Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ You have mentioned it more than once I am sure and posted from a right wing rag playing up your Orwellian undertones theme-its nothing of the sort, it was devised and asked for not by the government but by a group made up of representatives from all the relevant agencies, looking into how to prevent some children who were being abused, or could have mental health issues, from falling through the cracks in the existing system. It followed as a response to cases here and in England when the signs were clear yet missed because all the relevant information was not known by any one person or department.
The idea therefore is to have someone who has already been screened - teacher ect to act as a safeguard for certain children they would often be in contact with and to train them what to look out for. That person, if they had concerns would be able to alert social services, who in turn would be able to access medical, school and police reports of the child to see if any warning signs were being missed, without all the usual delays or rules keeping medical or police data secret from other parts of government. Its specifically designed to try to join all the dots.
Its to help prevent a child developing to the stage this young man did when he went on his murderous spree by intervening earlier with help. }}

[azriel]

When I was young toy guns were so common in the bedroom toy box. But, it was associated with Westerns like, The Lone Ranger. and often your best mate was Tonto. He'd get "shot" a dozen times & we'd move off to play something else. My son, donkeys years later, plays " Call of Duty", guns again & he's dam good at it. He came 2nd in a Contest laid on by a gaming company & I was so proud. You might think "proud" & guns ?? Well, I know that HE knows its just a game. He has no inclination to go shoot up in Eastbourne town centre. Me & my mates from years ago didn't even think of hurting anyone or anything. After the initial "bang bang your dead" era we grew up & got on with living life. My home life was broken, it was shit. I had a mum who didn't give a F**k, no dad, no siblings, bullied from kids from dusk till dawn but I didn't go on a rampage. I don't know of anyone who has. My son has blown up & killed that many thousands via video games yet he is ok, helpful, good natured lad. I wish I could understand what makes people tick ? I haven't been to America, I don't know any Americans to talk to about this, which would have been helpful, all I can guess at is the availability & the common knowledge that it IS ok to have a gun, its NOT unusual to have a gun at home, in your car, pocket, bag, wherever. Its a familiar item of daily wear in my eyes like the knuckle dusters of thug life in the 50's/60's & 70's, but even then it was only a few going around like that, it wasn't common place. Could it really be inherently a mentality that's wide spread all across a population ? I cant believe parents are telling their kids to pack a pistol with their pack lunch for school ? Even for safety reasons we here make sure our kids have mobile phones not guns, we tell them to call the police if worried not fucking blast them. We have serious issues here, Issues that drive people nuts like, paedophiles, rapists, murderers, same as any other country yet there are no guns brought out to shoot said criminals. I wonder if guns are too much of a common place item, too familiar, too daily that its taken for granted that you know where your gun is just as much as you know where your gloves are say ? And if no one seems to show any interest or minds that Mr Smith next door has a gun then is it that much of a deal ? Though for the life of me why do young men, as it often is, why they kill children I cant understand one bit. You have got to be one hell of a thoughtful & insightful Psychiatrist to unravel this problem.

[David H]

Speaking just from my obscure corner of the world, the prevalence of assault-style weapons now has a lot to do with a much older law that attempted to reduce the number of concealed weapons by basically making it illegal to shorten the barrel or stock of a rifle or shotgun. Now many farmers I know carry assault rifles in the cabs of their pickups because they're light, compact, cheap and use less expensive ammunition.  A neighbor was just showing me the new one he got for free from Cabela's with credit points. I won't get into the other arguments for now, but I'm just not buying the argument that they have no purpose. As a tool for pest control they're the best thing out there at the moment, largely because of the older restrictions.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{Having gun control laws does not mean you cant have weapons as legitimate tools. If you were a farmer here Dave you would have a right to have a fire arm for work purposes- they'd still do a background check on you, you'd have be trained in its use, and they would occasionally pop by unannounced to check when not in use it is securely stored as is the ammo (that bit could be a pain it the arse but its to stop other people nicking it and using it). Game keepers, deer cullers, grouse shooting estates and many other professionals are legally allowed to own firearms for purposes of work. }}

[Pettytyrant101]

{{Azriel- yes its exceptionally complicated when it comes to the mental health side of things. Why dos one child who grows up in a hostile abuse environment turn out to be the nicest person in the world (such as yourself) and yet another goes on to commit horrible acts?
From my own experience working with people with mental health and physical mental issues is that there is no such thing as sane and insane, there is just a big scale of grey, sane is probably somewhere in the middle, and most people fall somewhere round about it. But the lottery of genetics means some folk land further away on the scale than others, they have a different world (complicated by the fact most of the universe humans perceive is on the inside of their own heads where their response to it can be anything they create). }}}

[azriel]

Thankyou Petty, I'm trying to be at least a decent person but its not always easy. It IS easy to be selfish, blinkered & deaf dumb & blind to all around you. Its easy to have that " I'm alright Jack so sod you " attitude. The only other place that springs to mind is Africa for its gun ho attitude ? Oh hang on, there's also Serbia, I dunno. My neighbour thinks we don't have the gun problem here is because we have a Royal family. Maybe she has something there ? Does internal stability make a difference ?

[Pettytyrant101]

{{I think there is a great importance in terms of cohesiveness in symbols, and a great danger in them too.
I find little to distinguish when American crowds chant U. S. A over and over in a monotonous tone to Orwell's Party in 1984 chanting "B.B." over and over in a monotonous tone. Both send a chill up my spine. Though the ideals behind both might be opposite they share that sense of brainwashing into a single mob mentality- one mind in unison (ironic given the fear of 'reds under the bed' ).
Yet symbols are necessary, but I think they have to be used sparingly. I dont know if its true but folk I have spoken to who have visited America have commented on the fact there are US flags flying everywhere. Something you see a lot less of here except when an international match is on! Even our public buildings tend to be fairly modest in their flag use.
And unlike America we have no such weird thing as 'a pledge of allegiance' nor do we force our children to give such a pledge to their country.
I think a large part of that is Americas cultural diversity, its founding on immigration and slavery, and its sheer size. Its very hard I'd imagine to create a sense of one single nation across such a vast space and cultural and local differences and historic grievances- so a certain element of deliberate heavy-handed control methods are probably needed to create one- America tends to mythologize its history into useful icons that become part of the idea of what 'American' is. They treat their Constitution like its holy and call a bunch of 18th century squabbling politicians many of whom were of dubious morality 'Founding Fathers' (more shades of Big Brother!!)
Perhaps why the shift in culture is so difficult for America, it doesn't have the new icons yet to mythologize into part of what American is.

Royalty serves the same basic purpose here- its an idea. The Royals learned twice to use their position in times of crisis for stability. The first time they did it well, during WW2, staying in London for the Blitz and refusing to evacuate, standing with their people, turning up unexpectedly at bomb sites to help out, the Princes and Princess's all enlisting in one branch of service or another. And it worked.
We look to the Royals to voice our concerns back to us as nation- the voice of the British People (never her own though), when they do it well it helps heal divisions and creates a sense of national solidarity. A spoken sentiment in our name we can all generally agree on.
But as in the case of the death of Diana the backlash from doing the opposite can endanger the whole existence of a Monarchy. Its a powerful force.
In that case the Queen did not reflect back to the people their feelings ,grief and shock. She acted according to how she felt about and hat she felt should be the way to react to it. And the people revolted, at least in protest and voice.
It was only when the Queen not only returned back to physically see her people and to indulge them in simply expressing their feelings not her own that she regained favour with the public. And it helped national cohesion.
Even now, at Christmas there the most watched thing on UK TV on Xmas day was the Queens Speech. In every region of the UK. The Royal Family is probably the one cohesive, uniting symbol left in the UK.

I think at doing that- being a cypher for the people to voice their anxieties or fears or worries- the monarchy is a better figurehead than a President as they can be above politics, and even be seen to have to endure unpopular governments with their people which again helps keep things stable even under unpopular policies- most notably during parts of the Thatcher years. }}}

[Mrs Figg]

{{ You have mentioned it more than once I am sure and posted from a right wing rag playing up your Orwellian undertones theme-its nothing of the sort, it was devised and asked for not by the government but by a group made up of representatives from all the relevant agencies, looking into how to prevent some children who were being abused, or could have mental health issues, from falling through the cracks in the existing system. It followed as a response to cases here and in England when the signs were clear yet missed because all the relevant information was not known by any one person or department.



sorry didn't know that the Scottish Parent Teacher Council was a right wing rag. my mistake.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{Pretty sure you also put up quotes from either the Daily Mail or the Express - however it is the intention of the policy is to help detect and help vulnerable children not to snoop.}}

[Mrs Figg]

{{Pretty sure you also put up quotes from either the Daily Mail or the Express - however it is the intention of the policy is to help detect and help vulnerable children not to snoop.}}

is that why its being shelved? because it breaches human rights of parents?

[Pettytyrant101]

{{It hasnt been entirely shelved its been revised, its still in the manifesto. Its taking on board issues raised and trying to find ways to work through them that allows for a single body to have all the facts available to them (Privacy and who has access to a children data being the main stumbling block but also the main reason children fall through the crack sin the current system).
I personally have no issue with government policy being scrutinized, faults found with it and those being addressed, discussed and accommodated before it becomes law. That just tells me the democratic system I live in works. Better than Westminster where law is simply forced through with little to no scrutiny.}}}

[Mrs Figg]

Better than Westminster where law is simply forced through with little to no scrutiny.}}}

well I agree with you there.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ One of the good things about a PR system is it tends to return minority governments, so to get anything at all made into law, or a budget passed you have to get some consensus from the other parties.
One of the things that is to the SNP's credit is that when they spectacularly did find themselves with a majority they still did the consultation bit with other parties even though they had the votes to pass what they wanted without it. Now they are back to a minority (still way more than anyone else but not more than everyone else added together) so legislation gets a lot of scrutiny before it gets anywhere near the statute books.
Westminster really needs PR voting. }}

[bungobaggins]

Therefore it cannot simply be down to the social issues you throw up as a smoke screen to the real problems.

Pardon my smokescreen while we ignore troubled youth and I relinquish my second amendment rights.

Wait, if we hate Donald Drumpfhhhfhfh so much, why do we want him to take all the guns away? That will probably be when he starts setting up the concentration camps.

I guess I'll just sit here and nod like a mindless drone at all the liberal solutions.

[bungobaggins]

I thought this was interesting.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2018/02/15/reality-check-gun-permit-background-checks/

[Pettytyrant101]

{{If you can give an answer to why other western countries with exactly the same social issues, watching and listening to the same media, dont have this problem of regular mass shootings it might help explain why you think its down to changing social positions, and not say a lot of lethal guns easy to access and poor health coverage that fails to detect or help vulnerable people. }}}

[Bluebottle]

Liberal/conservative:

http://righteousmind.com/liberals-are-weirder-than-conservatives/

I myself would rather classify the idea that owning an AR15 as a fundamental right as hairbrained, or batshit crazy, than either liberal or conservative.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{As mentioned in the Jonathan Pie vid above I dont think America quite realizes that the rest of the world looks on in utter bewilderment at their gun laws (much as we do their health care) and just scratches its head in disbelief and horror. Presumably, as has been the form for every single shooting what will be done about it will be nothing at all. I fully expect Trump before his time out as President to be back at that podium offering useless prayers and thoughts yet again at another senseless waste of life before doing nothing about it yet again - except maybe give every member of staff in schools automatic weapons too and make the NRA and its associates shit loads more money off misery- yeah send your kids to schools that are more tooled up than an army camp, surrounded with barbed wire, CCTV everywhere, metal detectors, perimeter alarms, guard dogs, patrols- yeah, that doesn't make you look like a batshit crazy third world country at all!! }}}

[Bluebottle]

I think for its place and time, the constitutional right to bear arms makes a lot of sense. This was just after the war of independence and armed militias were central to the american victory against the English. At the Battle of Saratoga armed and ready local militias was decisive in the victory of the independence side.

Sadly, a constitutional conservatism to rival any in the world, and cultural views of weapons has lead people from teleological view of weapons to a wepaons for weapons sake culture.

[Mrs Figg]

How can it be right that parents worry that their kids will be murdered on a normal school day, worry each day if their kids will come back alive. Children should feel safe at school, they should feel that adults are protecting them, school should be a place where you feel happy and secure, not traumatized because some guy got expelled and they worry he will return to slaughter everyone.

[Mrs Figg]

{{ One of the good things about a PR system is it tends to return minority governments, so to get anything at all made into law, or a budget passed you have to get some consensus from the other parties.
One of the things that is to the SNP's credit is that when they spectacularly did find themselves with a majority they still did the consultation bit with other parties even though they had the votes to pass what they wanted without it. Now they are back to a minority (still way more than anyone else but not more than everyone else added together) so legislation gets a lot of scrutiny before it gets anywhere near the statute books.
Westminster really needs PR voting. }}

I have to say Petty that although I have the occasional pop at the SNP (which is part of my duty as a Sassenach ) I think Scottish people are pretty lucky not to be living under the Tory jackboot and have Sturgeon to stick up for you. If I still lived in England I would be enraged every day at the extent of the evil mess the Tories are turning England into, I read the papers and watch telly and every day there is some new scandal, incompetence or evil policy. I truly loathe the Tories with every fibre of my being, the way they treat the homeless and seem to have contempt for young people. It must be a relief to be far away from those cretins in Westminster. The day Corbyn wins the election will be a very happy day.

[azriel]

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/2/15/17016736/parkland-florida-shooting-trump-speech-australia

[David H]

OK I think you all know me well enough to know that I've lived my whole life within a culture that accepts firearms as completely normal, but also considers it a bit rude to talk about them or show them to people you don't know extremely well, any more than you'd talk about or show them what's in your pants. This makes this whole gun rights vs gun restriction discussion even more embarrassing for me than the whole #metoo discussion. I can hardly listen to the news anymore

I know that there are a lot of us in rural areas who are sick to death of all the 2nd amendment legal arguments by both the political left and the right that lead one way or another to nation-wide gun laws. Many here believe that this is something that's best regulated by individual states who can take into account the needs of each particular region. After all, that's what state governments are for! I'd personally be very pleased if both the ATF and the NRA would just mind their own business and let us mind ours.

[end of rant]

[Pettytyrant101]

{{I am curious Dave- would you have a problem living under Scottish gun laws- where as a farmer you would be allowed guns under license for your work. Whereas someone like me, who has no practical use or need of a lethal weapon would not be? }}

[David H]

I'd have no problem with that Petty....if I lived in Scotland and had a democratic process available to me to review the laws and update them from time to time as needed, which all laws need eventually.  

Our problem now as I see it is not the laws themselves. It's that the democratic process has been hijacked by big money on both sides (not unlike our national elections ) and the people who actually have to live with the consequences of the laws have been gradually squeezed out of the process.