Manchester bleeds

Yes, it made the news, but as Fuzzy said, it wasn't as big of a splash because no guns were involved and it wasn't terrorism. It has to either be terrorism or involve guns used criminally (not in defense), or it's not news. There was a similar event around that time that made an even smaller splash because it was a vehicle and, iirc, wasn't on a campus. It was in Las Vegas, one person died, and terrorism was ruled out; end of story. "Move along, nothing to see here." News editors will squash any story that does not promote their chosen social agenda. Yellow journalism is alive and well.

 

For the most part, gun regulations are currently more restrictive than car regulations. Would you make these differences more similar by tightening the car regulations, or relaxing the gun regulations?

For tightening the car side, this could mean changes such as:
(*) raising the driving age to 21;
(*) forbidding cross-state car sales unless physical delivery and paperwork is handled by a licensed car dealer in the buyer's home state;
(*) greatly expand the list of people prohibited from driving or owning cars, including felons, adjudicated mentally ill, illegal drug users, aliens, foreign visitors, dishonorably discharged military folks, people under no-contact or temporary restraining orders, and people under unresolved felony indictments;
(*) abolish 50-state recognition of driver's licenses, and allow out of state visitors to drive only if they have a license from certain approved states. Foreign tourists are simply SOL, and must rely on public transit or hired local drivers;
(*) federal background check for car purchases to verify that the buyers can legally own cars;
(*) some cities or states may require prospective car buyers to show good reason why they need a car or driver's license at all, with the expectation that the majority of applications will be denied.

Alternately, one could relax a great many gun restrictions to match existing car and driver restrictions. Many of these are things I won't support.

While we are at it, some reminders --
(*) A number of jurisdictions have previously imposed training requirements for gun registrations or purchase permits. Unfortunately, these requirements already have a tainted history matching the literacy testing requirements for voting.
(*) Liability insurance generally covers only so-called 'accidents'. For guns, this is already covered under common homeowners or umbrella liability policies. Intentional crimes are generally excluded, even with cars.
(*) People are already exempt from registering guns that they may not legally possess, as the registration requirements amount to unconstitutional Fifth Amendment self-incrimination. Registration laws can be enforced only against people who could otherwise legally register said guns, though the other folks can still be prosecuted for illegal possession. Haynes v. U.S. (1968).

-------------------
I WILL agree to a registration requirement for any handguns I carry in public under my concealed carry license, IFF you also agree to 50-state reciprocity for said license. This offer does not apply to arms I keep and use only on private property, analogous to the many unregistered motor vehicles that are not used on public roads or waterways.

Deal?

 

I find it interesting that we have universal reciprocity for drivers licenses but not for concealed carry permits even though driving is a privilege, not a right. But owning a firearm is a right protected by the Constitution and in some countries is required. Both activities require training for safe operation and little is done to keep crazy people from either. There was a crazy guy today in Orlando who shot a bunch of people at the place he'd been fired from. Then he killed himself. There was a time when he probably would not have been on the streets in the first place, but the social experimenters of the 70s said it was unkind to confine people simply because they were nuts. And that's about the time the mass shooting statistics started climbing if I'm not mistaken.

 

Hiding the fact you are carrying a gun is not a right.
And there was cuts in the '80s for treating those with mental health issues, and they were dumped on the street too.

 

To drag this thread kicking and screaming back to topic, as a discussion of g*n l*ws will otherwise inevitably get it moved to FHoPolitics..... (and because there's a perfectly good g*n l*ws thread in there (@jerrymildred , if you want to discuss g*n l*ws, ask to sign up FHoPolitics - there's plenty there, but don't expect me to be kind and understanding)).

This was the tenth article on the Guardian phone app this morning. It didn't even make it on to Australian radio, and it was mentioned in passing on BBC World Service radio.

If the guy had been .... whisper it .... Muslim, would it have been the same? I'm willing to bet it would have been the lead story on every news outlet.

There was a siege in Melbourne last night. One person was killed. It wasn't a major story until this morning, when we found out that the perpetrator, a lifelong criminal, on parole, with a professed hatred of the police was .... SHOUT IT! .... Muslim. And IS had claimed responsibility (as they do for everything from a stubbed toe to a lightning strike). So, of course, IT MUST HAVE BEEN TERRORISM with someone fighting for IS, rather than, as Trollbait's cartoon rightly puts it, some a--hole.

 

Once again, at the risk of dragging this thread back into relevance....

At least one of the London Bridge attackers had been expelled from a mosque which reported him to the police; was barred from mosques across London (also reported to the police), was reported to the police by his neighbours for trying to recruit kids to fight in Syria, and was ON A CHANNEL 4 DOCUMENTARY about violent "Islamist" extremism (which the police could have found out about by maybe turning on the TV). There've been similar reports about the Manchester a--hole, who was repeatedly reported to police, as were other members of his family.

I know it's a difficult job to keep track of threats, and I know there have been a lot of cuts to police funding recently, but it seems that the British police and intelligence services really dropped the ball repeatedly in both of these cases. Ordinary police responding to the attack in eight minutes is great, but these attacks were clearly foreseeable and should not have been allowed to happen. Existing laws and existing intelligence infrastructure should have been able to stop these people. We don't need increased surveillance, or more security at venues, or more armed police, or greater legal surveillance powers, or racial profiling: we need the police to actually respond to repeated, verified tip-offs that people are planning attacks.

 

Concur.....but open carry has its problems as well.

This makes me wonder if you're leaning towards further restricting transportation or bringing all licenses into the same 50-state reciprocity as we currently enjoy with marriage, driving, flying, etc.
I would then (as now) have no problem with compulsory registration, inspection, etc as is done with other licenses......and I'll give you a freebie that will REALLY get the juices of one's imagination flowing.............

..............what one registers? One can tax!

Twas ever thus....
It does not have to be this way you know.
All one has to do is say that right now......TODAY, I will NOT run crying to a moderator because some mean person said something that is contrary to my very limited world view.....

I do not know....
I think that tolerance is very topical.....as a matter of fact I think that it is THE core issue.
According to the Googles, Manchester is closing in on being 10-percent Muslim, while most US cities struggle to break one percent.
Individual freedoms also mean something very different in the UK than they do in the US, where most people out on the far left and far right would quail at the idea of mandated state ID, video (and other) surveillance.....heck we don't even tolerate red-light cameras.

Personally?
I think that if Prius people (former/current/future) are out on the sharp end of the stick, then they can compare and contrast individual freedoms as they are protected in each nation and how we can arrive at a place where people have an acceptable level of security in each.......all without ruffled fur and tear stained cheeks.

 

Was this widely reported in the US? It was in Britain and Australia.

 

I thought it was just if they saw it? I can't imagine people having complained about threads that have been moved to purgatory recently.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Please could you clarify it? Are you saying that the police can't do their job because of the large number of Muslims in Manchester (etc)? Or that Britain seems to get along perfectly well with its ethnic mix? Or that Britain has lots of CCTV cameras (but that it does not have mandated state ID)?

If you could clarify, I could respond.

 

Wow. It was a very big story in the rest of the world, perhaps because it fits nicely into another global media narrative.

I assume that if the Portland a--hole (I am sticking to @Trollbait 's excellent policy here) had been Muslim and the girls had not been Muslim, but the narrative had otherwise run the same, through hate speech, attack, and two bystanders intervening and being murdered, we might have seen rather more in terms of reporting and outrage in the US.

 

Heavily reported here, not ignored, but then it is semi-local to me. For your question, coverage in non-local markets is more relevant. Coverage here is also inseparable from the subsequent and competing protests. Due to permit problems and controversies in Portland, some were looking to shift up closer to my area, which of course caused some controversy here.

I believe you are correct in that assumption.

Somewhat similarly, though to a bit lesser degree, had he used a gun instead of a knife, I believe we'd be seeing additional reporting and outrage in the U.S. The three casualties (including the non-fatal case) would put it on the mass shooting event tracking sites.

Local news has not been shy about naming him, picturing him, and showing his courtroom rants. So he is gaining some of the recognition and notoriety that his type generally seems to crave. The generic label you and Trollbait use would help deny that infamy.

 

Hmmm.. I hope I'm getting some sort of distorted, convenient narrative of what's happening in America. But I suspect I'm not.

If he'd been a billionaire, he'd be President by now.

 

Yes. I suppose the reason I was surprised it wasn't covered more nationally is that the one American publication I read daily is in Seattle, and it got a lot of coverage there.

I thought you needed four?

Anyway, I see your point, and you're probably right, but the Orlando story (or lack thereof) above might suggest otherwise.

Absolutely. If I'm honest, a--hole wouldn't be my first choice of term. But it's a lot more broadcastable than the terms I would choose.

I was really surprised at the coverage (again, from Seattle) of his courtroom rants. I get the free speech thing, but the journalists aren't obliged to do his job for him. They can't stop him talking, but they could not bother reporting what he says.