Agree with most of that. It was Geezer's statement that "all" homophobia was rooted in religion with which I took exception.

 

Explain China's history of state sponsored homophobia.

 

Here you go

 

You can't be satisfied with that, Geezer. The west's influence upon China was so dramatic that it formed China's attitude towards homosexuals?! Nonsense! That's the opinion of one author and needs challenging. Why didn't China follow suit in the 60s and lift the lid on conservative attitudes toward sexuality like the west?

Homophobia would exist with or without 'religion'.

 

It is well documented that China was tolerant of homosexuality. What do you think was the driver?


The influence of Western (Christian) ideology and interference, especially in the 19th century transformed China. Do you honestly believe that over a thousand years of tolerance of homosexuality ending and the increased influence of the Christian west is pure coincidence?


Lots of ancient societies tolerated homosexuality and women were venerated, it was only the rise of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that reversed those positions on a large scale.

 

So despite Mao's revolutionaries going out of their way to ditch every other possible vestige of Western colonial influence they could think of, it had nothing at all to do with them being quite comfortable with the idea that the only part they clung on to was the homophobia? To paraphrase James's earlier reply, deep down you can't possibly believe that.

 

No, they became a 'communist' state. The old ways of Chinese culture were also swept away. What was left was obviously influenced by the more modern west as it certainly wasn't anything like what had gone before, they just rejected capitalism (ironically now returned and rebranded) and colonialism (also ironically which they have imposed on neighbours like Tibet).


Neither you nor James have offered an alternative mechanism by which homophobia became prevalent in a country where, for centuries, it was non existent. Attitudes certainly changed towards it after the West started to become more involved with China.

 

Just to add, I don't think that this should descend in to a discussion about the evils or not of religion, this thread is about gun control, after all.


The source of his issue is less important than his ability to get hold of weapons that can vent his internal conflicts, IMO.


One is easier to fix than the other

 

This is wilfully missing the point. The question here isn't how homophobia became widespread in China to begin with, it's how and why, particularly in view of the Maoist's extreme penchant for overturning everything else that was traditional, it became a core party doctrine. More than just about any political movement that came before it, Chinese communism was in a position to discard or retain individual elements of its host nation's prevailing culture on a whim, yet when it comes to homophobia, it chose to embrace it with remarkable enthusiasm. To claim as you're doing here that this happened as a mere accident of history flies in the face of the most basic common sense. At the very least, they hung onto it because they couldn't think of a good reason not to, but far more likely they did so because they actively believed it would serve their agenda.

 

Agreed, barring the sort of medical advances that scientists have scarcely even begun to dream of, there will always be a small minority of nutjobs in the world who want to lash out violently against it. Limiting their access to the tools that allow them to do that should be the priority.

 

Firearms are an extremely convenient way to cause mayhem for those so inclined. In their absence the 'nutjobs' simply revert to alternative methods such as knives, swords, axes, baseball bats etc. to wreak their havoc.

Controlling firearms only inconveniences the sane and law abiding citizen, whilst having little effect on madmen or criminals, who by definition tend to ignore laws.

 

Is he actually insane - I don't think so

he also had a knife as a back up !

 

I think it was President Obama who made the point a little while ago that it's actually easier for authorities in the US to have someone put on a no-fly list than to stop them from buying an AR15 and ammo. While I won't pretend that going to the same extremes of gun-control as in the UK would be the answer, I don't accept that things can carry on as they are in the US for much longer either.

 

If you think he would have killed 49 people with a knife (and he actually shot 103 overall), then you are seriously deluded.


The general public do not need firearms, and they certainly don't need assault rifles.

 

I'm not deluded, just pointing out the obvious that firearms are not the only means for causing harm, also that gun controls only control the law abiding, not the criminal. Even in the UK, where gun controls are among the toughest in the world, criminals still kill with guns. I'm certain their weapons are not licensed.

 

I'm not deluded, just pointing out the obvious that firearms are not the only means for causing harm, also that gun controls only control the law abiding, not the criminal. Even in the UK, where gun controls are among the toughest in the world, criminals still kill with guns. It's certain their weapons are not licensed.

 

All valid points of fact when weighed up in very basic terms, but for the most part only marginally relevant so far as any discussion of random mass-shootings like Orlando or Newtown is concerned. While it's true that if firearms regulations were stricter. the same random nutters could resort to some alternative non-regulated weapon, it's extremely unlikely they'd be able to slay dozens of people at a time if they had to use a kitchen knife, samurai sword or even a handgun, instead of a semi-auto rifle with high-capacity magazine. Likewise, while it might be true that professional criminals wouldn't be deterred from obtaining semi-autos by illegal means if they were regulated, preventing their open sale in legitimate gun-stores up and down the country would at least make it far less likely that the mentally ill or lone-wolf extremists with a grudge got hold of them and slaughtered innocent members of the public by the dozen. Finally, although it's true that criminals in the UK still obtain and use guns, it's a documented fact that they do so primarily against other criminals, or as a tool of threat rather than one of mass-murder. You have to remember here that all but the tiniest minority of criminals are motivated by financial gain, something which is very unliikely to be achieved by making the news headlines with random mass-shootings.

 

It was remarked after the Dunblane massacre (an event that finally persuaded the UK up to simply ban all firearms)

That one of the reasons Thomas Hamiltion was able to carry out the shooting of so many little boys and girls (and teachers) over such an extended time, using so many bullets was the fact that the legally held guns he used were kept so well

Meticulously cleaned and maintained, all used at legal gun clubs etc, however the thought is that illegal firearms rarely are

They are kept in sub optimal conditions, often not maintained well, never fired accept when used in a crime - and hence unlikely to perform so well

 

The UK didn't ban all firearms, only handguns. It's a notable fact that whenever firearms have been strictly regulated (where no such regulation previousy existed) firearms' homicides tend to rise, sometimes dramatically. In the years following the handgun ban firearms homicide rates in the UK doubled.
Firearms, particularly military firearms, function perfectly well with minimum maintenance. This is a requirement. The limiting factor for firearms users is training or rather the lack of it.

 

Sure, presumably most other recreational firearms (other than hunting) were banned after Hungerford

Source?

 

Conversely though, in the years following the 1994 US assault rifle ban (which expired in 2004), both firearms deaths and non-fatal firearms injuries dropped by a significant amount (21.1% for the former, 40.5% for the latter):
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4845a1.htm

I suppose it comes down to how you define 'strictly regulated'.

 

No, just handguns were banned. Not sure what you mean by 'recreational firearms', but neither shotguns nor rifles where banned regardless of their purpose.

Crime Prevention Research Centre. Only in 2010 was the firearms homicide rate lower than in 1997 when the handgun ban came in.

 

The reference to Hungerford was because

"A report was commissioned by the Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was passed in the wake of the massacre, which bans the ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and restricts the use of shotguns with a capacity of more than three cartridges."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre

So most mass killing weapons had already been banned because of a previous mass killing

 

Also the "crime prevention research centre" seems to be some bat **** conspiracy "think tank" promoting gun ownership

Please provide an actual link so I can verify your source

thanks

 

Now you've jumped back to Hungerford from Dunblane, and another example of knee jerk legislation getting it wrong. The legislators intended to limit pump and semi auto shotguns to two shots only, but messed it up by limiting them to two rounds in the magazine, completely overlooking the round in the chamber. And without putting too fine a point on it, one of these in the wrong hands is very much a mass killing weapon.

Semi-automatic pistols and revolvers weren't banned until 1997, nor were bolt action rifles which are still legal. And the poor MP who was just murdered shows that legislation only limits the actions of the sane and law abiding.

 

I jumped from Hungerford to Dunblane to demonstrate that the ultimate ban on mass killing weapons was culmative

Anyway please provide the link/source as requested

Thanks

 

There are plenty if you look, I'm sure you can find some to assuage your bat **** conspiracy fears

 

Sure

Just a link though

Thanks

 

If you're like me, you can own a semi-automatic shotgun here in the UK on a Firearms certificate, NOT a shotgun certificate for bird control (crows, pigeons etc), if the Police Firearms agree with your reasoning and purpose. I own a Browning 5-shot 12 gauge semi-auto shotgun but could have bought a 12-shot..... People say the UK gun laws are really tough but in my experience I haven't had really any issue in obtaining something. I guess they potentially view farmers differently?

The only thing they REALLY don't like is a semi-automatic pistol and if you require one they will try to make you accept a revolver.

 

maybe they take heritage into consideration