult sell to the public). The other big problem is that there is no tracking of ammunition sales in the US. Personally, I’d like to see a firearms license required to own or purchase a firearm OR ammunition, and centralized federal tracking of all firearm and ammunition purchases. NO ONE should be able to easily stockpile 1000 rounds of ammo without the authorities being any the wiser.
Unfortunately, implementing these kinds of reforms may require a Constitutional amendment. (And for the folks who want to defend themselves against the government? GET OVER IT. The government has tanks and fighter jets, people. In a fire fight, they will destroy you and your bunker full of guns and ammo.)
The OKatherine… Thanks for your excellent, well thought out and comprehensive point. I agree 100%!
I completely agree. While I support gun ownership, there is zero need for anyone to own an assault rifle. They are not for protection; they are not for hunting. Ban them.
I totally agree with him.
Agreed 100%. I cannot believe the number of people that actually defend these – the arguments = there is no true definition of an “assault weapon”, there are no restrictions in the 2nd Amendment, and the point of 2A is have citizens armed against the government. SERIOUSLY? I’d rather the idiots in the government rather the idiots next door any day of the week.
PS – is it not just a little pathetic that guns sales and ammunition are at a record high and many stores cannot keep them in stock?
“I’d rather the idiots in the government rather the idiots next door any day of the week.”
AMEN. Tthese right wing, anti gun control arguments kill me. People are being massacred on a daily basis and they want to quibble about terminology and insist they need an arsenal for personal protection.
Not American so I can’t vote on this but I can lend my very vocal support. I couldn’t agree with Skarsgard more.
Absolutely just like no civilian should be able to fire of 100 rounds in succession. There’s just no need.
And I doubt AS gives ANY f**ks about the NRA. He probably thinks they are idiots(rightfully so). I’m so done with the NRA having our do-nothing Congress by the balls
Assault rifles are banned in the US. Fully automatic rifles are banned in the US.
If law enforcement has a particular type of gun that the population does not, civilians cannot protect their property from illegal and unconstitutional law execution on the behalf of authorities.
The authorities cannot always be assumed just. Take a look at the wrongfully raided homes due to information error.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475
There are dozens of stories like this
It’s hard to take comments like this seriously.
The US government has nuclear weapons. Does that mean that civilians need to have nuclear weapons as well to protect their property?
The courts and the ballot box are the place to defend against illegal government action.
You’re planning to bring your semi-automatic to a drone/tank/fighter-jet/machine-gun fight?
You think that’s going to work out for ya? I think that horse bolted decades ago. The government outpowers you by a factor of oh, I dunno, a million. Banning civilian semi-automatics would mean the government outpowers you by a factor of a billion. In practical terms, not much change.
So if a well armed, well protected, and well trained SWAT team mistakenly serves a no-knock warrant on your house you think opening fire on a team of better prepared, better protected police officers is going to help the situation?
Be against no-knock warrants except in extereme cases. Be against the mentality of hey we have all this war equipment sitting around let’s give it to the police. Be against police being allowed to murder someone in broad daylight and face no consequences. Any of that is a better use of your time, money, and energy than arming up for a highly, highly unlikely situation of a SWAT team showing up at your house. You will not make it out of that stand off alive.
If you somehow wind up in a situation where a SWAT team bursts in keep your hands visible, comply with their demands, do what you have to to stay alive. Then find a really good lawyer and sue everyone involved. I understand that unfortunately even if you comply there isn’t 100% guarantee you and your family will make it out alive (your dog sure as hell won’t) but your plan of going up against a SWAT team is 100% guarantee you will not make it out alive and who knows what will happen in the cross fire.
This isn’t a movie, if a gun is aimed at you comply. It doesn’t matter if it’s a cop or a criminal nothing is worth your life and the odds that you will be shot or you will accidentally shoot someone you love is much higher than the odds of you effectively protecting yourself with a gun.
Sadly, Anna’s opinion is quite common. People believe that they have the right to these weapons to protect themselves from the government when they overstep their bounds which at the time the 2nd amendment was written that was part of their intent since these guys just experienced this type of government. But just as there are limits on our freedom of speech, there needs to be with the right to bear arms.
Also, for those that say they need these weapons to protect their family from an intruder I say that you are a terrible shot and need to practice some more
Bre – I understand that. I get the idea and sentiment behind the people rising up to overthrow a tyrannical government as stupid and impossible as that would be. That was the original intention and it fits in with our very romantic notion of guns and a People’s government.
I have never heard I need an assault rifle to protect myself from a SWAT team mistakenly executing a warrant. That is a weirdly specific situation and they have managed to come up with the worst possible solution outside of rigging the house to blow up anytime the door is breached because you can’t be too careful. The idea of taking on a tactical SWAT team is delusional at best and if you open fire on them their first thought won’t be “Oops! Wrong address. Sorry about your door.” That is a new one for me.
I totally agree too. I also can’t believe they are so easy to purchase is the USA.
I’m from Ireland and last year I wanted to purchase a standard double barrel shotgun. To do this I had to sit a gun safety course, get garda (police) clearance, have a garda visit to ensure I had a safe or trigger lock then apply for a licence and wait six months before I could buy the gun. ETA: I also had to give permission for all my medical records so they could check if there was any illness mental or physical that could prevent me from dealing with a gun safely
The fact that people can walk in off the street and buy these guns that can do so much damage so quickly is truly terrifying.
I used to be fiercly anti-gun, particulalry in regards to autommatic weapons, but the more I hear and learn about the American Government, and what a bunch of murderous criminals they are, the more I understand why so many Americans find it neccesary to own firearms.
But they only murder people overseas…
The American government is not a monolith; it’s made of people working in different departments and agencies. Do you really think Americans find it necessary to own firearms in case a hawkish Secretary of War comes to call? Do you really thing pistols, rifles or semi- or fully-automatic weapons will help when the Pentagon orders a drone strike on your house?
Think, people. Think.
A well armed populace is harder to oppress and exterminate than an unarmed one.
he is 100% right. don’t care for him
And, sadly, we wait for the next shooting.
i saw in passing a viral news video about a mother helping her preschool child rehearse school lockdown drill in the toilet (climb onto toilet seat, crouch down, make no noise) at home, just in case of a hostile situation?
i remember reading that the mom remarked what kind of a childhood (in a free, developed non-war-situation country) is she preparing her child for?
and someone down the thread of the video remarked: what kind of a world where a mother not only prepared a child for a school shooting, but as they go through the steps, surely the mother is also preparing herself that perhaps one day her child won’t come back home because of a shooting. what kind of a harsh reality is that?
tornado drills, fire drills, earthquake or tsunami drills make sense—after all nature is an entity unto herself. but to prepare a child—a preschooler at that—and to prepare a mother’s heart for any parent’s worst nightmare? i’m devastated just thinking about it.
I saw that. The mum thought her little girl was fooling around and took a picture to show her husband. Then her daughter told her she was practising a drill that they had been taught at school and the mother was shocked.
It’s such a bizarre and shocking thought- that little children have to be taught how to protect themselves in such a way.
It’s horrible. I live in Canada but have so many US connections. I don’t know how parents are sending their children off to school or especially university knowing something might happen. It’s hard to imagine the emotional cycle every time something does happen and you have to help your children process it. And then the futility of knowing your “elected” (cough) representatives are completely cold and impervious to your fear and pain – that they serve other masters than your health and safety – how does this make it the “best country in the world.”
It’s almost as if advocates of militarizing civilian life (which is all it is) think that their ability (not “right”) to easily buy military-grade weapons is what MAKES it the best country in the world.
That’s really sick. That’s not the hallmark of advanced nations. In advanced nations, life is respected and protected.
Actually, it reminded me of practicing nuclear bomb drills in primary school during the Cold War.
On the bright side, those drills scared the shit out of so many of us that nuclear disarmament is ticking along slowly but steadily.
Lockdown drills have become routine in schools. It is horrifying that kids as young as 2 and 3 (I work in a preschool) are learning to hide and be quiet in a place where they should feel safe and free to learn and explore. They ask questions, we answer the best we can and hope that our feeble security measures will hold up…although we all know anyone determined enough could get in. The good news is these kids see these drill as being the same as our tornado and fire drills and generally don’t understand the horrible implications just yet.
I’ve worked at a college for 3 years and I can’t tell you how many active shooter drills we have had but I still haven’t a clue where to go in the building if there is a tornado since we haven’t had that drill. And soon, my college will have to allow those with a license to carry a concealed weapons to carry them into the college because some stupid Texas Congress Men thought it was a good idea.
And it will happen. It will absolutely happen. Someone’s mother will get the worst news ever. There will be another mass shooting. And another. And another. Maybe not my child or me (I am a teacher), but someone’s child. Someone’s mother or father.
The new rhetorical strategy is “focus on mental health issues.” Not sure what that looks like, but SAYING it costs nothing, makes people clap, and effects zero change. People with mental health issues are only lethal to numerous people if they have lethal weapons of mass destruction, designed to kill scores of human beings very quickly. They have literally no other purpose. That piece of s*** who murdered first graders in Newtown? He’d have been a harmless loser in a basement all of his life if his f****** mother hadn’t had a lethal arsenal for him to get into. I think there is a connection to people who love weapons of mass destruction and people who lack empathy. Many of these psycho gun lovers will even tell you the Sandy Hook Massacre never happened. Heartless people.
We need to make some serious changes in the US House and Senate in November. This cannot continue.
And people need to put pressure on their state governments to take actions that Congress refuses. The Supreme Court just declined to hear the challenge to Connecticut’s laws that were enacted in reaction to Sandy Hook, basically upholding them.
Yes. People need their voice to be heard, and the only way to enact change, to be heard starts at the voting booth.
Yes. This. I cannot wait to vote against my congressperson, who’s getting blood money from the NRA.
That’s it. Throw the bums out. They have blood on their hands.
I’m dual citizen and am still able to call the Senators and Congressperson who supposedly represent the US side of my interests. I called before this week’s vote. Of course those Republican miscreants voted against my interests, but at least I let their young aides know how much we’re looking ahead to the Fall election.
Until then, it seems we have to encourage the Democrats to keep trying.
The people and their interests are not represented in Washington, period.
Question for Americans who understand your politics … what happened with those 4 gun bills that just got rejected?
The way I’m hearing it, two were presented by Democrats, and the Republicans voted no because they felt they were too strict. I strongly disagree, but I can understand the argument. What doesn’t make sense to me is that the other 2 bills were presented by Republicans, and the Democrats voted no because they weren’t tough enough. Why not just vote yes and then continue to push for even stronger laws? What am I missing?
The NRA owns many members of congress. So while they pray for your family members that are gunned down they use the other hand to accept a hefty check
The breakdown of the four bills is this:
The first two dealt with the “terrorist loophole” you can be on the no fly list or the FBI’s suspected terrorist list and buy a gun. It seems like this would be an easy thing to agree on but the lists themselves are problematic. You have no right to be on a private company’s plane if they don’t want you there. They chose if and when to enforce the no-fly list and can and have made exceptions. Any airline could say tomorrow could say if you are on the no fly list you are welcome on our plane and the government couldn’t do anything.
With the FBI’s list they need “reasonable suspicion” which has been diluted down to a pretty low bar. The list is huge and secret and ANYONE can report someone as a suspected terriost they don’t even really have to give a great reason. 99% of those names are added to the list. The list is secret and there is no way to know if you are on it and no clear way to get off.
Bill 1 – Democrats wanted a bill that if you were on either of these lists you could not buy a weapon. The Republicans argued the list is problematic and basically the Attorney General and any FBI agent could put someone on these list to stop them from buying a gun. People’s Second Amendment rights could very easily be violated without the FBI having to every tell them why. Republicans are wary of secret government lists. Neither party on their own has 60 votes so the bill is dead.
Bill 2 – The Republicans solution to the terror loophole was anyone who is on one of the lists triggers a manadory 72 hour hold. The FBI gets their name and has 72 hours to present probable cause. 72 hours is not enough time to conduct an investigation and if they had probable cause they would be doing much more than deny you a firearm. Democrats said no 72 hours isn’t reasonable, it puts a huge unnecessary and pointless burden on the FBI. Nothing would change and suspected terrorists could still easily buy guns they just have to wait three days. That was killed.
These last two are the amazingly frustrating ones. Polling suggests that 80-90% of Americans support something very close to these two bills.
Bill 3 – Close the “gun show loophole” and every time a gun is sold or transferred the buyer/recipient must pass a background check. So basically making universal background checks federal law. The NRA called all the Republicans and basically said if you like your jobs don’t vote for the Democratits bill. If you do our funding and support will go to someone else from your district who will vote the way we ask them to. This is also where apathy kills us. The 10 or 20 percent are vocal. They see this as a constant battle and are sure Obama is trying to take away their guns. They call and write all the time and make it known my vote is on the line. The rest *really* care in the aftermath and get complacent being a member of the majority. They don’t keep hounding their representatives about gun control it wanes until the next big shooting. So Republicans rightly fear losing their seats, the NRA has money and power and the constituents they hear from the most don’t want this so they won’t cross party lines and become one of the sixty votes needed to pass the bill. Democrats don’t have 60, bill dies.
Bill 4 – The republicans made a token movement to closing the “gun show loophole” but their comprise was increased funding for a instant national background check and the much needed incentives for states to actually fully report all cases of mental illness that have lead to involuntary commitment based on the advice of a team of doctors or issues that have been adjudicated and a judge has declared they are not mentally sound either to continue commitment to a psychiatric hospital or conservatorships. The states for various reasons are not forth coming and the numbers are laughably low, like 23 in an entire state. Democrats really wanted universal background checks this bill would not provide that. This is where the nasty partisan divide, that both parties contributed to, hurts the American people. The Democrats need to prevent the Republicans from having a win on gun control because they are very focused on the lower ballot races. It would go against the agreed party narrative that the Republicans are obstructionists who won’t do anything on gun control. So no democrats would vote across party lines to become one of the sixty and as a legislative body they have accomplished nothing but hopefully will keep their seats.
One reason is that our bills are never simple. There are many terms that are generally poorly understood, and that is exploited by both sides. So in general the bill may be a good idea, but down in the fine print are terms that people feel are not a good idea, or definitions are too cloudy. Say the bill is for restricting gun purchases by people on the FBI watch list (a good thing), but it fails to properly define how, who or what that list is so that it could arbitrarily apply to any citizen (bad idea) with no regulation of government power (bad idea). So those of us who definitely do want stricter gun laws but also want some regulation of government power are stymied.
Then there’s the soccer match that is our two party system. Each side “scores” against the other, knocking down bills presented by the other side in an increasing effort to “win”, regardless of the effects on the American people.
Thanks guys! I knew the vague outline of the bills, but not the details, so thanks Linsay! That was an incredibly detailed synopsis.
I was thinking what I might be missing is something like Wren said (thanks to you too!), some sneaky trick hidden in the fine-print that the Democrats would legitimately be upset with. If it’s just fear of losing their seats, I’m utterly disappointed in them. (More so than with the pro-gun Republicans, who I just disagree with.)
@lilaclfowers I agree with you but it’s not just that we need to get rid of and make more changes than that. I think we need to take out everything in the government and leave the foundation (having a government is a good idea but not when stuff like this and even worse happens) and build upon it again to reflect where we are now, rather when we first came to America and our founding fathers and constitution was created.
I also think that even though it’s hard to do that it can be done and needs to be done but also I don’t see any point any more to speak and argue of such things because of the government ment cared Orlando wouldn’t have happened neither would have sandy hook, because they would have took control of the situation the very first time there was a school shooting.
Furthermore like a lot of people have said before, civilians don’t need guns they can’t protect themselves against the government, but I like how they think they can even though inocent children and adults were killed because there are no correct laws in place. So with that, it amazes me how they think they can protect themselves mean while the government doesn’t give a damn and there allowing their people to die (indirectly by them), so I don’t think they would have a problem directly killing them especially with all the weapons (that are a lot more dangerous) they have.
But know lets let the anti gun control people go out and see how they are going to win against the government who has a bomb and their little hand gun. I’d actually like to see that instead of little kids dead
Gun rights are a state issue.
So was slavery.
If I was hammered by the NRA, I’d wear it like a badge of honor.
Right?
F**k the NRA.
True. What I don’t get is why very little money is going into the gun safety side – is it because there’s just no point? MSNB had a really great chart about amounts and the disparity was laughable. As is the fact that McCain has taken the most money from pro-gun groups..
McCain was always deeply conservative in his beliefs and actions, and yet continues to have to defend his Senate seat against people even more to the right.
Did you mean MSNBC did a chart comparing fundraising by groups? I’ll take a look. For others reading, there are many advocacy groups to reduce gun violence, they raise money just like other non-profit organizations. The wealthy former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg also put a lot of his own money into one of them. There are Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action, and so on.
The American Medical Association finally took a public stand on gun violence as a public health problem. What took them so long? They have some clout. Where is the hospital association for having hospitals turn over so many essential resources to the emergency treatment of gun violence? Why are there no Dads demanding action?
NRA has a huge head start, because it gets big bucks from gun manufacturers who make big profits. And it collects membership dues as well and manages to grow its base and keep people loyal through propaganda. It’s a cult.
How many manufacturing lobbies also offer private memberships?
If you are running as a a Democrat you can (and people successfully have) worn their F letter grade from the NRA, especially if your representing a district that is blue and won’t flip. If you are in a red district it won’t fly. As a sitting representative you will spend about six hours a day in a cubicle (because it is illegal to do make this calls from your nice office on Capitol Hill) calling people begging for money. As an incumbent you do have a fundraising and name recognition advantage that would make it easy to be reelected. If you lose the NRA’s support you lose all the conservative Super PAC support. They will find someone else give them a sizable war chest and the run attack ads against YOU paid for by the NRA and Super PACs directly. They do have a reason to be scared.
This is were the voices from “purple” districts and swing states matter. They need to be as diligent as the anti-gun control crowd who is loud and consistent. If this really matters to you it needs to matter all the time and you need to let your representatives know your vote is one the line. But the pro-gun and pro-life people see this as an entrenched battle they are constantly fighting for, pro-choice and pro-gun control see this as an issue but it’s one of many. So the numbers maybe on your side but the other side is really committed, sees this as an on going culture war or war against oppression to the exclusion of everything else. And they show up to vote during the midterm elections people with a more liberal ideology are less reliable about that.
That this is even still an issue in America is sad. I honestly don’t know what it will take for a ban on assault weapons. The death of people just encourages people to arm themselves.
Honestly, if 20+ dead kids in Connecticut couldn’t make something happen, I don’t know what will.
Exactly. If they didn’t take action after 20 children were killed, then nothing will change and it is terribly sad. I am looking for exits and escape route everywhere I go. We shouldn’t have to live like that because lobbyists and politicians care more about money than human lives.
That was the most heartbreaking news I had ever heard in my life and I thought for sure something will be done now it just has to be, then time passed noting changed and sadnes and disbelief even anger and frustration turn into apathy we cannot let this go on but who gets to make a difference and HOW? Obama looks completely defeated by this issue its like he’s given it all he had and achieved nothing I feel sorry for him too
I say this every time someone gets mad or shocked that Congress does nothing. Once we decided we could live with children being shot going to school we accepted this reality. Like the Congressman from CT said silence is not enough and these congressmen and women should be ashamed. Go vote that’s the only way to change things
Yeah, exactly. If the murder of two dozen little children wasn’t enough to get people to rethink ‘muh rights’ then the death of 40+ adults in a gay bar certainly won’t. Pretty much everyone cares about kids, where as plenty of people are happy for gay people to ‘go away’. Nothing will change, America is a dreadful place in terms of gun laws and gun violence.
All this fearmongering has seen people I’ve known for years slowly buying into the mindset of ‘with all this gun violence going on I need a gun to protect myself from muslims’. It’s awful.
I think an apt comparison is nuclear proliferation. We spend a ton of money maintaining weapons no sane person wants to win but if “bad countries” have them then “good countries” need them. No one is willing to discontinue their nuclear weapons and hope other countries follow suit. So it is a weird stalemate that means if a bad country uses it, at least they won’t “win” even if it leads to a nuclear winter for everyone that survives.
Obviously nuclear weapons are a bit more complicated but the human race is nothing if not innovative when it comes to killing, subjugating, and harming others for fun and profit. We would find other ways.
Also, the odds of dying in a mass shooting are so low that this hardly seems like our #1 issue. Also credit apathy, complacency, lack of civic education and political involvement, and a broken two party system where anyone in the House or Senates number one job is raising money for their party as opposed to writing legislation and bothering to read it and vote in a way that they believe is best for the people they represent. It is toxic and hard to fix.
Well argued.
He’s so obviously right that it beggars belief a significant and noisy minority of people in the US can’t see it.
I was talking with Mr Sixer about the man who assassinated one of our MPs this week. He did a terrible, terrible thing and he murdered a woman for political reasons. But it was one person who died and he was safely arrested by two unarmed police officers. Imagine if he’d had access to an assault rifle. It would likely have been like one of the mass shooting stateside with dozens of victims and he would likely never have faced justice because law enforcement would have had to kill him.
A lot of people, or some people anyway, held up the shooting of Jo Cox as an example of why banning guns don’t work. Because, obviously there are very strict gun control laws in the UK, and still an MP was murdered. But Mair made a homemade gun, with instructions from the internet. There’s always going to be ways and means around the laws and rules, and people twisted enough, hateful enough and determined enough will find them. But the gun control laws makes Jo Cox’s death an aberration in the UK instead of the norm. One person died in that shooting. How many have died from guns in the UK since then? How many have died since the Orlanda shooting in the US?
There’s an iconography online showing the amount of shootings that occurred while Chris Murphy was filibustering recently, and it was jaw dropping to me.
I live in Ireland, and although our gun laws are just as restrictive as the UK, we have a higher rate of gun related deaths than the UK due to our legacy of terrorism. But our police force is unarmed, apart from special units. There’s very, very few calls to arm the police and none at all to arm the civilian population. There’s no need. We get by just fine.
The notion of armed civilians is utterly ridiculous to me. I have never heard an argument in favour of it that has made any sense to me.
Exactly. You can’t eliminate all risk to all citizens. But you can minimise it.
Yes exactly. Living in Canada, I was explaining to my daughter (university age) how shocking the murder in England was because it’s so unusual, whereas in the USA it would still be terrible but not unusual.
It should always be unusual. Or nonexistent.
WATP – the other benefit this minimised risk brings actually does have benefits to democracy, unlike this right to bear arms shite. Here in the UK, you can go and sit in a village hall or a church hall or a constituency office and have a one-on-one meeting with your local representative in the national parliament. You just wander in and there are less staff about than there would be at the dentist’s. Usually, just one bored looking secretary type person. No police. No security. Just you and your local politico. And a rubbish cup of tea.
Americans were closer to their public officials in the past, but now everything is barricaded off and, due to gerrymandering, many members of Congress feel so secure in their tenure that they don’t feel they need to talk to anyone (especially anyone with a different idea).
The members of Congress who voted down even those tepid rules this week have far more bodily protections than people going to work, shopping, school.
In Canada, we’re supposed to be able to send a letter to our MPs without having to put a stamp on it. Haven’t put this to the test.
I live in Austria, and last year a madman killed several people with his CAR. An amok driver. He had relationship problems. (Don’t they all?) He killed three people, one of them a four-year-old, and injured 36. As horrible as that was: Can you imagine how many people that kind of person, who just doesn’t care in that moment, who wants to blow off steam by taking as many people down with him as possible, would have killed in that state of mind, had he owned an ASSAULT RIFLE?
I can’t hear the whole “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” anymore. EXACTLY! So let’s not give people guns. We obviously don’t know how to handle ourselves sufficiently as a species, to be given that sort of power over life and death.
The End.
But but but… second amendment! responsible gun owners! Muslim Obama!
Given the passive aggressive nature of Canadian culture, I often am thankful that we have as many restrictions on gun ownership that we do. There’s really not much difference in human nature around the world, but having more “advanced” weaponry changes the body count. Always has, always will.
I just can’t with the “responsible gun owners, law-abiding citizen 2nd Amendment” rubbish any more and when someone spews it within my hearing I have started pointing out that the Supreme Court has found reason to allow limitations and restrictions on every other one of the 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights, the amendment itself has the term “well-regulated,” and Adam Lanza was a law-abiding, responsible gun-owning citizen until the day he murdered 20 first graders.
I am also sickened by the jerks who try to divert with the Boston Marathon bombing and “shall we ban pressure cookers too?” stupidity. I had friends severely hurt by that bombing, my city was hurt by that bombing and to have it exploited like that by gun nuts, I’m non-violent but I just want to bash them with a pressure cooker.
Lilacflowers if you’re still there, I hope your friends will recover fully over time.
I was recently sickened by people posting the NRA-produced canard that if European Jews had guns, the Holocaust never would have happened. Not only that, but the Facebook posting included a picture of a naked Jewish mother and child climbing down into their soon-to-be mass grave. It was sheer exploitation and sensationalism and the whole thing was disgusting, ignorant and wrong. Truly shocking, and yet people were circulating this probably thinking they somehow showed solidarity with victims of the Holocaust. Sure, because you know these Christian militias and the KKK care so, so much about world Jewry.
If anyone sees this, please speak out. I have.
As someone from a country which took an active part in the Holocaust, this is particularly personal to me. It drives me nuts when people use the Holocaust as means to justify MORE killing.
If the European Jews had had guns, the Nazis still would have had more guns, and the rest of the world still wouldn’t have given a sh*t about their living or dying, until the NS Empire became a serious threat to world economics.
In the Warshaw Ghetto, some Jewish groups had organised weapons. There was an uprising in 1943. We all know that they, with their guns, managed to single-handedly take down every single Nazi and their grandmother while the rest of the world looked on, right? Oh wait, they didn’t. Most of them still f***ing DIED.
Oh, and Sixer: Good luck tomorrow!
I thank you.
I don’t even understand how anyone who has ever held an assault rifle and has no training handling it can actually think they know what they’re doing. The only contact I’ve ever had with guns was a few hours spent at a military base where they explained to us how the different guns they use in the German military work, how you take them apart and so on. It was only so we could learn how to properly write manuals. Of course there was no ammunition involved so I’ve never fired a gun. It all looks so easy but I could barely take one apart without hurting myself. I would be terrified to shoot one. So this whole debate baffles me and I rarely know what to say. Except that if anyone thinks you should be allowed to buy a gun like you buy a sweater, they need their head examined.
the other night he was on Colbert and my husband gave me the ok to run off with him, if and when he comes for me. We both agreed that he and I would be a great couple and Alex would be a wonderful stepfather! 😉
I saw that – he was so cute, such a Colbert fan.
For an outsider it seems like there is a civil war in the USA. Civilians shoot at and kill other civilians every day. The right to bear arms is apparently more important than living in peace. In my opinion, the NRA is the biggest threat to US National security.
Amen.
And it’s a disorganized war without sides. It’s not like you can stay behind the lines somewhere. Except the NRA offices. They seem to be safely protected from shootings.
Everyone should go and hide out there.
In my opinion, the elected scum who do the bidding of the NRA over the lives of their constituents are the biggest threat.
No, not really. I’m sure my opinion will be deeply unpopular but it’s not a gun problem. It’s an attitude and cultural problem. It’s also a size problem. The US is enormous, with vastly different geographical, political and social areas all encompassed into one nation. There’s a fierce patriotism here, as well as a strong sense of individuality, which creates a lot of friction when people don’t define these things the same or can’t agree.
Automatic weapons are already banned thrice over. The Orlando shooter used a military looking (not actually a military weapon) pretty basic rifle. I’m all for enhanced background checks and more regulations on firearm purchases, but the sad fact is that people will always be able to get their hands on illegal weapons if they really want to, especially in a country so large as diverse as this one. People seem to forget how huge the US really is as a land mass. It matters in these discussions.
My family has guns. Why? Because we live far from the police and an overworked sheriff. Fronteir law, or at least the mentality, is pretty alive and well. Nearly everyone in this area is not only armed but generally a gun enthusiast. There are shootings here, but they are nearly always gang members shooting at each other, or a drug deal gone wrong. Honestly I think we’d see a lot more violent crime in my town if it wasn’t generally assumed by everyone, criminal and law abiding alike, that nearly every person, and certainly every household was armed. Yet we law abiding citizens manage not to shoot each other every day.
We need to focus on WHY, not what, if we want to solve this problem. And unfortunately, the sheer size and diversity of communities in this country is a big obstacle. What is true in my rural area is not true in a big city, or even in a different rural area. I agree that civilians shouldn’t have military weapons, but we already don’t. You can dress up a basic rifle to look scary, but that doesn’t change the specs. The penalties are severe for modifying such rifles to make them fully automatic (military) weapons.
There will always be crazies, there will always be those on the fringes. The solution is to identify them, get to them and stop them before they go off the deep end. It’s like cancer. In its advanced stage it’s damn hard to treat, there is no real cure, but if you catch it early it’s possible to stop it. We need to find the root of the cancer, not just try to block it from forming new blood vessels.
It’s not the size. It’s not the diversity. It’s not “the crazies,” who exist in every country, big and small, around the world. It’s the laws.
Given the near-impossibility of identifying people before they “go off the deep end,” it’s far easier to prevent them from having access to killing machines than it is to ascertain their mental-health status on any given day.
You make it sound as if the US is so large it’s ungovernable. The US has managed to govern itself fairly efficiently over time in many other ways, thank you very much, from a common currency to a national pension plan and national highway system. Somehow these things got done. And if guns are really that one item that are just too hard to manage, then you do it one state at a time. Or you reinstate the assault weapons ban. The country was the same size then. It hasn’t added anything.
Gun violence is not a culture or a cancer. But if you want to liken it to cancer, then you see it as a public health problem. Support giving money to research the causes of gun violence, just the way we want money to fund cancer research and prevention. Tell the NRA to tell its bought-and-sold members of Congress to fund research into gun violence. Tell the NRA to fund the research itself (hands off) if it really believes this is a cultural problem or a mental-health problem. No? Not happening? Then it’s not really that, is it.
I see a political system falling apart, and it’s alarming because we’re really not that old of a country. Part of it is that it’s very difficult to get everyone to agree or even get close to agreement. We can’t even draft decent environmental policy that covers all our ecosystems, so why would it be any different for our people systems? What is good for the land on the east coast causes desertification in the west. What is needed in densely populated areas is very different from life out in the country. Yes we have roads and all the basic infrastructure of a country, but you can’t deny the US has problems that go beyond guns.
We’re not all that inept at finding these people. The FBI finds and stops a lot of terrist-leaning people before they actually do anything. The Orlando shooter was investigated by the FBI but for whatever reason they closed the book on him. After the shooting, all these warning signs came out that people essentially shrugged off at the time. To me that is the more alarming issue. He would have found some weapon, some way to hurt people. I suppose it is enough for some to say it would have been better if he killed fewer people, and that is true. But that he killed any at all, actively desired to do so and followed through, is the actual problem that we need to focus on. We will not be safe until we can address the root.
I fully support more research on gun violence, I think it’s ludicrous that we have so little data. Put a tax on firearm sales to fund such endeavors. More knowledge is better. But we already have a lot of the laws people are calling for. Automatic weapons are banned, and modifying a semi-automatic weapon bears a hefty penalty. We don’t have legal access to military grade weapons, and it is illegal to modify civilian grade weapons to make them military grade. You can do it, but you can also make meth from ingredients from the hardware store, or a bomb.
The USA is smaller than Canada! And it’s not that much bigger than Australia. So I have no idea why you’re talking about land-mass. You’d have a point on diversity, except you’re not exceptionally diverse either. Both Australia and Canada have more immigrants.
Who ARE is right, it’s the laws. However I’d argue that it’s laws and culture. They inform each other, so it’s hard to separate out which came first.
To me, what stands out about the gun culture in the US, is the idea of needing guns for self-defense. Which ties into self-defense laws and stand-your ground laws. It’s hard to say if the laws reflect the culture or the culture reflects the law.
I’m in Australia. My brother and his mates did time for breaking & entering, drugs and firearms offenses. However, because we’re in Australia, they never took their guns along to rob a house. They intentionally left them at home, in case a mistake (breaking in and finding the home occupied), turned into a catastrophe.
You think you need guns for defense from criminals. But your criminals think they need guns to defend themselves against you. It’s an arms race. And it doesn’t work. The USA has higher homicide rates than equivalent first-world countries with stricter gun laws. I’m sure you feel safer because you own a gun, but the statistics say otherwise.
Lucrezia, thanks for taking the time to point out these facts about Australia and Canada. I agree that law and culture inform each other, too. I think some of these “self defense” arguments come out of the Southern history of slave owners feeling the need for defense against high numbers of slaves who, naturally, might want to rebel and throw off their shackles. It’s morphed into some kind of white-man’s argument about defense against some never-clearly-described home invader.
Wren, thank you for admitting: “I suppose it is enough for some to say it would have been better if he killed fewer people, and that is true.”
Though it should not be dismissed as a casual supposition, yes? And it’s far more than “some” who say it would have been better if he killed fewer people.
Like maybe the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and friends of the many, many dead.
Of course it would have been better to have fewer people dead. This is not an argument over “mere numbers” and a few more or less people dead here and there. These are human lives.
The goal is to reduce the casualties from the firing of guns of all types.
The goal is to kill fewer people. And that’s related to both the weapon and the amount of bullets it can fire.
Actually where I live there’s a certain truce, not an arms race. Everyone is armed or assumed to be and it does keep a lot of peace. Law enforcement is understaffed and underfunded and everyone knows it.
Honestly I wish it wasn’t so. I don’t even like guns all that much. But I also don’t particularly want to lead the charge in letting my guard down around people who care nothing for me and my property beyond how much meth it could buy them. And who know damn well that the sheriff is at least half an hour away if not more. I have no intention of looking for trouble and I’m actually quite a peaceful person. I would like nothing better than to live in a place where firearms are unused and unnecessary. But there’s a lot of underlying issues that need to be solved that will not be solved simply by focusing on the tools.
Stop trying to justify your ownership of weapons that have no use except to kill. Get some better locks for your doors and stop contributing to the problem and yakking about it.
Yes, I own lethal weapons, including firearms, legally purchased and legally possessed. Firearms are handled with care, knowledge and respect in my house. Their primary purposes are target shooting and livestock protection. And I have excellent locks on my doors, thank you. Not everything I value is (nor can be) kept indoors.
@wren: you make some good points about how and why you own guns. i can understand your perspective. but you should be the exception, not the rule. if you live in the countryside and you have livestock to protect, i guess nobody would argue with special permits for people like you.
unfortunately, the idea of you needing a gun to protect yourself against others with guns is just an arms race that would be nil if neither of you owned them. and yes, i am aware that you can illegally obtain a gun, but all society can do against crime is to penalize it.
Well said, Wren.
Wren,
In addition to the objections people already voiced (about Australia and Canada being comparable to the US in landmass, population, and diversity, yet working together much better to keep everyone safe), I also have a couple of questions:
1. How come your police force is so underfunded? I mean, when I see all those ridiculous, military-grade equipment that some small towns in New England acquire, I have a hard time imagining underfunded police officers. Now, as a teacher, I do know how millions can be blown on iPads whist teachers have to set up GoFund me accounts, asking donations for paper, but still…
2. Do you think if we questioned Adam Lanza’s Mom the day before the shooting, she would’ve said that in her house, guns are lying around willie-nillie, no one knows how to handle them and to respect the responsibility that comes with them? Somehow I doubt it. So, I have to agree with Who ARE these people? – it’s a LOT easier to make guns less accessible in general than to catch every dude going off the deep end. You’re all responsible gun owners until you kill your first civilian.
Honestly, you sound very reasonable as far as your reasons for owning guns go, but I think you overlook some simple world-wide data that proves that more (not absolute) safety IS accessible, even for us in the US, if we only start treasuring lives, even those of strangers, more than guns.
Our police are very underfunded, and it’s the same reason schools are underfunded and road work goes undone. Local governments don’t have enough money, or are spending it on the wrong things. Or both. Rural police and many other small town institutions are in desperate need of funds and there’s just not enough to go round. States have less money to help them out and nothing seems to get any cheaper. I’m not sure how it all works but I’m sure anyone in low level government will tell you their department isn’t exactly rolling in dough.
I do understand the anti-gun arguments, but they fall far short of a real solution for me. It’s akin to our “solutions” to issues with livestock. Chickens in close confinement become cannibalistic, so we cut off part of their beak and call it done. Now they can’t pick at each other anymore! Problem solved! We haven’t addressed why they are driven to that behavior or really done anything to fix the root cause. The gun debate seems like this to me, it’s all “ban guns! problem solved!” with zero interest in anything beyond that. That’s not good enough for me. I want my chickens happy and in an environment where they have no desire for cannibalism, not debeaked, yet nobody seems to want to have that conversation.
Completely agree. It really is like a civil war being dressed up as a ‘war on terror (Islam)’ to stir people up.
I always love when people with actual military experience lay it down and speak the truth.
Everytime someone says they need these weapons to defend themselves I give them the side eye. Where do you live and what are you doing that you need an assault rifle to protect yourself and your family. This isn’t the movies. No person should need a weapon capable of letting of hundreds of rounds in their possession.
It boggles my mind as well that they even shut down the bill that would have made it more difficult for suspected terrorists to get weapons. Guess it’s just easier to condemn and profile a whole religion or country than put some road blocks on obtaining weapons.
Bill Maher had guests on this past week, one was an extreme gun rights advocate and the other was an elderly man who had served in the military and worked in the State Department under Colin Powell. The gun nut, and she was a nut, started with the whole home defense rhetoric and the elderly man pointedly asked her where she lived that her house was being attacked and never in all his many years on this planet had he ever needed any gun, let alone a combat weapon, to defend his home, and he had used combat weapons in his work. She just kept stammering on.
Loved that episode.
People who would need to see it aren’t watching Bill Maher. : (
One of the problems is we can’t keep just making fun of the gun advocates (I can’t say gun rights). It doesn’t work. I don’t have a handle on the alternative, but we have to take their behavior seriously without respecting their argument. I’m just thinking about this right now…so, help me out!
My absolute favourite riff on that topic is Jim Jefferies talking about the self-defense argument and pointing out that there aren’t security-door nuts and no-one buys Padlock Monthly.
So I can’t help but laugh. However, I do sympathise with the root of the argument. They’re scared, they want guns for protection. No-one wants to be the first to put their weapons down because that seems like they’re painting a target on their backs.
I’ve seen a few good articles recently, suggesting that the media and politicians need to stop with the fear culture they keep pushing. To me, that seems like a good thing to call out. It’s not directly attacking pro-gunners beliefs, but if they weren’t driven to such a state of fear they’d probably be more willing to talk logically instead of emotionally.
I’m so disgusted by the lack of gun control in this country. Sadly it probably won’t change for many years to come. The NRA has funded so many politicians and the gerrymandering done by the Republicans means that they will probably have a grip hold on the House for decades.
Speaking of Republican gerrymandering, did anybody listen to the recent Fresh Air podcast with Dave Daley, the dude who wrote “Ratf*cked”?
I really encourage some of our non-American commenters to listen to it as I think it would help them understand American politics a bit better. It can get very complex and the language is a bit dry at times, but it’s a comprehensive break-down of how the GOP used maptitude to control congressional redistricting. This podcast is further proof that the Democratic party is an embarrassment and the Republicans are masterful in their ability to exploit weaknesses and holes in the American legislative system.
Anyway, it’s not as exciting or salacious as the common narrative that “Americans are gun-crazy nutters!!!!” but it’s the truth of how a very flawed system can be effectively manipulated by one very smart party while the other, more popular party is asleep at the wheel.
This is the podcast, if anyone is interested: http://www.npr.org/2016/06/15/482150951/understanding-congressional-gerrymandering-its-moneyball-applied-to-politics
Thanks, this is great Kitten. I hope people will take the time to listen.
I vote in one of the gerrymandered districts that was challenged in court, but those sly Republicans had an even worse plan in their back pocket and put that out instead.
As a result the current Representative actually represents the views of maybe 1 out of 4 of the people living in that district. Multiply that by hundreds and you get today’s do-nothing right-wing non-representative Congress.
As a dual citizen living in Canada, we also find a lot of Canadians under-estimate the role played by Congress. In Canada, the executive and legislative bodies are one and the same, so they assume the president can do a lot more than he or she can. There’s been a lot of “Obama’s so lame” from Day 1, without understanding the constraints and barriers in his way. (Which I think took him time to comprehend as well!) They also don’t grasp that the obstructionism is all about race. But then again, they don’t always grasp the nature of their own internal problems with bias and discrimination.
Outsiders who only visit American places like Disneyland or spend winters in the South also come away thinking the whole country is obese and poorly educated.
This is useful, ta! Not that I think all Americans are gun-wielding nuts anyway. I think there is a noisy minority backed up by moneyed interests. I honestly think we all have noisy minorities spouting harmful shiznit. But I think the US is the past master of moneyed interests. We all have moneyed interests too, of course, but it seems to me the American ones are most effective (in a bad way).
Yes! KItten I listened to this earlier this week.
Thanks for the link Kitten!
WATP: Nothing like insulting an entire region by calling them obese and uneducated to emphasize your point about people not understanding nuance and complexity.
Well, I mean, this snarky, liberal, fatty with a master’s degree from Alabama just laughed because I’m used to it. 😉
I live in a neighborhood that has more livestock than people. We hear gun shots all the time from either hunters or people shooting them thar cans on that fence post over yonder. When we lived in a high crime urban area, we would turn off the lights, duck down and try to peep out the window to ascertain how close they were. Now I just sigh assholes and go back to what I was doing.
Hey Southerners I blooped out something the wrong way and I’m sorry. I meant more to rag on Canadians than Southerners. It is true that there are higher rates of obesity in the South and schools can be grossly underfunded, so visitors who spend time in the South see a little more of this and generalize to all Americans. I know there are healthy, fit and educated Southerners. I really do. I spent some time in the South myself.
The Supreme Court recently struck down some of the Republican-enacted laws that enable the gerrymandering. Of course, the next census isn’t for another four years and it will be another two years after that before districts will be withdrawn but there is some relief in sight on that score.
Well unfortunately what the Republicans did with gerrymandering was so incidious that it very possibly won’t be completely undone even if the Dems win for 2020. I really recommend listening to the podcast in Kitten’s link.
I vote in one of those challenged gerrymandered districts, but the Republicans went to Plan B — an even worse map. Six long years lie ahead, what more damage will be done?
90+% of Americans SUPPORT a ban on assault weapons. Why wont government officials listen to their constituents?
Theyre afraid of the NRA. They don’t want a negative rating from the NRA (aka lose their funding $$$$$). Even if the people want it, many politicians want re-election more.
Are you sure about that statistic? I thought so too, but our local newspaper had a poll, and 53% were against, with only 38% “for”, and others undecided.
Your locality may have a different proportion pro/con than a national poll.
I can solve this statistical mystery.
55% of Americans support tougher gun laws if you simply ask them that, worded as a non-specific question. But support rises to 90% if you ask them about certain specific laws like background checks and people on terrorist watch lists being denied the right to buy a gun. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/cnn-gun-poll/
So you’re both right. It’s all in the wording of the question. Americans hear “tougher gun laws” think that means “ban all guns”, and say they’re against it.
“Americans hear “tougher gun laws” think that means “ban all guns”, and say they’re against it.”
But WHY????
I’m sure not all Americans are stupid dumb rednecks, I know amazingly wonderful intelligent awesome Americans who are better people than me. Surely there’s more of them like that! Why would you be AGAINST OWNING A GUN?
I never understood that, what on earth do you need a GUN for????
Good explanation. And even then, more than have of those polled still support the general “tougher gun laws.” That would be considered a majority. So we can’t even say that Americans generally are against “banning all guns.” More than half still want tougher laws. It’s not a big majority, but it’s still something important on the national level. It probably breaks down differently by region.
Many people in this country enjoy hunting and target practice. It’s a sport. The vast majority of legal guns are used for that. Ranchers use firearms to kill predators threatening their livestock. They also use firearms to euthanize livestock in an emergency.
There are many rural places where the law is 30 minutes or more away, assuming you have phone reception. It makes people, me included, sleep better knowing that should the need arise, we have a way to protect our families. It’s not all peace and quiet and nice law abiding folk out here. Our county jail is full of gang members and meth dealers, neither of which is known for their restraint or lack of firearm possession. I know it’s much different in other areas.
I fully support increased background checks, restricting certain people (like those on the terrorist watch list) from buying guns, and funding gun violence research. I’m not a nut, I don’t have any need or desire for an automatic weapon (not that it would be legal for me to obtain or possess one anyway), and I’m tired of the extremism on both sides. Responsible gun ownership is not a myth, and nobody needs military grade weapons.
Canada (and I presume Australia) has rural areas, hunters with legally acquired & registered long guns, meth problems and gangs, including gang-related shootings in the big cities (and some Mafia stuff). Still, when something happens, no one seems to see the need to reduce the restrictions on gun ownership.
I guess I’m failing to see the point, then. We have gun regulations, it’s not a free for all. Automatic weapons are banned already and have been for a long time. I’m for more restrictive gun possession laws and for gun violence research. I’m just not for the blanket bans some people are calling for and omg why would anyone want a gun?!?!? Well, lots of reasons that have nothing to do with shooting people. The misinformation bothers me too. Automatic weapons are banned. Clip size for rifles is regulated. Do we need stricter laws? I’d say yes, but we do already have a lot of laws.
@Wren, the type of weapons and the type of ammunition used in the shooting at Pulse in Orlando need to be banned. The types of weapons and the type of ammunition used in the shooting at Sandy Hook need to be banned. Is that clearer?
You’d be surprised the number of hunters who enjoy using assault rifles for shooting game. That’s another excuse for denying a ban on assault rifles that’s being put forth here up north. Sickening.
I’ll never understand that. Surely part of the point of hunting for sport is the skill required. Using an assault rifle is basically admitting you’re a terrible, terrible shot. At that point you might as well just find a field of cows and start shooting.
I have a feeling many of them wouldn’t say no to that. That’s the only reason you’d want to “hunt” with these rifles.
@Kate,
I am always amazed, too. Either you like hunting and you should show value skill and patience. Or you like to shoot, and then we probably should think twice about giving you a gun.
Dick Cheney with an assault rifle. That’s all I have to say.
What is left of a rabbit after being shot with an assault rifle?
Where are the animal rights activists in terms of banning assault weapons then?
The NRA has enormous influence, unfortunately. People who use assault weapons to hunt game aren’t hunters in my book – they’re just deranged minds who like to shred animals. They’re in it for the kill. My father hunted for food – we ate what he brought home.
How are we defining assault rifles? I know plenty of people who hunt with rifles, but I don’t know if they would be considered assault rifles. Most people I know who hunt use semiauto rifles. One bullet per trigger pull. The semiauto refers to the automatic chambering of the next round after the discharge of the previous round. You don’t have to manually chamber each round for each shot. To fire multiple rounds you need to pull the trigger multiple times. There are regulations on number of rounds that can be loaded into these guns and how big the clip is. There are also heavy regulations on modifying these guns.
A fully automatic firearm fires multiple rounds per trigger pull. These are banned. Nobody needs these and we have already agreed on that.
Well, lots of people like to do things that are no longer legal, and they’ve survived. You can’t get 100% of what you want 100% of the time, because we live in a society.
Exactly, lucy2. I say this all the time and I have been called an irresponsible “taker” when I was involved in local government. I feel like these people need to go off the grid somewhere and form their own gun-happy utopia and leave the rest of us to co-exist peacefully.
I’m glad he spoke about this topic and so well too.
As a non-American it’s a mystery to me why it’s legal to sell or own weapons to the degree it is in the US.
I work for a large retailer and our store is part of a shopping mall. One morning before the mall opened we were part of a training exercise run by the state police on what to do in the event of a shooter loose in the mall. You could hear the (fake) gunfire echoing from out in the mall and we took cover by locking ourselves in the stockroom of the golf shop. We occasionally peeked out the door, and one of those times we spotted the “shooter” (a policeman in character). He was walking around with a weapon. Even though it was just a training exercise the whole thing gave me chills because it’s a very real possibility that we could find ourselves in that situation. So incredibly sad that this has become the norm.
There actually was a shooting like that in my former town at the sporting goods store of our mall probably over 10 years ago. I think only one person was killed and there have been so many bloodier ones but that just sounds eerily similar to that scenario.
While I appreciate you highlighting this quote, I’m sad your coverage in Alex has been lacking in favor of Swiddles drama. He was wonderful on Colbert and did a great interview with Sway on the radio. He’s one of the few celebrities who has never said anything resoundingly stupid and is just happy with the opportunities he gets. And he’s not afraid to speak his mind on issues like this. After the Orlando shooting he also said some really great stuff and has been making promotional appearances wearing a rainbow pin.
Plus the trailer for his new movie War on Everyone with Michael Pena is f’n hilarious.
My favorite thing about Skars is how much fun he has while posing for photos at events. He’s always doing something silly and just genuinely looks like he’s having a fun time.
It’s really cute to see an actor who doesn’t take himself so damn seriously.
Oh, and yeah, he gets bonus points for being smart and thoughtful too 😉
Hear, hear, Jena and Kitten! Agreed with both of your posts. Alex is one of the really good ones. He’s a keeper! 😉 He’s spot on with his statement about assault rifles. The poster above who mentioned hearing it from military personnel nailed it. So right. These guys know what they’re talking about and more people need to hear it.
The War on Everyone trailer is hilarious.
I had an M4 for two years in Iraq (it has a lot in common with the AR15) and it’s a fact: there is no place in a civilised society for that sort of weapon. As a fellow vet and good friend put it:
“We didn’t even own them, they were issues and we gave them back at the appropriate time.”
So, can I ask if you’re a woman (just cause 99% of people commenting on here are)?
Just cause we don’t hear a lot about Iraq from women, as a rule.
Yes, female: both myself and the friend.
Also, “issues” should be “issued”.
Thank you for sharing your well informed opinion, and for your service as well.
You know who else agreed with you and Alex? The late inventor of the AR-15 type of gun. His family recently came out and said he’d have been horrified these were in the hands of civilians, they were only ever intended to be for military use.
Thank you!
That doesn’t surprise me, re the inventor. There IS NO civilian use for the weapon!
I dont think there should be access to guns, period. But in the very least automatic weapons should be banned. A weapon that rapid fire shoots out many bullets at once, is no longer “protection”.
This situation reminds me of organized Western religions, in that the supposedly “moderate” people in any given group are not managing the extremists of their faith. The so-called “responsible gun owners” are busy defending their so-called rights instead of shutting down the extremists. And the NRA is the wealthy Church that oversees it all with gratification because believers of any type are all that matter. More members, more dues, more money, more influence over the secular state.
YES! I wish I had something to add to your perfect comment but….YES!
Kitten, you have a way of making me feel smart.
Except the NRA doesn’t give a damn about membership numbers. They don’t want them anymore, they are annoying, you have to provide services and have very little money. Less than 10% of gun owners are NRA members. The NRA is looking out for gun manufacturers who do have a lot of money to give if it keeps them protected from law suits and doesn’t discourage mass shootings. Within 72 after Orlando a Pennsylvania gun store sold 18,000 AR-15s online and those things aren’t cheap. Another gun store owner went from selling 3-5 month to selling that many in an hour in the aftermath. Why would the gun manufacturers want it to stop? At least churches haven’t totally sold out to corporate interests.
What does ANYONE need a gun for? Guns are for killing people. What does a “responsible gun owner” need a gun for if he does not intend to use it against anyone? If you like shooting in a club or on a shooting range, just leave the guns there. There is no need to have them at home.
Also, when did ever a “good guy with a gun” stop a “bad guy with a gun”?! Never, right?
It’s so ridiculous and embarrassing that after all that happened absolutely nothing has changed.
Because some Americans are still stuck in their wild wild west delusions obviously.
I’m surprised that it’s not legal to have your own home-made bomb or nuclear arsenal.
I mean why not? If you have the right to own a gun then why not the right to build a bomb?
Really. Put better locks on your doors, people.
@Zip I disagree with everything Wayne Lapierre says but all you need to do is read the newspaper. Plenty of good guys with guns have stopped bad with guns. For some people like victims of domestic violence need it for protection.
Wouldn’t it be even better to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers?
Yes, obviously. However when a victim leaves they’re in more danger then if they stayed. The person needs to protect themselves. Fwiw if you’ve been of convicted of domestic violence you can’t apply for a permit or get a gun. What’s your point?
Believe me, I’m not saying women shouldn’t have a way to protect themselves. But probably more women are shot by abusive men than abusive men are shot by self-defending women.
Gun bans against convicted abusers aren’t everywhere.
More on this topic:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/06/18/3450576/why-stalking-dating-violence-and-restraining-orders-dont-bar-abusers-from-buying-a-gun/
And the NRA is mounting another challenge to break down or limit what protections there are against convicted abusers from buying guns:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-lite-domestic-abusers-own-guns_us_56cf6822e4b0871f60eaa82b
There are so few good arguments in favor of owning these weapons.
Unless you have an awesome security system that will give you enough time to prepare yourself, and you’re willing and capable of shooting the second you have a shot, no hesitation, the chances of you essentially just handing the crazy ex a gun are high.
A DV shelter I volunteered at years ago used to recommend buying a gun for protection. They stopped doing that when 6 of the women they worked with were shot with their own guns within the space of a year.
Pepper thanks for adding that.
Some people legitimately need guns to defend livestock and a scant few have genuine need of them because they live so remotely that hunting is their only way of obtaining meat.
Nobody needs to keep a gun at home because they like target shooting or hunting for fun. Have guns owned for those purposes kept at the gun range. Then a person can do their target shooting at the range, and if they want to go hunting they can ‘check out’ one or two guns and limited ammo for that purpose with a time limit for how long they can have the gun checked out. If they keep it too long someone from the range calls, and if they don’t respond to the call or don’t return the gun police follow up. Hunting for most people is a “fun” past time, not a necessity. Killing and then using the meat doesn’t mean you needed to kill for the meat in order to live. Very few people can honestly claim that, and they would need a government-issued exemption.
Nobody needs guns for self defence against other humans outside of the military and possibly the police. It’s been statistically proven again and again that trying to use a gun against an assailant will usually result in the victim being hurt by either accidental discharge or being disarmed and having their own weapon used against them.
Here in Aus some farmers are allowed gun permits. Anyone who owns guns for target shooting purposes must have them locked up at a shooting range. It works pretty damn well.
I teach in CA, and did active shooter training at my school. As part of it, we watched 10 minutes of camera footage from the Columbine incident. Could not sleep for days. It was disturbing as hell. The gun nuts of my country don’t get it. I don’t want to worry about every moron on the street being armed.
There’s this belief that citizens need arming in case the government becomes dictatorial. I got news for those idiots. If the government wants to get you, your arsenal wont help you.
Of course he’s right, the entire world agrees with him except for Americans.
I don’t even understand what the “right to bear arms” means? Seriously? Where is the logic? If it’s illegal to kill and harm another person then shouldn’t it be illegal to own a gun the sole purpose of which is to kill and harm another being. WTF. Then again, Trump is representing half the nation, so why am I surprised.
14 million people voted for Trump in the republican primaries. Seems like a lot, but it’s still less than 4.5% of the U.S. population.
As cited above, the majority (just more than half) of Americans polled even support the vague “tougher gun laws” and when broken down, the vast majority support the kinds of specific regulations that the Senate voted down this week.
And the entire world doesn’t agree with him, because there are other countries in which guns are easily obtained and readily used. However, we don’t call them civilized or advanced. We call them “third world” or, more often, “dangerous” and issue travel advisories for them.
Trump does not represent half the nation, not by any stretch of the imagination, but the media gave him more than half the coverage during the primary season, to their everlasting shame (if they had any). His supporters are mediagenic in being loud, crazy, and violent.
Actually, I think something like 90% of Americans agree with him, it’s our Congress that doesn’t.
Exactly. But the only way to change that is for us to change Congress, which seems nearly impossible.
Next up Hiddelston takes off shirt and we all need kittens.
Amazing body AND mind! What continues to amaze me that there WAS a ban of some sorts on these style weapons for years, until it lapsed. We managed to survive just fine then. So why not again?
And so agree with the “protection” argument- have heard from many folks in military and law enforcement- shooting a gun in an active situation is much more difficult than standing at a range and shooting a stationary target. Not to mention someone may be shooting back at you! I hope that sanity may someday come back, but everyday just feel it is a pipe dream.
Does the Senate and Congress in itself want to keep americans able to kill each other off so easily? The majority of your representatives suck, more concerned with transgender people than easy access to automatic weapons.
I don’t even want to imagine what will happen if/when Trump wins the presidency.
Hi, first a clarification, the US Congress comprises 2 legislative bodies – the Senate (2 per state) and the House of Representatives (number proportionate to population). The Senate has been going back and forth by just a few members for leadership lately, with too many Democrats voting conservatively and no Republicans voting for Democratic bills. Because of the imbalance, the Senate is blocking the president from putting forward another Supreme Court justice for a vote. That’s against the Constitution.
The House of Representatives (often informally called Congress) is the bigger problem because of “gerrymandered” voting districts that give these miscreants safe seats. They show up, collect a paycheck and government health care, and block the black Democratic president at every turn while taking money from oil, drug, finance and gun companies. They are scum, and they are very hard to dislodge.
Again, why people aren’t out in the streets marching to Washington is beyond me. In so many other advanced nations people get out and protest. It’s not enough to vote anymore, not when the system is this rigged.
Yes, that’s how Congress works here, too. I just call them all Congress because I’m sick to death of them and feel the majority doesn’t care about the common good (and I’m talking about my own country, not the US).
I don’t particularly believe mine in an advanced nation (we have too manu flaws for that) but social protest has been part of our culture for almost a century. The streets belong to the people, democracy belongs to the people. The media should expose those deep in the NRA’s pockets – the vote is the only democratic tool the people have to punish their leaders.
Oh, and to answer the question about whether they want everyone to kill everyone else?
It sure seems that way sometimes. They themselves have great security.
He is entitled to his opinion (and for what it’s worth, I agree with him). I can also appreciate how horrifying our politics appear to someone on the outside looking in. If you’re not American and don’t live here, it’s very easy to sit on your high horse and pontificate from afar. Most people who do this are ignorant of all the factors at play and do not care to educate themselves. “Just change the laws and get rid of the guns,” they say. If it were that easy, don’t you think we would have done it long ago? They have no comprehension of how corrupt out congress is (and our entire election system, for that matter), they have no understanding of just how deep Congress is in the NRA’s pockets, and they’re not interested in offering any opinions on how to combat these factors.
You’re the one on the high horse acting like people just don’t understand. They do perfectly fine. Alex has lived in the US for 10 years.
I don’t think most people are pontificating and some them do actually understand something of the problem. They may wonder why Americans haven’t called a general strike several times over to make this stop. The fact that “life goes on” and people wait for the next shooting or the next election still says something about the population. In some other countries, people would simply shut it down until the government did something.
What “we” on the outside don’t understand is how 90% of a population can be in favor of something and still elect politicians who refuse to listen to their constituents. How thousands of people are killed every year yet except for a lot of talking, nothing happens. You could simply threaten them with your vote. The NRA has money but if you don’t vote for the ones who are so deep in its pockets, it won’t help them. That is what most of us don’t understand. Who elects these people?
Kitten, above, posted a link to a radio program explaining “gerrymandering.” The electoral system was broken years ago by Republicans who re-drew district voting lines to lock in their voters. It used to be easier to vote people out when they didn’t represent your interests.
So, many members of the House of Representatives now enjoy job security. It makes it easier for them to take NRA (and other lobby) money when they don’t have to worry about re-election.
Who votes for these people? Not as many as one would think looking at it from the outside, but the game is rigged to keep them in “safe” seats. There have been court challenges here and there, but things can’t really change until the next census (4 years) and then 2 years after that. We’re stuck for way too long with these do-nothing bastards.
Retaking the Senate may be more achievable.
My takeaway from listening to a lot of American friends who live in less-gerrymandered or conservative areas is that they still think waiting to vote is “enough.” It isn’t, and it hasn’t been for a long time.
I understand the frustration and I’m not saying it’s the people’s fault entirely. It’s never as easy as “Just vote for the one you like then.” However, if you look at the last midterms, voter turnout was far below 50%. So who the hell knows what would happen – even in this clearly rigged system – if people actually turned up to vote.
Thanks, WATP.
It’s exhausting at this point, listening to the simplistic arguments of “don’t give them your vote!” or “protest in the streets!!”
I want to have an open discussion and I don’t want to be dismissive of other people’s opinions, but at the same time I find these arguments pointless to respond to. It’s impossible to discuss the American political system with people who simply don’t understand the intricacies of how our legislation works. Impossible.
So I find myself getting incredibly defensive (as I’m sure you’ve all noticed lol) on these threads. Recently I had to ask myself why I was feeling like that.
Digging deeper, it’s just really insulting that people have this preconceived notion of Americans not caring about our mass shootings, this notion that myself and every other commenter on this thread condemning this country’s lax gun laws–that we simply don’t matter–we’re invisible. It’s gut-wrenching and infuriating that the groups that have made significant progress towards changing American gun laws over the last 5 years are imperceptible to some who don’t live here.
I don’t know if it’s simply due to eye-catching headlines and media manipulation overseas, or maybe it’s a case of people not wanting to truly understand how America got this way because it’s easier to just believe that we all wanted it like this. But the simplest argument is NOT the real one here, guys. It’s much more convoluted and complex than just voting out the bad dudes and when I see the gun issue distilled down to laziest, easiest argument it just makes me want to rip my hair out.
Voter turnout is not only a factor of apathy. There are a lot of barriers to voting in America – it’s not a day off, it’s a regular workday, voting booths are fewer and farther between with longer lines, unnecessary ID laws allow more registered voters to be turned away, and so on. The media does not focus enough on mid-term elections and that reduces that turnout too.
It’s actually harder than ever for some Americans to vote due to new voter ID laws.
Surprise! These new laws most affect Democratic voters (elderly, minority etc) so feel free to read more about it here: https://www.propublica.org/article/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-voter-id-laws
I’m sorry but I understand it even less then. If it’s being made that hard for people to even vote, if voter ID laws and re-drawn district lines infringe on people’s basic democratic rights, why is the argument of “protest in the streets” so simplistic and apparently insulting? Do you have a better idea? It’s certainly not the worst way to get politicians to listen. You can dismiss it as naive or “won’t work” or “it’s sooo much more complicated” but unless you start somewhere, nothing will ever change. It’s a start, is all I’m saying.
You want to have an open discussion but what I’m hearing is “You don’t get it, it’s too complicated, I can’t talk to you, this won’t work.” Okay. And then what? What is the solution? I hate to say this but there are certain very small groups in the US who get sh*t done. Because they’re relentless, they’re committed, and they won’t stop. They’re probably voting for Trump. What about the other let’s say 80%? The “system” can be changed. You just need to be as loud and relentless as the a-holes. Are you already calling your represenative every week?
You can scoff at the idea that voter turnout is a significant factor but ladies, we’re talking less than 40%. Let’s be real. You know who shows up? Who finds a way regardles of whether it’s a work day? Again, Trump voters.
Voter ID laws are f*cked, that’s not even a question. Did anyone protest that horrifying development btw? I get that the German system wouldn’t fly in the US. Being forced to carry a valid ID from the age of 16 would bring out the nutjobs who think the government wants total control (like it doesn’t already). But voting here is a piece of cake. And voter ID laws are a non-issue.
I’m not saying you’re wrong when you argue that it’s not just one thing that’s working against people who want change. I never did, btw. Of course it’s a mountain of crap you’re up against. But what I hear is “It’s not OUR fault.” I’ve said this before. We get the politicians we deserve, as a country. And if we think that’s not true, we should probably fight harder. Are you fighting hard enough? I’m not. I’m admittedly taking a break this summer after doing it for a few years because yes, it’s exhausting. But I won’t stop entirely because I want to have a say.
My 87 year old great aunt lives with me. She has voted in every election, even the tiny local ones, since she registered to vote at age 21. She was hospitalized a few months ago and while she was in rehab, her driver’s license expired (she doesn’t still drive, just had the license for ID purposes). She cannot get to the registry to get a new license or get a state issued ID unless someone takes her. Which means ME. Over the past six months, I have missed over a full week and a half of work taking her to various medical appointments and dealing with another hospitalization, which I don’t mind doing. I haven’t had the time to just take off a day of work for something she really doesn’t use. But under voter ID laws, she wouldn’t be able to vote. Fortunately, our state doesn’t have those stupid, unconstitutional laws and she was able to vote in the presidential primary in March. Had anyone challenged her for an ID, I would have gone over the table after them.
I think what outsiders don’t understand is why the right to bear arms seems to come before the right to life. Of course other countries aren’t perfect and if someone is determined to get a gun, they may well succeed, but the fact that being shot and killed is more of “the norm” because of the right to bear arms is what people don’t necessarily understand. It’s archaic and makes no sense yet nothing changes. I’ve never ever worried about being shot accidentally (or on purpose) in my country, I cannot fathom living somewhere where that could be reality.
I don’t worry about getting shot accidentally or on purpose. Most Americans don’t go about their life worrying that they will get shot and that’s not the *norm* out here.
I think it depends on where you live and what you see happening around you. I have friends who worry every time their kids go out the door, and that’s not in bad areas, just in states that have lax laws. And their kids have been in school lockdown due to nearby violence way too many times.
That’s true, WATP, and I might feel differently if I had kids.
But here in Massachusetts as a woman living alone in an inner-city, I still don’t feel any fear that I will get shot nor do I see any need to own a gun, for that matter.
Friends in much of New York (state), New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Washington State and California feel the same way. Friends in Colorado, North Carolina, Texas, Florida and Virginia do not. This just says so much.
I live in Chicago, the so-called gun capital, and I am still walking around unarmed and unafraid, as are my friends. I’ve never felt a need for a weapon to feel safe. The “discussion” about concealed carry, for example, makes me despair. Because if someone decided to start shooting on public transportation, for example, I firmly believe that armed citizens jumping in would only make a bad situation worse. I don’t get how people think they could singlehandedly shut down a rampage or that the solution to gun violence is more guns.
“Just change the laws and get rid of the guns,” they say.
Except that’s not really what “they” say, we are saying tougher laws – ban these crazy assault rifles that can kill dozens in no time, increase background checks and get rip of loopholes that allow instant ownership, and require our law enforcement organizations to work together so if someone is on an FBI watchlist with a history of violence, he isn’t allow to stroll into a store and buy a mass killing machine.
I read a really interesting article on this yesterday:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/21/gun-control-debate-mass-shootings-gun-violence
I live in the UK so can’t really imagine what it’s like to live somewhere where gun ownership is “normal”. I can only speak for myself but when I read or hear about someone getting shot and killed here, it shocks me that the shooter had such little regard for another human life. That’s what it comes down to for me, regardless of the type of gun, having a deadly weapon means you can take a life in the blink of an eye. Over here perhaps stabbings are more of an issue, and even that I can’t get my head round, just the total disregard some people can have for others. Perhaps it’s a cultural thing, I don’t know, I just can’t get my head round it.
I wouldn’t say it’s normal at all. I don’t know anyone who owns a gun, or would ever admit to it. You need to know that different regions of the us are VERY different. The southern states are a completely different world to me. The issues is that the people who do own guns own so many of them.
Thank you for this, it’s difficult when we have no real comparison, it’s hard for me to imagine a life where owning a gun (or guns) might be normal, regardless of the reason. Over here, the only gun owners I can think of are either hunters or gang members. And if somebody is killed by a gun it’s reported as a pretty big deal here. I can never hope to understand all the ins and outs of why gun ownership is the way it is in America, I just hope eventually enough people can make a change. From my “outsider” perspective I don’t feel there can be such thing as responsible gun ownership when the sole purpose of said gun is to hurt, maim, kill etc. Of course, as others have mentioned, other objects ie knives, cars etc can kill, I recognise that. It’s very interesting to read the perspectives of those who live this reality and can shed more light on it.
My friendship base is in the Northeast and there are plenty of gun owners there too, who view themselves as “responsible” and spread NRA propaganda at every opportunity.
I think this graphic is a decent summary of gun ownership in the US: http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/559451a2ecad0464750b3d6c-960/gun-ownership-study-state-map.png
To be completely fair, I assume that many in the more rural areas own guns for hunting purposes or perhaps to guard their farms…or something.
But as some commenters have stated around here, gun culture is much more familiar/common in certain areas of the US. Where I grew up, gun ownership and hunting…none of that stuff was common or typical.
Again out of fairness, you have to consider the population of each state: My state Massachusetts has almost 7 million people living in it, while Idaho has 1.6 million, even though Idaho is almost 8 times the size of my state. I’m too lazy to do the math, but I bet the actual number of people who own guns in either state is probably comparable.
I have family living in Idaho and they have hunting rifles and a handgun to protect themselves from wild animals. My cousin has been stalked by a mountain lion and they see bears, elk, and other large critters on their property frequently. But they keep nothing like the weaponry used in Orlando.
I’m in MA, which is one of the strictest states for gun regulations. Yes, there still are propel with guns here but we have one of the lowest rates of gun deaths and one of the lowest homocide by gun deaths.
@Lilacflowers-Yeah…and it’s hard for me to fault them for owning guns as long as they are responsible gun owners. It’s difficult for me to imagine living in a very rural area where your closest neighbor is miles away.
Dateline and Forensic Files has taught me that all the bad stuff happens in that part of the country. Just kidding…sort of.
Do you know, outside of a museum or somesuch, I have never even SEEN a handgun, let alone touched one. For the first thirty years of my life, that was the same for shotguns or rifles, except for whateveritis those things are that the police have at Heathrow. Since living rurally, where many people do own shotguns and rifles for shooting rabbits and deer, I’ve still only actually SEEN the weapons on a handful of occasions. People don’t walk around with them or take selfies with them or or or.
Guns are just not a feature of life here and it is a bit like staring at creatures in the zoo when looking at the gun debate in the US – I don’t mean that in a pejorative way, just it’s impossible not to see it as weird.
And I do agree that legislation alone will not stop guns being a feature of life in parts of the US. You can’t make a law and think an entire culture – even if it is a minority culture – will disappear overnight.
This is not to say that you guys shouldn’t keep fighting to change it. Of course you should.
With the first past the post constituency system that we have here in the UK, I completely get what you’re all saying about the limits of representative democracy in changing things, though. We call area with captive electorates like that “rotten boroughs” here.
You folks need to take to the streets to protest your ridiculous gun laws. Your politicians can only pretend they don’t hear or see you for so long if you do that. Otherwise you’re sitting ducks waiting for the inevitable next mass shooting. Do something?
That’s what I wonder about too. People in better regulated states think it’s okay to wait for voting and people in less regulated states are more included to want less regulation, so they’re just ducky too.
Holy crap y’all, Democrats are staging a sit in on the House floor right now over gun bills.
Led by John Lewis, Georgia democrat and civil rights icon!
I have few heroes in this world. John Lewis is one of them. Go, John, go!
To those asking if you should send pizza, yes! The staff has to log it in and keep records of it. Everyone send them emails. Send the House leadership of both parties emails. And CALL them, both local and Washington offices. They have to log it all in. If you can’t get through the general number, try to get into the voicemail system through dialing extensions.
Oh man, you guys. Have you read any of the concessions whatsoever? This has zero to do with gun control and everything to do with racial profiling and furthering the anti-terrorist rhetoric. Lilacflowers, I know you don’t know me from Adam, but I always follow your posts as you are obviously a very well informed commenter. Please tell me you’ve researched the details about the no fly, no buy bill.
P.s. John Lewis used to be on the no-fly list. As was MLK, Ali…I could go on.
ETA: I am 100% pro-gun control and gun law reform.
Holy … well, you know. Should we send them pizza?
I’ll send these heroes whatever they want. Pizza, cheesecake, sleeping bags, the whole shebang.
JOHN LEWIS John Larson YESSSSS. I’m getting chills.
He is BAD ASS! Honestly tearing up seeing him and my Houston rep sitting there.
@Kitten, my rep Katherine Clark is one of the leaders of the sit-in with Lewis. Most of our delegation is taking part. Yes, America, Captain America’s uncle is taking part in a protest against a do-nothing Congress and guns. Paul Ryan ordered the C-Span cameras out. We have a right to see what goes on in that room and that scum Ryan doesn’t want us to see what he does.
@Lilac-Isn’t Clark the rep for Cambridge as well? 5th Cong District? Her name sounds familiar.
Yeah I saw that Ryan demanded that C-Span shut down their cameras. LOL what a DORK that dude is.
Yes, Kitten, she’s 5th Congressional district, so that might be a part of Cambridge, not sure. I love that she and John Lewis have paired up as “Lewis & Clark.”
Ryan behavior goes beyond DORK, although he is that, but into pure censorship and cowardice. He’s making comments about how the sit-in is nothing but an attempt at attention. Of course, it is for attention. They are bringing attention to the fact that he has no respect for the life of US residents, that he is a NRA puppet, and that he believes in censorship and lies.
#nobillnobreak
Awesome.
I agree with Sexy.
My baby is right! (Came for the headline, stayed for the pics – why no shirtless ones?!?!)
Hold on, Tarzan will open soon enough. This makes me want to see it, strangely enough!
Honk for Alex!!
He spoke? God, he doesn’t need to. Handsome as hell.
There was a fabulous interview on Radio 4 this week with the American bloke who very sadly was attacked in Leytonstone tube (East London) a year or so ago. He had his throat slit (by a guy with mental health problems) but has thankfully fully recovered. He said that his VERY first thoughts, after it happened, as “thank god I’m not in the States because I’d be dead now”.
In the UK we watch lobbyists like the NRA with our jaws on the floor. Nothing will ever change though – if Sandy Hook didn’t do it, then there can be nothing more convincing than that.
I think I’m right in saying that toddlers killed 50 people last year. Sums up the madness.
ASkars is a true breath of (sexy) fresh air after the ridiculousness of that Tiddles crap. Love him.
I found this amusing:
http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/gun-free_zones_20160622/
Go Alex! 100%