FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Guns dont kill, people do.
Guns dont kill, people do.
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"With the latest mass murder in the usa this month, it happens everyday, but not all get reported, is it time for a tigher gun law? There is a gun for every person there, you can argue that a sane person dont reach for a gun, what is your view?" In the words of Charlton Heston, "out of my cold dead hands" or something like that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The USA is the one country that suffers this problem. Just this year, the rate of mass shootings there is more than one per day. 27 years ago, someone went on the rampage at a school in Scotland. In response, our government radically reformed UK gun laws. Do you know how many mass shootings we've had since? NONE" An incel shot his mother and 4 was it other people recently in Britian | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The USA is the one country that suffers this problem. Just this year, the rate of mass shootings there is more than one per day. 27 years ago, someone went on the rampage at a school in Scotland. In response, our government radically reformed UK gun laws. Do you know how many mass shootings we've had since? NONE" Plymouth 2021...six dead two wounded. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think its just to easy in America to obtain a gun, I believe you just have to prove your identity,, I this country you have to get a letter from your gp, but even here things go wrong, " You can buy them at Walmart, that's really fucked up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The USA is the one country that suffers this problem. Just this year, the rate of mass shootings there is more than one per day. 27 years ago, someone went on the rampage at a school in Scotland. In response, our government radically reformed UK gun laws. Do you know how many mass shootings we've had since? NONE Plymouth 2021...six dead two wounded." there has been 7 mass shootings, quite shocking | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The USA is the one country that suffers this problem. Just this year, the rate of mass shootings there is more than one per day. 27 years ago, someone went on the rampage at a school in Scotland. In response, our government radically reformed UK gun laws. Do you know how many mass shootings we've had since? NONE An incel shot his mother and 4 was it other people recently in Britian " Yeah there have been mass shootings since. Cumbria 2010 13 dead Horden 2012 4 dead Forest Gate and Manchester 2016 and 2018, none dead but many injured Plymouth as you said, 6 killed in 2021 Wallasey 2022 1 killed. A vast difference compared to the numbers coming out of America on a daily basis so one may well argue the gun laws brought in after dunblane have had some effect | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The USA is the one country that suffers this problem. Just this year, the rate of mass shootings there is more than one per day. 27 years ago, someone went on the rampage at a school in Scotland. In response, our government radically reformed UK gun laws. Do you know how many mass shootings we've had since? NONE" there have been mass shootings since and some of those have been with legally held firearms like in Plymouth recently. Also, the headteacher who was killed by her husband was killed with a legally held firearm. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve always been anti guns. I’ve also always been anti violence. However, if you take all the guns away from the legal users and holders then you create huge demand on the black market. The only real answer is to physically destroy every single gun on the planet which is of course impossible. The sheer volume of people who die from mass shootings, mentally ill people with guns, cops with itchy trigger fingers and the like is absolutely soul destroying. I don’t know what the answer is but I find it sad how many people think their right to bear arms is greater than so many children’s right to life "Yes, you are right there as well as taking it away would create a huge black market for it, it is a tricky one to know what to do about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve always been anti guns. I’ve also always been anti violence. However, if you take all the guns away from the legal users and holders then you create huge demand on the black market. The only real answer is to physically destroy every single gun on the planet which is of course impossible. The sheer volume of people who die from mass shootings, mentally ill people with guns, cops with itchy trigger fingers and the like is absolutely soul destroying. I don’t know what the answer is but I find it sad how many people think their right to bear arms is greater than so many children’s right to life Yes, you are right there as well as taking it away would create a huge black market for it, it is a tricky one to know what to do about it."I would target the ammunition make it really, really expensive and hard to obtain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
I remember my teacher having someone come into our class and whisper into his ear before he made a sharp exit. Turns out his nephew was in class at Dunblane but thankfully not one of those hurt. I remember that like yesterday.
The UK did the right thing after that act. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The USA is the one country that suffers this problem. Just this year, the rate of mass shootings there is more than one per day. 27 years ago, someone went on the rampage at a school in Scotland. In response, our government radically reformed UK gun laws. Do you know how many mass shootings we've had since? NONE" Whitehaven, Cumbria? Keyham, Plymouth? Epsom, Surrey (arguably not mass. Father shoots wife, daughter and self), like Highmoor Cross and Shropshire-family shootings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think its just to easy in America to obtain a gun, I believe you just have to prove your identity,, I this country you have to get a letter from your gp, but even here things go wrong, " Initial vetting is reasonable, but not foolproof. Then, certificate holders are left to their own devices with 5 yearly checks that include GP report, referees and background checks. A lot can happen in 5 years of a person's life.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder if the nra could be part of the problem?"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All guns unless you have good reason to be kept ar licenced clubs/venues supervised by the police (for which as the owner you pay for the privilege). Only to be checked out to be used at a range and checked back in post event. Keeps the hobby and much tighter control." Is what it should be imho E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The USA is the one country that suffers this problem. Just this year, the rate of mass shootings there is more than one per day. 27 years ago, someone went on the rampage at a school in Scotland. In response, our government radically reformed UK gun laws. Do you know how many mass shootings we've had since? NONE" This does speak to the heart of it. Has to be the desire to change it. America has become desensitized to mass shootings. The UK acted swiftly fuelled by the nationwide horror at what took place. Too significant a proportion of US citizens have an apathy to it for it to change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder if the nra could be part of the problem?" When Charlton Heston made the cold dead hand comment he was the spokesmen for the NRA at the time so they could well be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Americans have the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the constitution. The only thing that's changed...especially over the past 30+ years is the shocking decline in mental health in general amongst the population. Add to this the enormous rise in drug addiction and you will have more incidents like these. Social media doesn't help as it can encourage unstable people to emulate this behaviour. Society as well has changed, being far less homogeneous than before. All these factors contribute. How many mass shootings would occur in the 1950's, 60's, 70's or even 80's? Virtually none." I see this thing about the right to bear arms...but so many people miss off the next bit....as part of a well organised militia... Pretty sure the founding fathers didn't envisage 16 year olds buying assault rifles from Walmart. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My view is that yes it's the person with the gun that does the killing but if you don't make that gun easily available to them then they can't use it. It's quite hard to get a gun in the UK without going black market and most of those are intercepted and that's why we don't see mass shootings in the UK often. " Exactly this. General point - Yes, the firearms act was amended in 1997 but that was only a consolidation of the main 1968 act and some others, plus a few minor additions. We have a much older legislative machine than USA and engrained within that is a culture in which people (mostly) view firearms as not for popular use. Are they still available? Yes. Do people still kill with them? Yes. But do we generally maintain tight and proper control of purchase, ownership, possession and use? Yes. I also wouldn’t mind betting that, as a country, we would be very quick to support a review and e action of stringent legislation if we ended up going down the same road as the USA. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My view is that yes it's the person with the gun that does the killing but if you don't make that gun easily available to them then they can't use it. It's quite hard to get a gun in the UK without going black market and most of those are intercepted and that's why we don't see mass shootings in the UK often. Exactly this. General point - Yes, the firearms act was amended in 1997 but that was only a consolidation of the main 1968 act and some others, plus a few minor additions. We have a much older legislative machine than USA and engrained within that is a culture in which people (mostly) view firearms as not for popular use. Are they still available? Yes. Do people still kill with them? Yes. But do we generally maintain tight and proper control of purchase, ownership, possession and use? Yes. I also wouldn’t mind betting that, as a country, we would be very quick to support a review and e action of stringent legislation if we ended up going down the same road as the USA." I really hope we never go down the same route of being able to buy guns with your fruit and veg. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Americans have the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the constitution. The only thing that's changed...especially over the past 30+ years is the shocking decline in mental health in general amongst the population. Add to this the enormous rise in drug addiction and you will have more incidents like these. Social media doesn't help as it can encourage unstable people to emulate this behaviour. Society as well has changed, being far less homogeneous than before. All these factors contribute. How many mass shootings would occur in the 1950's, 60's, 70's or even 80's? Virtually none." Much lower than now, apparently the rate has tripled since @2010. It seems to have become an accepted outlet for grievances.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'd be less worried about what's going on in the States and concentrate more on the number of stabbings in this country. We need to get our own house in order." Ban pointy objects? Obviously not, so the answer lies elsewhere, but where? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Atleast in this country you can't walk into a gun shop and find or easily buy the kind of weapons which you can easily get your hands on in the USA. Here you can't buy a gun over 12 pounds of pressure and I think it's less power for hand guns. If you want something like a 12bore shotgun you need to apply for a licence and anyone with a criminal record is not going to get one. I guess the same would apply if someone has mental issues. " And a shotgun is nothing compared to what you can get your hands on in America. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When we reach a point where every mass or school shooting leads the gun lobby to demand *more* guns and to even arm the gun lobby then we have reached the point of insanity." I think it's just capitalism at play, but without any checks of logic or sanity. Have a problem? Buy our shit. Not working? Buy more shit. Still not working? Ah, you need the deluxe extra shit, and weekly packages. Maybe there are solutions that involve not buying things, and we should value our hearts over our wallets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The USA is the one country that suffers this problem. Just this year, the rate of mass shootings there is more than one per day. 27 years ago, someone went on the rampage at a school in Scotland. In response, our government radically reformed UK gun laws. Do you know how many mass shootings we've had since? NONE An incel shot his mother and 4 was it other people recently in Britian Yeah there have been mass shootings since. Cumbria 2010 13 dead Horden 2012 4 dead Forest Gate and Manchester 2016 and 2018, none dead but many injured Plymouth as you said, 6 killed in 2021 Wallasey 2022 1 killed. A vast difference compared to the numbers coming out of America on a daily basis so one may well argue the gun laws brought in after dunblane have had some effect " OK. But none in schools | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
That should tell you how much logic is involved in the debate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'd be less worried about what's going on in the States and concentrate more on the number of stabbings in this country. We need to get our own house in order. Ban pointy objects? Obviously not, so the answer lies elsewhere, but where?" I wish I had the answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"human beings love violent things. from the beginning of time rocks have been thrown, bows and arrows fired. as a child i had a toy gun and would think nothing of running around firing this cap gun pretending to shoot people. we all lust and enjoy watching violence. the big selling video games involve crime or shooting each other. the biggest sports like UFC involve beating the crap out of each other while we all cheer and shout with delight at a kick or heavy punch connecting. You have women more and more getting into power slap and bare knuckle boxer and after fights look hugely disfigured and cut to ribbons. the highest grossing movies are violent sometimes in the extreme. most of the subscriptions services promote violent tv series because it brings in money. Kids and young adults are drawn into gang culture and we see guns, drugs and sex acts in music and videos. drill music is mostly gangs calling each other out for a fight. We love violence and companies go with the money. Violence sells. people have a problem with this and thats fine. people will always be shot, stabbed, hurt and die from it. the true failing is the lack of family values and caring for children better so we encourage them to respect one another and not act in a way that ruins others lives. being a parent is hardwork but there are so many broken families now its no wonder kids that have no idea who to trust, believe in and respect. they feel unloved and find that love in a gang. and what does a gang do. gives them a gun. it starts from when they are born but no one wants to take responsibility just point the finger when the trigger is pulled. have a good day everyone "Absolutely spot on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Atleast in this country you can't walk into a gun shop and find or easily buy the kind of weapons which you can easily get your hands on in the USA. Here you can't buy a gun over 12 pounds of pressure and I think it's less power for hand guns. If you want something like a 12bore shotgun you need to apply for a licence and anyone with a criminal record is not going to get one. I guess the same would apply if someone has mental issues. And a shotgun is nothing compared to what you can get your hands on in America." As regards air "weapons", you can buy, without any form of licencing, an air rifle up to 12 ft/lb pressure (up to 6 ft/lb pressure for an air pistol). Anything over those limits require an FAC (Firearms Certificate......commonly known as a Part 1). Not quite true as regards criminal records and applying for a SGC (Shotgun Certificate). If your record is for things like a one off speeding offence, then you'd probably be OK, but multiple &/or very recent offences may count against you. Drugs/Alcohol/Violence offences will definitely count against. Applications, including renewals, now require GP's to put a marker on your medical records that you are a SGC/FAC holder. The Police have the right to contact GP's to establish your mental state (or any other reason why you should not have guns), and GP's must advise the Police accordingly should they consider you unfit. Currently, you have to prove (to the Police) that you have a good reason for a FAC (permission on certain land etc). Conversely, the Police have to prove good reason why you should not have a SGC (although, there are moves afoot to bring SGC's in line with FAC's) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The vast majority of hand gun deaths in the US are people using them on themselves. Many that support gun ownership also believe drag queen story hour is dangerous to children
That should tell you how much logic is involved in the debate. "There's a non trivial number of toddlers shooting themselves because their idiot parents don't store their guns properly. My suspicion is that these groups would be more against trans people reading stories than poorly stored weapons, too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The vast majority of hand gun deaths in the US are people using them on themselves. Many that support gun ownership also believe drag queen story hour is dangerous to children
That should tell you how much logic is involved in the debate.
There's a non trivial number of toddlers shooting themselves because their idiot parents don't store their guns properly.
My suspicion is that these groups would be more against trans people reading stories than poorly stored weapons, too."No question. These people aren't thinking rationally, that's why a man in drag scares them more than a good. They're fucking idiots. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The vast majority of hand gun deaths in the US are people using them on themselves. Many that support gun ownership also believe drag queen story hour is dangerous to children
That should tell you how much logic is involved in the debate.
There's a non trivial number of toddlers shooting themselves because their idiot parents don't store their guns properly.
My suspicion is that these groups would be more against trans people reading stories than poorly stored weapons, too.
No question.
These people aren't thinking rationally, that's why a man in drag scares them more than a good.
They're fucking idiots. "*Than a gun lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will never understand American’s obsession with guns " My suspicion is that it's part of their founding myths and thus cultural identity. Something every country has in one form or another. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will never understand American’s obsession with guns My suspicion is that it's part of their founding myths and thus cultural identity. Something every country has in one form or another." Yeah you’re probably right, just seeing the family photos where everyone including children are holding automatic weapons seems so odd to me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will never understand American’s obsession with guns My suspicion is that it's part of their founding myths and thus cultural identity. Something every country has in one form or another. Yeah you’re probably right, just seeing the family photos where everyone including children are holding automatic weapons seems so odd to me " Yeah. I don't get it either. In some ways I can shrug and say "not my culture". But I feel that way about... I dunno, Halloween. Halloween is a bit less harmful than guns. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Atleast in this country you can't walk into a gun shop and find or easily buy the kind of weapons which you can easily get your hands on in the USA. Here you can't buy a gun over 12 pounds of pressure and I think it's less power for hand guns. If you want something like a 12bore shotgun you need to apply for a licence and anyone with a criminal record is not going to get one. I guess the same would apply if someone has mental issues. And a shotgun is nothing compared to what you can get your hands on in America. As regards air "weapons", you can buy, without any form of licencing, an air rifle up to 12 ft/lb pressure (up to 6 ft/lb pressure for an air pistol). Anything over those limits require an FAC (Firearms Certificate......commonly known as a Part 1). Not quite true as regards criminal records and applying for a SGC (Shotgun Certificate). If your record is for things like a one off speeding offence, then you'd probably be OK, but multiple &/or very recent offences may count against you. Drugs/Alcohol/Violence offences will definitely count against. Applications, including renewals, now require GP's to put a marker on your medical records that you are a SGC/FAC holder. The Police have the right to contact GP's to establish your mental state (or any other reason why you should not have guns), and GP's must advise the Police accordingly should they consider you unfit. Currently, you have to prove (to the Police) that you have a good reason for a FAC (permission on certain land etc). Conversely, the Police have to prove good reason why you should not have a SGC (although, there are moves afoot to bring SGC's in line with FAC's) " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 what were they expecting to do? Shoot the virus and blow then sons of birches back to China | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not a gun control problem, it’s a cultural problem. These shootings are about people who aren’t taught the value of life. Any gun in the hands of decent person is no threat to anybody except bad people." If someone who didn't value life only had a kitchen knife, they'd kill a lot less people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The USA is the one country that suffers this problem. Just this year, the rate of mass shootings there is more than one per day. 27 years ago, someone went on the rampage at a school in Scotland. In response, our government radically reformed UK gun laws. Do you know how many mass shootings we've had since? NONE" About a year ago seven year old girl was shot in her home by an armed intruder chasing another intruder. He's pleading not guilty in the trial that's still ongoing. I hope someday his fellow inmates mash his genitals to a pulp. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will never understand American’s obsession with guns " It came from John Waynes hip | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The USA is the one country that suffers this problem. Just this year, the rate of mass shootings there is more than one per day. 27 years ago, someone went on the rampage at a school in Scotland. In response, our government radically reformed UK gun laws. Do you know how many mass shootings we've had since? NONE About a year ago seven year old girl was shot in her home by an armed intruder chasing another intruder. He's pleading not guilty in the trial that's still ongoing. I hope someday his fellow inmates mash his genitals to a pulp. " And someone killed 5 people and injured 2 others before killing himself in Plymouth a couple of years ago | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'd be less worried about what's going on in the States and concentrate more on the number of stabbings in this country. We need to get our own house in order." Whenever I've had a discussion on gun deaths with Americans they always respond with a comment on knife crime in the UK. Then I point them to statistics showing that the US also has higher knife crime and death statistics per capita than the UK. On top of the gun stats. They generally then start talking about acid and terrorist truck attacks. The deflection is strong........ 
A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I'd be less worried about what's going on in the States and concentrate more on the number of stabbings in this country. We need to get our own house in order. Whenever I've had a discussion on gun deaths with Americans they always respond with a comment on knife crime in the UK. Then I point them to statistics showing that the US also has higher knife crime and death statistics per capita than the UK. On top of the gun stats. They generally then start talking about acid and terrorist truck attacks. The deflection is strong........
A"Yeah. Does the UK have problems? Sure. Every country does Does bringing up the UK's problems in a discussion about America's problems make America's problems any better? No. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We own multiple guns pistols rifles shotguns ect..some are generational heirlooms some recently purchased. My husband and I went through all the background checks and are guns are safely secured. We go to the range constantly as lawful citizens. Millions of others do the same." 3% of the population own half of all guns in America according to a 2016 study. That's pretty scary given the rationale often given is that they're for personal safety. A gun is also st*len every 90 seconds, equating to around 380,000 a year. When people talk about illegal guns what they really mean is guns bought perfectly legally going missing. Background checks are only done on the original purchaser of course. Maybe stiff sentences and a ban on any future possession for those 'losing' their guns would help? A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
If they did their jobs that they're paid to do properly, incidents of misuse might be even rarer! Having said that, it's nothing compared to what the USA suffers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We own multiple guns pistols rifles shotguns ect..some are generational heirlooms some recently purchased. My husband and I went through all the background checks and are guns are safely secured. We go to the range constantly as lawful citizens. Millions of others do the same. 3% of the population own half of all guns in America according to a 2016 study. That's pretty scary given the rationale often given is that they're for personal safety. A gun is also st*len every 90 seconds, equating to around 380,000 a year. When people talk about illegal guns what they really mean is guns bought perfectly legally going missing. Background checks are only done on the original purchaser of course. Maybe stiff sentences and a ban on any future possession for those 'losing' their guns would help? A" If there are less available guns to buy, there are less to take. You'd think that would be logical. Yes then most would be illegal, but that would decline over time (a long time, granted) as supply runs out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The comedian Jim Jefferies has a superb stance on gun control. Not gun banning, control. We can't foresee every eventuality so yes, even with the strict gun control we have in this country, people can slip through the net. Getting to legally own a gun in the UK is a very strict and lengthy process and guns are used for recreation and work so we can't restrict their use to ranges if farmers need them etc. In this country we have limited as much as possible the consequences of legal guns in the wrong hands - very difficult to conceal a pistol, no semi automatic firers above certain calibres etc. In America, different story. The right to bear arms was written when a musket took 15 seconds to reload. Now civilians can buy weapons that are virtually military spec. As Jim Jefferies says better than I, the right to bear arms to defend your family stretches credibility when Billy Bob of Texas can buy a rifle that can potentially shoot someone a mile away....how can they threaten your home at that range!! The USA needs better controls to deal with the issue of mass shootings that is all too foreseeable." There is a constitutional problem which isn’t so much about protect the home as the populace should be able to be militia against federal government if it was needed. This is the legal basis the NRA falls back on over and over again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After yesterday’s thread ( another school shooting… please read.. it’s on page 2) I said to myself I would do this again… After someone was being flippant in that thread I lost it….. so i described exactly what happened when my school, Michigan State University, went through this 6 weeks ago… and just exactly how helpless you actually feel! And after that succession of posts... Not one person made any comment to what I wrote!!! Maybe it was too raw…… maybe because I made it so real…. Maybe because it put people in the schools of someone else, and think oh my god! I won’t do it again… fruitless exercise! So what I will say is this…. The 2nd amendment gives people the right to bear arms…. It doesn’t give people the right to bear ANY arms they wish! It doesn’t give you the right to have as many as you want So maybe there is your start… common sense or controversial are apparently 2 sides of the same coin! You want a handgun to protect yourself in your home… I actually don’t see that as unreasonable Do you need it outside… really… not if anyone doesn’t! Do you need 30 bullets in a magazine when 6-10 should do the same job? If you hunt… then have a riffle…. But the only purpose served by a military style AR is to kill people If you need one of them to hunt, stick to fishing! Banning all guns went with sandy hook! The problem is common sense because controversial when lobbying groups throw money at politicians! " Interesting read thank you for sharing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder if the nra could be part of the problem?" https://youtu.be/6imFvSua3Kg Obama on gun control. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Atleast in this country you can't walk into a gun shop and find or easily buy the kind of weapons which you can easily get your hands on in the USA. Here you can't buy a gun over 12 pounds of pressure and I think it's less power for hand guns. If you want something like a 12bore shotgun you need to apply for a licence and anyone with a criminal record is not going to get one. I guess the same would apply if someone has mental issues. " For me it is scarey that you can get a .50 caliber sniper rifle, with one of those things you can be a mile away and still kill someone. They can shoot through walls, vehicles, etc. The shooter can hit a person, then scoot before anyone reacts to them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dunblane, and Plymouth (to name but two) both occurred due to failings of the Firearms Enquiries system. At Dunblane, the FEO (Firearms Enquiries Officer) recommended that Hamilton's FAC (Firearms Certificate) should not be renewed, and his handguns be confiscated accordingly. Sadly, his superior (who was subsequently promoted!) overruled it! At one of my SGC (Shotgun Certificate) renewals, the FEO asked me if I wanted a FAC. When I said I had no reason or need for one, she (who had told me that she was only doing the job for a couple of years so she could retire early) said "if you change your mind, just shoot a target card with your air rifle and I'll grant you one"! Obviously I didn't, but you'd have thought the aim would have been to reduce the number of Firearms, not increase, where possible. Incidentally, the Police would normally carry out an inspection of your security at renewal, I still haven't had a visit in the 5 years since I moved here, not even at renewal 2 years ago! I even offered to send them photos of my cabinet in situ.....not necessary apparently
If they did their jobs that they're paid to do properly, incidents of misuse might be even rarer! Having said that, it's nothing compared to what the USA suffers. "They're too busy concentrating on the criminal motorists after all theirs money to be made | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Americans have the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the constitution. The only thing that's changed...especially over the past 30+ years is the shocking decline in mental health in general amongst the population. Add to this the enormous rise in drug addiction and you will have more incidents like these. Social media doesn't help as it can encourage unstable people to emulate this behaviour. Society as well has changed, being far less homogeneous than before. All these factors contribute. How many mass shootings would occur in the 1950's, 60's, 70's or even 80's? Virtually none. I see this thing about the right to bear arms...but so many people miss off the next bit....as part of a well organised militia... Pretty sure the founding fathers didn't envisage 16 year olds buying assault rifles from Walmart. " Also, the arms in question were things like muskets, not semi automatic weapons, so should the Second Amendment still stand? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, the arms in question were things like muskets, not semi automatic weapons, so should the Second Amendment still stand?" The idea that the constitution is a sacred document that should never be updated is puzzling when that idea is used to defend something literally termed an 'amendment.' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Americans have the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the constitution. The only thing that's changed...especially over the past 30+ years is the shocking decline in mental health in general amongst the population. Add to this the enormous rise in drug addiction and you will have more incidents like these. Social media doesn't help as it can encourage unstable people to emulate this behaviour. Society as well has changed, being far less homogeneous than before. All these factors contribute. How many mass shootings would occur in the 1950's, 60's, 70's or even 80's? Virtually none. I see this thing about the right to bear arms...but so many people miss off the next bit....as part of a well organised militia... Pretty sure the founding fathers didn't envisage 16 year olds buying assault rifles from Walmart. Also, the arms in question were things like muskets, not semi automatic weapons, so should the Second Amendment still stand?" The principle is what's important, not details such as weapon specs. You cannot understand the concept completely without having grown up in traditional American culture. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The principle is what's important, not details such as weapon specs." Well, ain't that convenient? "You cannot understand the concept completely without having grown up in traditional American culture." I wonder if the opposite might be true. After all, does a fish ever understand water completely? Saying that, millions of US Americans want more gun control, so the point clearly doesn't stand up to scrutiny. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Atleast in this country you can't walk into a gun shop and find or easily buy the kind of weapons which you can easily get your hands on in the USA. Here you can't buy a gun over 12 pounds of pressure and I think it's less power for hand guns. If you want something like a 12bore shotgun you need to apply for a licence and anyone with a criminal record is not going to get one. I guess the same would apply if someone has mental issues. And a shotgun is nothing compared to what you can get your hands on in America. As regards air "weapons", you can buy, without any form of licencing, an air rifle up to 12 ft/lb pressure (up to 6 ft/lb pressure for an air pistol). Anything over those limits require an FAC (Firearms Certificate......commonly known as a Part 1). Not quite true as regards criminal records and applying for a SGC (Shotgun Certificate). If your record is for things like a one off speeding offence, then you'd probably be OK, but multiple &/or very recent offences may count against you. Drugs/Alcohol/Violence offences will definitely count against. Applications, including renewals, now require GP's to put a marker on your medical records that you are a SGC/FAC holder. The Police have the right to contact GP's to establish your mental state (or any other reason why you should not have guns), and GP's must advise the Police accordingly should they consider you unfit. Currently, you have to prove (to the Police) that you have a good reason for a FAC (permission on certain land etc). Conversely, the Police have to prove good reason why you should not have a SGC (although, there are moves afoot to bring SGC's in line with FAC's) " Spot on, uk has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world, it’s also worth pointing out that Plymouth and dunblane were police failings, the incel has his SGC revoked for threatening behaviour only to wrongly be given it back by the fire arms officer Unfortunately it’s like driving a car while d*unk it’s a weapon in the wrong hands | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We own multiple guns pistols rifles shotguns ect..some are generational heirlooms some recently purchased. My husband and I went through all the background checks and are guns are safely secured. We go to the range constantly as lawful citizens. Millions of others do the same." And you need to own these …… Because???? Planning on starting your own personal army… ?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We own multiple guns pistols rifles shotguns ect..some are generational heirlooms some recently purchased. My husband and I went through all the background checks and are guns are safely secured. We go to the range constantly as lawful citizens. Millions of others do the same." Cool. Is that instead of viagra? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The principle is what's important, not details such as weapon specs. Well, ain't that convenient? You cannot understand the concept completely without having grown up in traditional American culture. I wonder if the opposite might be true. After all, does a fish ever understand water completely? Saying that, millions of US Americans want more gun control, so the point clearly doesn't stand up to scrutiny. " And yet, it hasn't happened. Why? Because they continue to be in the minority. And American culture has been strongly shaped by the concept of firearm ownership. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We own multiple guns pistols rifles shotguns ect..some are generational heirlooms some recently purchased. My husband and I went through all the background checks and are guns are safely secured. We go to the range constantly as lawful citizens. Millions of others do the same. Cool. Is that instead of viagra? "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The principle is what's important, not details such as weapon specs. Well, ain't that convenient? You cannot understand the concept completely without having grown up in traditional American culture. I wonder if the opposite might be true. After all, does a fish ever understand water completely? Saying that, millions of US Americans want more gun control, so the point clearly doesn't stand up to scrutiny. And yet, it hasn't happened. Why? Because they continue to be in the minority. And American culture has been strongly shaped by the concept of firearm ownership." The minority is not that small any more - at least not for tighter controls. Unfortunately, the NRA and other interested parties have an undue influence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We own multiple guns pistols rifles shotguns ect..some are generational heirlooms some recently purchased. My husband and I went through all the background checks and are guns are safely secured. We go to the range constantly as lawful citizens. Millions of others do the same. Cool. Is that instead of viagra? " Shocking that this is actually considered an acceptable response to another user on Fab. Yes we get it, you're anti-gun. But what are you trying to imply with your comment and utterly irrelevant snipe about viagra, gun ownership is compensation for small dick syndrome/emasculation from being unable to get hard? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, the arms in question were things like muskets, not semi automatic weapons, so should the Second Amendment still stand? The idea that the constitution is a sacred document that should never be updated is puzzling when that idea is used to defend something literally termed an 'amendment.' " Indeed. Also fuck sacred documents. The Australian constitution used to hold that indigenous Australians were animals under federal law. I believe the Australian constitution is harder to change than the American - requires a set majority (not a simple majority) in a referendum. Voting is compulsory (yeah yeah that's tyrannical I get it whatever). Fortunately Australia got their shit together. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We own multiple guns pistols rifles shotguns ect..some are generational heirlooms some recently purchased. My husband and I went through all the background checks and are guns are safely secured. We go to the range constantly as lawful citizens. Millions of others do the same. Cool. Is that instead of viagra? Shocking that this is actually considered an acceptable response to another user on Fab. Yes we get it, you're anti-gun. But what are you trying to imply with your comment and utterly irrelevant snipe about viagra, gun ownership is compensation for small dick syndrome/emasculation from being unable to get hard? " Indeed. Very mature..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The comedian Jim Jefferies has a superb stance on gun control. Not gun banning, control. We can't foresee every eventuality so yes, even with the strict gun control we have in this country, people can slip through the net. Getting to legally own a gun in the UK is a very strict and lengthy process and guns are used for recreation and work so we can't restrict their use to ranges if farmers need them etc. In this country we have limited as much as possible the consequences of legal guns in the wrong hands - very difficult to conceal a pistol, no semi automatic firers above certain calibres etc. In America, different story. The right to bear arms was written when a musket took 15 seconds to reload. Now civilians can buy weapons that are virtually military spec. As Jim Jefferies says better than I, the right to bear arms to defend your family stretches credibility when Billy Bob of Texas can buy a rifle that can potentially shoot someone a mile away....how can they threaten your home at that range!! The USA needs better controls to deal with the issue of mass shootings that is all too foreseeable. There is a constitutional problem which isn’t so much about protect the home as the populace should be able to be militia against federal government if it was needed. This is the legal basis the NRA falls back on over and over again. " I refer to Bill Barr,another comedian who put it brilliantly. Billy Bob and his mates buy all the ar-15s they can to form a militia against the US government if it turns on them. The day comes, and the US wants to stop Billy Bob and his militia. So Billy and his mates all line up with their AR-15s at the ready like the 2nd Amendment allows. Meanwhile, Lieutenant Dave, in his air conditioned hut, launches one drone with hellfire missiles to pay Billy Bob a visit.... I think we can guess the outcome. You are right, the constitution is outdated and no longer a valid defense against such poor gun control. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The comedian Jim Jefferies has a superb stance on gun control. Not gun banning, control. We can't foresee every eventuality so yes, even with the strict gun control we have in this country, people can slip through the net. Getting to legally own a gun in the UK is a very strict and lengthy process and guns are used for recreation and work so we can't restrict their use to ranges if farmers need them etc. In this country we have limited as much as possible the consequences of legal guns in the wrong hands - very difficult to conceal a pistol, no semi automatic firers above certain calibres etc. In America, different story. The right to bear arms was written when a musket took 15 seconds to reload. Now civilians can buy weapons that are virtually military spec. As Jim Jefferies says better than I, the right to bear arms to defend your family stretches credibility when Billy Bob of Texas can buy a rifle that can potentially shoot someone a mile away....how can they threaten your home at that range!! The USA needs better controls to deal with the issue of mass shootings that is all too foreseeable. There is a constitutional problem which isn’t so much about protect the home as the populace should be able to be militia against federal government if it was needed. This is the legal basis the NRA falls back on over and over again. I refer to Bill Barr,another comedian who put it brilliantly. Billy Bob and his mates buy all the ar-15s they can to form a militia against the US government if it turns on them. The day comes, and the US wants to stop Billy Bob and his militia. So Billy and his mates all line up with their AR-15s at the ready like the 2nd Amendment allows. Meanwhile, Lieutenant Dave, in his air conditioned hut, launches one drone with hellfire missiles to pay Billy Bob a visit.... I think we can guess the outcome. You are right, the constitution is outdated and no longer a valid defense against such poor gun control." It's just caused an escalation of arms by the police as well as a lot of collateral death, not to mention the intentional death. It had its place, it was a product of its time, and now Americans are paying dearly for this myth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We own multiple guns pistols rifles shotguns ect..some are generational heirlooms some recently purchased. My husband and I went through all the background checks and are guns are safely secured. We go to the range constantly as lawful citizens. Millions of others do the same. Cool. Is that instead of viagra? Shocking that this is actually considered an acceptable response to another user on Fab. Yes we get it, you're anti-gun. But what are you trying to imply with your comment and utterly irrelevant snipe about viagra, gun ownership is compensation for small dick syndrome/emasculation from being unable to get hard? " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We own multiple guns pistols rifles shotguns ect..some are generational heirlooms some recently purchased. My husband and I went through all the background checks and are guns are safely secured. We go to the range constantly as lawful citizens. Millions of others do the same. Cool. Is that instead of viagra? Shocking that this is actually considered an acceptable response to another user on Fab. Yes we get it, you're anti-gun. But what are you trying to imply with your comment and utterly irrelevant snipe about viagra, gun ownership is compensation for small dick syndrome/emasculation from being unable to get hard? " I probably wouldn't have put my scorn of gun culture in quite those terms but I'm sure plenty of impressionable schoolboys would be oozing seminal fluid with the excitement of reading some gun owners' boasts. Just like they do over posts about sports cars and footballers' prowess (to name but a few male bonding topics). It all starts in formative years and maybe needs changing at that point in their development. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We own multiple guns pistols rifles shotguns ect..some are generational heirlooms some recently purchased. My husband and I went through all the background checks and are guns are safely secured. We go to the range constantly as lawful citizens. Millions of others do the same. Cool. Is that instead of viagra? Shocking that this is actually considered an acceptable response to another user on Fab. Yes we get it, you're anti-gun. But what are you trying to imply with your comment and utterly irrelevant snipe about viagra, gun ownership is compensation for small dick syndrome/emasculation from being unable to get hard? " I haven't actually said anything about being anti-gun. But, yes, the sort of gun ownership I was referrimg to is, I think often making up for something. I'm not talking about someone who keeps a rifle for hunting (though I'm not pro-hunting), or even someone who keeps a handgun locked away to protect their home and family (though I wouldn't do that, personally). I'm talking about the sort of mentality that keeps multiple unnecessary guns around. We all have our versions of that, I guess. But most aren't part of a massive cultural problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The comedian Jim Jefferies has a superb stance on gun control. Not gun banning, control. We can't foresee every eventuality so yes, even with the strict gun control we have in this country, people can slip through the net. Getting to legally own a gun in the UK is a very strict and lengthy process and guns are used for recreation and work so we can't restrict their use to ranges if farmers need them etc. In this country we have limited as much as possible the consequences of legal guns in the wrong hands - very difficult to conceal a pistol, no semi automatic firers above certain calibres etc. In America, different story. The right to bear arms was written when a musket took 15 seconds to reload. Now civilians can buy weapons that are virtually military spec. As Jim Jefferies says better than I, the right to bear arms to defend your family stretches credibility when Billy Bob of Texas can buy a rifle that can potentially shoot someone a mile away....how can they threaten your home at that range!! The USA needs better controls to deal with the issue of mass shootings that is all too foreseeable. There is a constitutional problem which isn’t so much about protect the home as the populace should be able to be militia against federal government if it was needed. This is the legal basis the NRA falls back on over and over again. I refer to Bill Barr,another comedian who put it brilliantly. Billy Bob and his mates buy all the ar-15s they can to form a militia against the US government if it turns on them. The day comes, and the US wants to stop Billy Bob and his militia. So Billy and his mates all line up with their AR-15s at the ready like the 2nd Amendment allows. Meanwhile, Lieutenant Dave, in his air conditioned hut, launches one drone with hellfire missiles to pay Billy Bob a visit.... I think we can guess the outcome. You are right, the constitution is outdated and no longer a valid defense against such poor gun control. It's just caused an escalation of arms by the police as well as a lot of collateral death, not to mention the intentional death. It had its place, it was a product of its time, and now Americans are paying dearly for this myth." Is it really myth? I bet the Tory government would not have dared to push through its anti-protest PCSC bill last year if it knew that it would have to be enforced by a severely underfunded and undermanned police force across the UK against a population that's armed with their own guns. The ultimate exercising of power in human society is the inflicting of deadly violence. Power comes from the barrel of a gun. A society which blindly surrenders the right to legitimately privately own and bear arms into the centralised hands of the state is one that gifts the state the power of life and death over them. And all it takes is one bad leader or political party to get into power, and they can steamroll anything they want over society, including the erasure of civilian rights and identity, knowing full well that any civilian protest can and will be overrided with armed force suppression. Want a good example? Nazi Germany, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, even the ongoing civil war revolution against military dictators in Myanmar provide plenty of evidence to support this argument. A disarmed society is fundamentally a pliant society. As for that pithy analogy about an assault rifle-armed militia against state-operated military drones putting paid to the idea of private arms ownership being a bulwark against state tyranny and oppression, I wonder why is it the US with it's technological military might of drones and precision strike missiles couldn't pacify and hold down Iraq and Afghanistan against the Taliban and various Islamic militant groups armed with little more than AK-47s after two decades of war and occupation? Or why the British state couldn't wipe out the IRA and the Troubles ended only with a Good Friday Agreement signed with the political supporters of the IRA (Sinn Fein)? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Atleast in this country you can't walk into a gun shop and find or easily buy the kind of weapons which you can easily get your hands on in the USA. Here you can't buy a gun over 12 pounds of pressure and I think it's less power for hand guns. If you want something like a 12bore shotgun you need to apply for a licence and anyone with a criminal record is not going to get one. I guess the same would apply if someone has mental issues. For me it is scarey that you can get a .50 caliber sniper rifle, with one of those things you can be a mile away and still kill someone. They can shoot through walls, vehicles, etc. The shooter can hit a person, then scoot before anyone reacts to them." Not in the UK you won't! Quite willing to be corrected, but I believe the max calibre rifle a civilian can hold in the UK is a .375 Magnum. A moot point I readily accept, as it will still do the same as a .50, just won't have the same power on impact at a mile! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I haven't actually said anything about being anti-gun. But, yes, the sort of gun ownership I was referrimg to is, I think often making up for something. I'm not talking about someone who keeps a rifle for hunting (though I'm not pro-hunting), or even someone who keeps a handgun locked away to protect their home and family (though I wouldn't do that, personally). I'm talking about the sort of mentality that keeps multiple unnecessary guns around. We all have our versions of that, I guess. But most aren't part of a massive cultural problem." Firstly, that's your assumption, entirely unbacked up by any sort of empirical evidence, and rooted in the sort of body/sexist shaming that is otherwise decried by females when males mock them in a similar manner. Secondly, if you want to say the pursuit of material possessions is compensation for sexual inadequateness, does it apply to other forms of stuff owned? Cars for instance? Many people in the West own multiple cars per individual or family. Does it mean they're compensating for something they lack in bed? How about female ownership of bags? Would you accept it if I said something like "women often buy lots of luxury bags they can't fully utilise and don't need for their daily lives, because they've got a dry sex life and don't have as many men fucking them as they'd like"? There's no "necessary" argument to be made here. People collect stuff because they want to. There's no deeper Freudian logic of justification behind it. And the ones who argue that there is, are the ones who already have come to the conclusion in the first place that a man's value in society (in this case) is determined by his sexual virility or prowess. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why if guns are for personal protection and hunting are there so many varieties? Surely you don't need all manner of accessories and large capacities/calibres for a handgun for home protection? Surely a single shot rifle is suitable for hunting and a double barrelled shotgun good for shooting birds? If those are the reasons to have a gun (and they're the ones most commonly given).....why so many variants of semi autos with 30 round mags, bump stocks and the need to have more than one rifle and handgun? A" Maybe because people like owning military tech? Because they're cool? Because it's their money and they'll bloody well own whatever they can buy and wish to collect for their own enjoyment? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We own multiple guns pistols rifles shotguns ect..some are generational heirlooms some recently purchased. My husband and I went through all the background checks and are guns are safely secured. We go to the range constantly as lawful citizens. Millions of others do the same. Cool. Is that instead of viagra? Shocking that this is actually considered an acceptable response to another user on Fab. Yes we get it, you're anti-gun. But what are you trying to imply with your comment and utterly irrelevant snipe about viagra, gun ownership is compensation for small dick syndrome/emasculation from being unable to get hard? " It's funny since I don't have a penis. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why if guns are for personal protection and hunting are there so many varieties? Surely you don't need all manner of accessories and large capacities/calibres for a handgun for home protection? Surely a single shot rifle is suitable for hunting and a double barrelled shotgun good for shooting birds? If those are the reasons to have a gun (and they're the ones most commonly given).....why so many variants of semi autos with 30 round mags, bump stocks and the need to have more than one rifle and handgun? A Maybe because people like owning military tech? Because they're cool? Because it's their money and they'll bloody well own whatever they can buy and wish to collect for their own enjoyment? " I shoot 3 gun for sport and sporting clays. I enjoy it it's fun. Not giving up something because of other idiots. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People collect stuff because they want to. There's no deeper Freudian logic of justification behind it. And the ones who argue that there is, are the ones who already have come to the conclusion in the first place that a man's value in society (in this case) is determined by his sexual virility or prowess. " Thank you for sharing your thoughts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We own multiple guns pistols rifles shotguns ect..some are generational heirlooms some recently purchased. My husband and I went through all the background checks and are guns are safely secured. We go to the range constantly as lawful citizens. Millions of others do the same. Cool. Is that instead of viagra? Shocking that this is actually considered an acceptable response to another user on Fab. Yes we get it, you're anti-gun. But what are you trying to imply with your comment and utterly irrelevant snipe about viagra, gun ownership is compensation for small dick syndrome/emasculation from being unable to get hard? It's funny since I don't have a penis. "Even funnier when people love to automatically assume that only men can be into owning and shooting guns. Applies even to couple profiles too; "must be the husband talking about owning guns, he's got a weak willy that's why he needs to own so many firearms!". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The comedian Jim Jefferies has a superb stance on gun control. Not gun banning, control. We can't foresee every eventuality so yes, even with the strict gun control we have in this country, people can slip through the net. Getting to legally own a gun in the UK is a very strict and lengthy process and guns are used for recreation and work so we can't restrict their use to ranges if farmers need them etc. In this country we have limited as much as possible the consequences of legal guns in the wrong hands - very difficult to conceal a pistol, no semi automatic firers above certain calibres etc. In America, different story. The right to bear arms was written when a musket took 15 seconds to reload. Now civilians can buy weapons that are virtually military spec. As Jim Jefferies says better than I, the right to bear arms to defend your family stretches credibility when Billy Bob of Texas can buy a rifle that can potentially shoot someone a mile away....how can they threaten your home at that range!! The USA needs better controls to deal with the issue of mass shootings that is all too foreseeable. There is a constitutional problem which isn’t so much about protect the home as the populace should be able to be militia against federal government if it was needed. This is the legal basis the NRA falls back on over and over again. I refer to Bill Barr,another comedian who put it brilliantly. Billy Bob and his mates buy all the ar-15s they can to form a militia against the US government if it turns on them. The day comes, and the US wants to stop Billy Bob and his militia. So Billy and his mates all line up with their AR-15s at the ready like the 2nd Amendment allows. Meanwhile, Lieutenant Dave, in his air conditioned hut, launches one drone with hellfire missiles to pay Billy Bob a visit.... I think we can guess the outcome. You are right, the constitution is outdated and no longer a valid defense against such poor gun control. It's just caused an escalation of arms by the police as well as a lot of collateral death, not to mention the intentional death. It had its place, it was a product of its time, and now Americans are paying dearly for this myth. Is it really myth? I bet the Tory government would not have dared to push through its anti-protest PCSC bill last year if it knew that it would have to be enforced by a severely underfunded and undermanned police force across the UK against a population that's armed with their own guns. The ultimate exercising of power in human society is the inflicting of deadly violence. Power comes from the barrel of a gun. A society which blindly surrenders the right to legitimately privately own and bear arms into the centralised hands of the state is one that gifts the state the power of life and death over them. And all it takes is one bad leader or political party to get into power, and they can steamroll anything they want over society, including the erasure of civilian rights and identity, knowing full well that any civilian protest can and will be overrided with armed force suppression. Want a good example? Nazi Germany, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, even the ongoing civil war revolution against military dictators in Myanmar provide plenty of evidence to support this argument. A disarmed society is fundamentally a pliant society. As for that pithy analogy about an assault rifle-armed militia against state-operated military drones putting paid to the idea of private arms ownership being a bulwark against state tyranny and oppression, I wonder why is it the US with it's technological military might of drones and precision strike missiles couldn't pacify and hold down Iraq and Afghanistan against the Taliban and various Islamic militant groups armed with little more than AK-47s after two decades of war and occupation? Or why the British state couldn't wipe out the IRA and the Troubles ended only with a Good Friday Agreement signed with the political supporters of the IRA (Sinn Fein)? " Yes, I do think it's a myth. A well regulated militia, using ordinary language, is not Bubba packing heat to buy Mountain Dew. It's a replacement for a standing army, which the US has in spades. And the government can and do outgun any number of people with weapons. They ensure they can. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing will change in America. This will be forgoten about until the next school shooting. When nothing changes after Sand Hook and The Las Vegas shooting you know there is going to be much more, it just depends on where and when. " I agree. When people decided they valued their guns more than first graders, something died in the soul of America. It hurts my heart. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes, I do think it's a myth. A well regulated militia, using ordinary language, is not Bubba packing heat to buy Mountain Dew. It's a replacement for a standing army, which the US has in spades. And the government can and do outgun any number of people with weapons. They ensure they can." We're not talking about a question of parity in firepower in order to have "equality" between the people and the government leaders ruling over them. We're talking about the people even possessing a modicum of deadly force in their lives as a tangible symbol of their power in society, from which all legitimisation of rule and governing is derived from. Also, do you know just how much regulation is already in place for legal gun ownership in the US? People often jump on individual mass shooting incidents like this as basis for arguing "we've not regulated guns enough, we must ban them!". Yet they conveniently ignore well-established statistics that most gun-related crime are committed with non-registered/illegally-acquired weapons by organised crime groups and professional criminals in the first place who wouldn't want records of them owning firearms in the hands of the state. Finally, it's interesting how nobody questions about why a society's mental health state is in such bad shape that people have to lash out and shoot others dead just to cope with their own problems and issues in life (that may or may not involve others they target)? If sheer frequency and death toll is indication of the severity of a problem and justification for banning the tools used in perpetrating such problems, then private ownership of motor vehicles should be banned given how many people in the US or the world generally speaking die of auto accidents. Or maybe civilian jets carrying over 100 passengers should have been banned after 9/11, in case one gets flown again into a skyscraper tower? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes, I do think it's a myth. A well regulated militia, using ordinary language, is not Bubba packing heat to buy Mountain Dew. It's a replacement for a standing army, which the US has in spades. And the government can and do outgun any number of people with weapons. They ensure they can. We're not talking about a question of parity in firepower in order to have "equality" between the people and the government leaders ruling over them. We're talking about the people even possessing a modicum of deadly force in their lives as a tangible symbol of their power in society, from which all legitimisation of rule and governing is derived from. Also, do you know just how much regulation is already in place for legal gun ownership in the US? People often jump on individual mass shooting incidents like this as basis for arguing "we've not regulated guns enough, we must ban them!". Yet they conveniently ignore well-established statistics that most gun-related crime are committed with non-registered/illegally-acquired weapons by organised crime groups and professional criminals in the first place who wouldn't want records of them owning firearms in the hands of the state. Finally, it's interesting how nobody questions about why a society's mental health state is in such bad shape that people have to lash out and shoot others dead just to cope with their own problems and issues in life (that may or may not involve others they target)? If sheer frequency and death toll is indication of the severity of a problem and justification for banning the tools used in perpetrating such problems, then private ownership of motor vehicles should be banned given how many people in the US or the world generally speaking die of auto accidents. Or maybe civilian jets carrying over 100 passengers should have been banned after 9/11, in case one gets flown again into a skyscraper tower? " Jets and cars have a purpose other than destroying or killing things. Civilians threatening the government by possessing deadly force sounds difficult to distinguish from terrorism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes, I do think it's a myth. A well regulated militia, using ordinary language, is not Bubba packing heat to buy Mountain Dew. It's a replacement for a standing army, which the US has in spades. And the government can and do outgun any number of people with weapons. They ensure they can. We're not talking about a question of parity in firepower in order to have "equality" between the people and the government leaders ruling over them. We're talking about the people even possessing a modicum of deadly force in their lives as a tangible symbol of their power in society, from which all legitimisation of rule and governing is derived from. Also, do you know just how much regulation is already in place for legal gun ownership in the US? People often jump on individual mass shooting incidents like this as basis for arguing "we've not regulated guns enough, we must ban them!". Yet they conveniently ignore well-established statistics that most gun-related crime are committed with non-registered/illegally-acquired weapons by organised crime groups and professional criminals in the first place who wouldn't want records of them owning firearms in the hands of the state. Finally, it's interesting how nobody questions about why a society's mental health state is in such bad shape that people have to lash out and shoot others dead just to cope with their own problems and issues in life (that may or may not involve others they target)? If sheer frequency and death toll is indication of the severity of a problem and justification for banning the tools used in perpetrating such problems, then private ownership of motor vehicles should be banned given how many people in the US or the world generally speaking die of auto accidents. Or maybe civilian jets carrying over 100 passengers should have been banned after 9/11, in case one gets flown again into a skyscraper tower? " 100000 from overdose deaths last year alone from opioids. Yet my guns locked in a safe is a issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes, I do think it's a myth. A well regulated militia, using ordinary language, is not Bubba packing heat to buy Mountain Dew. It's a replacement for a standing army, which the US has in spades. And the government can and do outgun any number of people with weapons. They ensure they can. We're not talking about a question of parity in firepower in order to have "equality" between the people and the government leaders ruling over them. We're talking about the people even possessing a modicum of deadly force in their lives as a tangible symbol of their power in society, from which all legitimisation of rule and governing is derived from. Also, do you know just how much regulation is already in place for legal gun ownership in the US? People often jump on individual mass shooting incidents like this as basis for arguing "we've not regulated guns enough, we must ban them!". Yet they conveniently ignore well-established statistics that most gun-related crime are committed with non-registered/illegally-acquired weapons by organised crime groups and professional criminals in the first place who wouldn't want records of them owning firearms in the hands of the state. Finally, it's interesting how nobody questions about why a society's mental health state is in such bad shape that people have to lash out and shoot others dead just to cope with their own problems and issues in life (that may or may not involve others they target)? If sheer frequency and death toll is indication of the severity of a problem and justification for banning the tools used in perpetrating such problems, then private ownership of motor vehicles should be banned given how many people in the US or the world generally speaking die of auto accidents. Or maybe civilian jets carrying over 100 passengers should have been banned after 9/11, in case one gets flown again into a skyscraper tower? 100000 from overdose deaths last year alone from opioids. Yet my guns locked in a safe is a issue." Why do you need a gun? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Australians = sensible (they abolished guns after their last massacre, and guess what? No more mass-shooting massacres) USA = Stoooopid! Mass shooting after mass shooting! How are guns so tied up in politics? " Australians - not so sensible. They've been relaxing the laws. *Shrug* But yes, a lot of guns were forfeited and destroyed after Port Arthur. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes, I do think it's a myth. A well regulated militia, using ordinary language, is not Bubba packing heat to buy Mountain Dew. It's a replacement for a standing army, which the US has in spades. And the government can and do outgun any number of people with weapons. They ensure they can. We're not talking about a question of parity in firepower in order to have "equality" between the people and the government leaders ruling over them. We're talking about the people even possessing a modicum of deadly force in their lives as a tangible symbol of their power in society, from which all legitimisation of rule and governing is derived from. Also, do you know just how much regulation is already in place for legal gun ownership in the US? People often jump on individual mass shooting incidents like this as basis for arguing "we've not regulated guns enough, we must ban them!". Yet they conveniently ignore well-established statistics that most gun-related crime are committed with non-registered/illegally-acquired weapons by organised crime groups and professional criminals in the first place who wouldn't want records of them owning firearms in the hands of the state. Finally, it's interesting how nobody questions about why a society's mental health state is in such bad shape that people have to lash out and shoot others dead just to cope with their own problems and issues in life (that may or may not involve others they target)? If sheer frequency and death toll is indication of the severity of a problem and justification for banning the tools used in perpetrating such problems, then private ownership of motor vehicles should be banned given how many people in the US or the world generally speaking die of auto accidents. Or maybe civilian jets carrying over 100 passengers should have been banned after 9/11, in case one gets flown again into a skyscraper tower? 100000 from overdose deaths last year alone from opioids. Yet my guns locked in a safe is a issue." I truly don't understand that comment, guns taken to high school and used to kill kids I think is the issue not guns locked in safes, perhaps I'm stupid though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Jets and cars have a purpose other than destroying or killing things. Civilians threatening the government by possessing deadly force sounds difficult to distinguish from terrorism." If we only allow private ownership of material items that need to have a physical purpose in our daily lives, there'd be a lot of things that would be banned now for being utterly "useless". Humans are not made to simply lead utilitarian lifestyles. That's the life of robotic machines. As for your point about terrorism, the term in its most fundamental form (originating from the French Revolution) is defined as the simple fact of stoking terror in one's political or societal opponents. If you say civilians threatening governments through private possession of deadly force is terrorism, then it's equally terrorism if it's the government threatening civilians it rules to keep in line through centralised state possession of deadly force. p.s. When it's a group that is hated by political leaders, they're terrorists. When it's a group that is liked by political leaders, they're freedom fighters or legalised para/military/law enforcement organisations. See how pointless your point about civilian ownership of deadly force and terrorism is now? Items alone do not have legality. Humans define legality. And oftentimes, that legality is not defined by moral lines, but by political lines for political ends. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes, I do think it's a myth. A well regulated militia, using ordinary language, is not Bubba packing heat to buy Mountain Dew. It's a replacement for a standing army, which the US has in spades. And the government can and do outgun any number of people with weapons. They ensure they can. We're not talking about a question of parity in firepower in order to have "equality" between the people and the government leaders ruling over them. We're talking about the people even possessing a modicum of deadly force in their lives as a tangible symbol of their power in society, from which all legitimisation of rule and governing is derived from. Also, do you know just how much regulation is already in place for legal gun ownership in the US? People often jump on individual mass shooting incidents like this as basis for arguing "we've not regulated guns enough, we must ban them!". Yet they conveniently ignore well-established statistics that most gun-related crime are committed with non-registered/illegally-acquired weapons by organised crime groups and professional criminals in the first place who wouldn't want records of them owning firearms in the hands of the state. Finally, it's interesting how nobody questions about why a society's mental health state is in such bad shape that people have to lash out and shoot others dead just to cope with their own problems and issues in life (that may or may not involve others they target)? If sheer frequency and death toll is indication of the severity of a problem and justification for banning the tools used in perpetrating such problems, then private ownership of motor vehicles should be banned given how many people in the US or the world generally speaking die of auto accidents. Or maybe civilian jets carrying over 100 passengers should have been banned after 9/11, in case one gets flown again into a skyscraper tower? 100000 from overdose deaths last year alone from opioids. Yet my guns locked in a safe is a issue. Why do you need a gun?" for hunting shooting sports and protection. That what they designed for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also think mental health is a convenient excuse to detract from toxic gun and grievance culture. No one actually does anything about fucking mental health when they say it. It's just a distraction from the actual problem, perhaps deliberately. "Don't look at our toxicity, let's shit on vulnerable people with health problems!"" So what are you implying? That there is no such thing as healthy gun culture? That only the gun supporting/owning community has grievance culture? Do you even know an inkling of what you're talking about? Or is everything you think about this taken from some talking point line said by some media pundit pushing a political point? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Jets and cars have a purpose other than destroying or killing things. Civilians threatening the government by possessing deadly force sounds difficult to distinguish from terrorism. If we only allow private ownership of material items that need to have a physical purpose in our daily lives, there'd be a lot of things that would be banned now for being utterly "useless". Humans are not made to simply lead utilitarian lifestyles. That's the life of robotic machines. As for your point about terrorism, the term in its most fundamental form (originating from the French Revolution) is defined as the simple fact of stoking terror in one's political or societal opponents. If you say civilians threatening governments through private possession of deadly force is terrorism, then it's equally terrorism if it's the government threatening civilians it rules to keep in line through centralised state possession of deadly force. p.s. When it's a group that is hated by political leaders, they're terrorists. When it's a group that is liked by political leaders, they're freedom fighters or legalised para/military/law enforcement organisations. See how pointless your point about civilian ownership of deadly force and terrorism is now? Items alone do not have legality. Humans define legality. And oftentimes, that legality is not defined by moral lines, but by political lines for political ends. " No, I don't think it's pointless, because I believe that having to resort to violence to resolve political conflict means a society has fundamentally broken down. No matter what linguistic games you play. If you want to argue about harmful things in terms of how much people enjoy fripperies, I suppose you can. But I cannot see the justification of luxuries or fun non essentials which result in slaughtered children. A society that does find that acceptable is barbaric in the extreme. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also think mental health is a convenient excuse to detract from toxic gun and grievance culture. No one actually does anything about fucking mental health when they say it. It's just a distraction from the actual problem, perhaps deliberately. "Don't look at our toxicity, let's shit on vulnerable people with health problems!" So what are you implying? That there is no such thing as healthy gun culture? That only the gun supporting/owning community has grievance culture? Do you even know an inkling of what you're talking about? Or is everything you think about this taken from some talking point line said by some media pundit pushing a political point? " So because I disagree with you I don't know what I'm talking about? I have related post graduate qualifications, not that it matters. I think toxic cultures exist everywhere, but toxic cultures that are armed are much more dangerous. It's my understanding that mental health problems are not markedly worse in the US than other countries, and yet they have more violent death, intentional and incidental to crime. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No, I don't think it's pointless, because I believe that having to resort to violence to resolve political conflict means a society has fundamentally broken down. No matter what linguistic games you play. If you want to argue about harmful things in terms of how much people enjoy fripperies, I suppose you can. But I cannot see the justification of luxuries or fun non essentials which result in slaughtered children. A society that does find that acceptable is barbaric in the extreme." I'm not playing linguistic games. I'm simply stating the bare reality that all the nice cuddly "soft power" "compromise" political ideals stem from the hard power that is granted from being able to inflict deadly force to enforce your point of view or political stance. Dismiss it as linguistic games all you want. You'll just end up deeply disappointed and embittered by humanity just as those antiwar "Free love free sex free drugs no violence" peacenik hippies during the Vietnam War era became. Also, the whole thing trotted about "protecting the children" in societies has more often than not been used to restrict civil liberties of adults by other adults with political and ideological motives to do so. Again back to the mental health point, the surest long-term way to reduce/stop slaughtered children in schools is to take bullying behaviour seriously, civics and moral education about basic human decency and behaviour seriously, and raise healthy teens and adults who don't feel that the only way to get attention from the world is to go shoot innocent people up to make a point. Talking about banning guns is just trying to treat the symptoms of far deeper-rooted issues in society that we are either incapable of, or unwilling to confront and deal with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why if guns are for personal protection and hunting are there so many varieties? Surely you don't need all manner of accessories and large capacities/calibres for a handgun for home protection? Surely a single shot rifle is suitable for hunting and a double barrelled shotgun good for shooting birds? If those are the reasons to have a gun (and they're the ones most commonly given).....why so many variants of semi autos with 30 round mags, bump stocks and the need to have more than one rifle and handgun? A Maybe because people like owning military tech? Because they're cool? Because it's their money and they'll bloody well own whatever they can buy and wish to collect for their own enjoyment? I shoot 3 gun for sport and sporting clays. I enjoy it it's fun. Not giving up something because of other idiots." The problem is not, and never has been, those who can be trusted with guns, it’s those who can’t and differentiating between them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also think mental health is a convenient excuse to detract from toxic gun and grievance culture. No one actually does anything about fucking mental health when they say it. It's just a distraction from the actual problem, perhaps deliberately. "Don't look at our toxicity, let's shit on vulnerable people with health problems!" So what are you implying? That there is no such thing as healthy gun culture? That only the gun supporting/owning community has grievance culture? Do you even know an inkling of what you're talking about? Or is everything you think about this taken from some talking point line said by some media pundit pushing a political point? So because I disagree with you I don't know what I'm talking about? I have related post graduate qualifications, not that it matters. I think toxic cultures exist everywhere, but toxic cultures that are armed are much more dangerous. It's my understanding that mental health problems are not markedly worse in the US than other countries, and yet they have more violent death, intentional and incidental to crime." I'm doing a Masters in International Security now. My background was in History and Politics. If we want to compare academic backgrounds for credibility, I am no slouch compared to you either. Do you think that the gun ownership culture in the US is majority toxic in nature? That people in the US seek to own guns because deep in their heads they feel that they're lesser humans if they don't own a gun, or that many of them harbour secret thoughts and fantasies about killing other people with guns to feel what's it like to do so? There are few countries in the world who have populations larger than the US. For those of them that have publicly-reported, creditable figures of violent crime statistics that are LOWER than that of the US, they're not well known internationally for being bastions of democratic representation or respecting basic human rights in many areas. If that's the price to pay for reducing/eliminating gun crime, then it's no wonder there's a minority in the US that wants to be like those countries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No, I don't think it's pointless, because I believe that having to resort to violence to resolve political conflict means a society has fundamentally broken down. No matter what linguistic games you play. If you want to argue about harmful things in terms of how much people enjoy fripperies, I suppose you can. But I cannot see the justification of luxuries or fun non essentials which result in slaughtered children. A society that does find that acceptable is barbaric in the extreme. I'm not playing linguistic games. I'm simply stating the bare reality that all the nice cuddly "soft power" "compromise" political ideals stem from the hard power that is granted from being able to inflict deadly force to enforce your point of view or political stance. Dismiss it as linguistic games all you want. You'll just end up deeply disappointed and embittered by humanity just as those antiwar "Free love free sex free drugs no violence" peacenik hippies during the Vietnam War era became. Also, the whole thing trotted about "protecting the children" in societies has more often than not been used to restrict civil liberties of adults by other adults with political and ideological motives to do so. Again back to the mental health point, the surest long-term way to reduce/stop slaughtered children in schools is to take bullying behaviour seriously, civics and moral education about basic human decency and behaviour seriously, and raise healthy teens and adults who don't feel that the only way to get attention from the world is to go shoot innocent people up to make a point. Talking about banning guns is just trying to treat the symptoms of far deeper-rooted issues in society that we are either incapable of, or unwilling to confront and deal with. " I don't think owning guns without justification is a civil liberty worth having. I also think we'd have more head space to try to deal with the real needs of people if there was less violence. Rather than just writing off violence as mental illness. As it is, America has these cultural problems, these psychological issues, *and* lots of guns. At least if they only had knives, a lot less people would die. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why if guns are for personal protection and hunting are there so many varieties? Surely you don't need all manner of accessories and large capacities/calibres for a handgun for home protection? Surely a single shot rifle is suitable for hunting and a double barrelled shotgun good for shooting birds? If those are the reasons to have a gun (and they're the ones most commonly given).....why so many variants of semi autos with 30 round mags, bump stocks and the need to have more than one rifle and handgun? A Maybe because people like owning military tech? Because they're cool? Because it's their money and they'll bloody well own whatever they can buy and wish to collect for their own enjoyment? I shoot 3 gun for sport and sporting clays. I enjoy it it's fun. Not giving up something because of other idiots. The problem is not, and never has been, those who can be trusted with guns, it’s those who can’t and differentiating between them." I agree wholeheartedly. But anti-gun advocates basically say "if we can't differentiate between those we can trust to have guns and those we can't trust to have guns in civil society, then NOBODY should own them." Oh yeah by the way, we ALSO FULLY TRUST that our elected political leaders are SANE, RESPECTED, FAIR, CIVIL, AND LOGICAL individuals who can be entrusted wholly with the power to sanction deadly force wielded only by state institutions!" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't think owning guns without justification is a civil liberty worth having. I also think we'd have more head space to try to deal with the real needs of people if there was less violence. Rather than just writing off violence as mental illness. As it is, America has these cultural problems, these psychological issues, *and* lots of guns. At least if they only had knives, a lot less people would die." Then my last comment to you on this is very simple. You're not a US citizen. The proportion of US citizens who share similar beliefs as you do are still a minority within US society and politics. The current status of legalised private firearm ownership as a civil liberty in the US will remain reflective of this fact of US society until it changes otherwise. Anything we outsiders debate or say about this issue is pointless. And going from your comment about some civil rights not worth having, you're far better off living in societies like CCP-ruled China where individuals are nothing and the state/collective society is everything. I'm sure you see no problems at all too with new British policing and anti-protest laws too, along with their draconian criminalising outcomes enshrined within the new laws. Because the moment you start determining civil rights in terms of whether they're "worth having", don't be surprised when they're stripped away by political leaders of your society whom you didn't vote into power, don't support, who see those civil rights you DO support as being not worth having in their eyes. I'm done here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't think owning guns without justification is a civil liberty worth having. I also think we'd have more head space to try to deal with the real needs of people if there was less violence. Rather than just writing off violence as mental illness. As it is, America has these cultural problems, these psychological issues, *and* lots of guns. At least if they only had knives, a lot less people would die. Then my last comment to you on this is very simple. You're not a US citizen. The proportion of US citizens who share similar beliefs as you do are still a minority within US society and politics. The current status of legalised private firearm ownership as a civil liberty in the US will remain reflective of this fact of US society until it changes otherwise. Anything we outsiders debate or say about this issue is pointless. And going from your comment about some civil rights not worth having, you're far better off living in societies like CCP-ruled China where individuals are nothing and the state/collective society is everything. I'm sure you see no problems at all too with new British policing and anti-protest laws too, along with their draconian criminalising outcomes enshrined within the new laws. Because the moment you start determining civil rights in terms of whether they're "worth having", don't be surprised when they're stripped away by political leaders of your society whom you didn't vote into power, don't support, who see those civil rights you DO support as being not worth having in their eyes. I'm done here. " What kind of grade would your lecturers give for "you disagree with me on the scope of rights, therefore you should live in a repressive regime?" Because mine would have laughed at me at best. Ditto for "you don't understand a culture unless you have citizenship of that place or are enmeshed in it". History is also part of my academic background and... that's a novel take. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't think owning guns without justification is a civil liberty worth having. I also think we'd have more head space to try to deal with the real needs of people if there was less violence. Rather than just writing off violence as mental illness. As it is, America has these cultural problems, these psychological issues, *and* lots of guns. At least if they only had knives, a lot less people would die. Then my last comment to you on this is very simple. You're not a US citizen. The proportion of US citizens who share similar beliefs as you do are still a minority within US society and politics. The current status of legalised private firearm ownership as a civil liberty in the US will remain reflective of this fact of US society until it changes otherwise. Anything we outsiders debate or say about this issue is pointless. And going from your comment about some civil rights not worth having, you're far better off living in societies like CCP-ruled China where individuals are nothing and the state/collective society is everything. I'm sure you see no problems at all too with new British policing and anti-protest laws too, along with their draconian criminalising outcomes enshrined within the new laws. Because the moment you start determining civil rights in terms of whether they're "worth having", don't be surprised when they're stripped away by political leaders of your society whom you didn't vote into power, don't support, who see those civil rights you DO support as being not worth having in their eyes. I'm done here. What kind of grade would your lecturers give for "you disagree with me on the scope of rights, therefore you should live in a repressive regime?" Because mine would have laughed at me at best. Ditto for "you don't understand a culture unless you have citizenship of that place or are enmeshed in it". History is also part of my academic background and... that's a novel take." And this is how a pointless argument between two individuals who have nothing in common, no inclination to agree, and who've already mutually blocked each other on Fab just took an even more stupid turn. Bye. I've got a steak dinner waiting. Feel free to have the last word. I'm offering it up to you on a silver platter, if it makes you feel any better.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ... I'm not playing linguistic games. I'm simply stating the bare reality that all the nice cuddly "soft power" "compromise" political ideals stem from the hard power that is granted from being able to inflict deadly force to enforce your point of view or political stance. Dismiss it as linguistic games all you want. You'll just end up deeply disappointed and embittered by humanity just as those antiwar "Free love free sex free drugs no violence" peacenik hippies during the Vietnam War era became. ... " For someone who is not playing linguistic games, you sure know the power of emotive name calling! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't think owning guns without justification is a civil liberty worth having. I also think we'd have more head space to try to deal with the real needs of people if there was less violence. Rather than just writing off violence as mental illness. As it is, America has these cultural problems, these psychological issues, *and* lots of guns. At least if they only had knives, a lot less people would die. Then my last comment to you on this is very simple. You're not a US citizen. The proportion of US citizens who share similar beliefs as you do are still a minority within US society and politics. The current status of legalised private firearm ownership as a civil liberty in the US will remain reflective of this fact of US society until it changes otherwise. Anything we outsiders debate or say about this issue is pointless. And going from your comment about some civil rights not worth having, you're far better off living in societies like CCP-ruled China where individuals are nothing and the state/collective society is everything. I'm sure you see no problems at all too with new British policing and anti-protest laws too, along with their draconian criminalising outcomes enshrined within the new laws. Because the moment you start determining civil rights in terms of whether they're "worth having", don't be surprised when they're stripped away by political leaders of your society whom you didn't vote into power, don't support, who see those civil rights you DO support as being not worth having in their eyes. I'm done here. What kind of grade would your lecturers give for "you disagree with me on the scope of rights, therefore you should live in a repressive regime?" Because mine would have laughed at me at best. Ditto for "you don't understand a culture unless you have citizenship of that place or are enmeshed in it". History is also part of my academic background and... that's a novel take. And this is how a pointless argument between two individuals who have nothing in common, no inclination to agree, and who've already mutually blocked each other on Fab just took an even more stupid turn. Bye. I've got a steak dinner waiting. Feel free to have the last word. I'm offering it up to you on a silver platter, if it makes you feel any better. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My view is the US government and NRA view school shootings,ie the killing of children, as the price you pay for your ‘freedom’ and it’s the biggest moral failure of our lifetime Regarding the guns and controls- they are so deep into this mess it’s hard to reign it in now. One thing they should try is banning assault rifles and make it harder to buy guns " 120 guns per person in the US. Over 20 million ARs. Unless the federal government starts kicking in doors it's not going to happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes, I do think it's a myth. A well regulated militia, using ordinary language, is not Bubba packing heat to buy Mountain Dew. It's a replacement for a standing army, which the US has in spades. And the government can and do outgun any number of people with weapons. They ensure they can. We're not talking about a question of parity in firepower in order to have "equality" between the people and the government leaders ruling over them. We're talking about the people even possessing a modicum of deadly force in their lives as a tangible symbol of their power in society, from which all legitimisation of rule and governing is derived from. Also, do you know just how much regulation is already in place for legal gun ownership in the US? People often jump on individual mass shooting incidents like this as basis for arguing "we've not regulated guns enough, we must ban them!". Yet they conveniently ignore well-established statistics that most gun-related crime are committed with non-registered/illegally-acquired weapons by organised crime groups and professional criminals in the first place who wouldn't want records of them owning firearms in the hands of the state. Finally, it's interesting how nobody questions about why a society's mental health state is in such bad shape that people have to lash out and shoot others dead just to cope with their own problems and issues in life (that may or may not involve others they target)? If sheer frequency and death toll is indication of the severity of a problem and justification for banning the tools used in perpetrating such problems, then private ownership of motor vehicles should be banned given how many people in the US or the world generally speaking die of auto accidents. Or maybe civilian jets carrying over 100 passengers should have been banned after 9/11, in case one gets flown again into a skyscraper tower? 100000 from overdose deaths last year alone from opioids. Yet my guns locked in a safe is a issue. Why do you need a gun? for hunting shooting sports and protection. That what they designed for." Hunting? if assault rifles are used, it is hardly a battle of man verses beast. Protection? It is surely a hangover from the wild west that the only way you can defend yourself is through the carriage of arms. That is indicative of a system that is broken where by the law offers so little protection that you feel the need to carry weapons. I don't buy into the mentality that a good citizen has to carry a weapon because all the bad guys are tooled up. Our police are not routinely armed because lethal force should be a last resort, not the first step. And there is absolutely no justification for any civilian to own automatic weapons. A "Constitutional Right" is bollocks and a complete misrepresentation of the intent of the Second Amendment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We own multiple guns pistols rifles shotguns ect..some are generational heirlooms some recently purchased. My husband and I went through all the background checks and are guns are safely secured. We go to the range constantly as lawful citizens. Millions of others do the same. Cool. Is that instead of viagra? Shocking that this is actually considered an acceptable response to another user on Fab. Yes we get it, you're anti-gun. But what are you trying to imply with your comment and utterly irrelevant snipe about viagra, gun ownership is compensation for small dick syndrome/emasculation from being unable to get hard? It's funny since I don't have a penis.
Even funnier when people love to automatically assume that only men can be into owning and shooting guns. Applies even to couple profiles too; "must be the husband talking about owning guns, he's got a weak willy that's why he needs to own so many firearms!". "The other possibility is that the viagra statment wasn't meant as a literal medical or biological comment. Besides which the women's couple said "we own..." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We own multiple guns pistols rifles shotguns ect..some are generational heirlooms some recently purchased. My husband and I went through all the background checks and are guns are safely secured. We go to the range constantly as lawful citizens. Millions of others do the same. Cool. Is that instead of viagra? Shocking that this is actually considered an acceptable response to another user on Fab. Yes we get it, you're anti-gun. But what are you trying to imply with your comment and utterly irrelevant snipe about viagra, gun ownership is compensation for small dick syndrome/emasculation from being unable to get hard? It's funny since I don't have a penis.
Even funnier when people love to automatically assume that only men can be into owning and shooting guns. Applies even to couple profiles too; "must be the husband talking about owning guns, he's got a weak willy that's why he needs to own so many firearms!".
The other possibility is that the viagra statment wasn't meant as a literal medical or biological comment. Besides which the women's couple said "we own..." "of course it's we  ok let me reiterate my vagina and I personally have 8 registered to my name. If you want to nit pick. Feel better now ?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As regards air "weapons", you can buy, without any form of licencing, an air rifle up to 12 ft/lb pressure (up to 6 ft/lb pressure for an air pistol). Anything over those limits require an FAC (Firearms Certificate......commonly known as a Part 1). " This but made me chuckle. In my younger years I had 4 painball guns, 2 pump, 1 semi and one that was capable of firing full auto. All of them could be easily tweaked to run hot, as most game days the guns were firing 280 fps. I know there is a difference between foot/pounds and fps. When you look at shooting a solid training round and about 350fps, it comes in at 14 fpe. Yet these things are overlooked all the time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here's a question for the ant-gun forumers. Would you not own a gun for self protection if you were living in the USA? " I wouldn’t live there purely because of the guns | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We own multiple guns pistols rifles shotguns ect..some are generational heirlooms some recently purchased. My husband and I went through all the background checks and are guns are safely secured. We go to the range constantly as lawful citizens. Millions of others do the same. Cool. Is that instead of viagra? Shocking that this is actually considered an acceptable response to another user on Fab. Yes we get it, you're anti-gun. But what are you trying to imply with your comment and utterly irrelevant snipe about viagra, gun ownership is compensation for small dick syndrome/emasculation from being unable to get hard? It's funny since I don't have a penis.
Even funnier when people love to automatically assume that only men can be into owning and shooting guns. Applies even to couple profiles too; "must be the husband talking about owning guns, he's got a weak willy that's why he needs to own so many firearms!".
The other possibility is that the viagra statment wasn't meant as a literal medical or biological comment. Besides which the women's couple said "we own..." of course it's we ok let me reiterate my vagina and I personally have 8 registered to my name. If you want to nit pick. Feel better now ? "Not sure I was nit-picking. However, I'm honestly not invested enough to feel any better or worse. Congratulations on the 8 though! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"With the latest mass murder in the usa this month, it happens everyday, but not all get reported, is it time for a tigher gun law? There is a gun for every person there, you can argue that a sane person dont reach for a gun, what is your view?" I think it a US problem and I can not change or effect in any way so do not waste my time thinking what the Americans should do.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here's a question for the ant-gun forumers. Would you not own a gun for self protection if you were living in the USA? " Statistically, not the best idea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here's a question for the ant-gun forumers. Would you not own a gun for self protection if you were living in the USA? " Their point is you shouldn't even NEED to. But in order to deal with gun crime, they want removal of even WANTING the right to own a gun without a life-or-death reason. Sounds like overkill? Quelle surprise if one day the US somehow DOES ban private ownership of guns or assault rifles in particular, and then you read news reports of yet another shootup done by someone who managed to get "black" guns from criminal elements (of which they might be part of themselves). I'm willing to bet if statistics were dug up now in 2023 of gun crime over the past 20 years, one will find that more gun crime were committed by "black" guns than registered legal ones. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here's a question for the ant-gun forumers. Would you not own a gun for self protection if you were living in the USA? Statistically, not the best idea. " Exactly. We can all go on about no guns, but the reality is if you were living in America, you best get one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here's a question for the ant-gun forumers. Would you not own a gun for self protection if you were living in the USA? " I wouldn't want either to own a gun or live in that environment. So that probably qualifies me as an anti -gun forumite! I did have a .177 airgun (not rifle) as a kid and to my eternal shame shot a sparrow dead with it. when I was in the CCF at school, to cause confusion I fired one of my rounds into someone else's target on the rifle range. On Field Days I hung around until the limited quota of .303s had been handed out so I wouldn't have to carry one all day. That got guns out of my system early on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here's a question for the ant-gun forumers. Would you not own a gun for self protection if you were living in the USA? I wouldn't want either to own a gun or live in that environment. So that probably qualifies me as an anti -gun forumite! I did have a .177 airgun (not rifle) as a kid and to my eternal shame shot a sparrow dead with it. when I was in the CCF at school, to cause confusion I fired one of my rounds into someone else's target on the rifle range. On Field Days I hung around until the limited quota of .303s had been handed out so I wouldn't have to carry one all day. That got guns out of my system early on. " So do you think it is okay to deny others the right to exercise their want to do/own something which you yourself don't want to do/own, simply because some of those people want to do/own something to hurt other people for their own jollies and kicks? In other words, do you want freedom of choice for yourself but not others, depending on what is up for choosing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, the arms in question were things like muskets, not semi automatic weapons, so should the Second Amendment still stand? The idea that the constitution is a sacred document that should never be updated is puzzling when that idea is used to defend something literally termed an 'amendment.' " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here's a question for the ant-gun forumers. Would you not own a gun for self protection if you were living in the USA? Their point is you shouldn't even NEED to. But in order to deal with gun crime, they want removal of even WANTING the right to own a gun without a life-or-death reason. Sounds like overkill? Quelle surprise if one day the US somehow DOES ban private ownership of guns or assault rifles in particular, and then you read news reports of yet another shootup done by someone who managed to get "black" guns from criminal elements (of which they might be part of themselves). I'm willing to bet if statistics were dug up now in 2023 of gun crime over the past 20 years, one will find that more gun crime were committed by "black" guns than registered legal ones. " Just out of interest......where are all these illegal gun factories supplying the mass shooters? Because I'm only 99% sure that every mass shooting has been undertaken by an individual or individuals with legally acquired guns.
The ATF published a report just last month and here are some of the key points.
"The ATF found that 54% of traced crime guns were recovered by law enforcement more than three years after their purchase. Those guns were legally purchased, but were later used in crimes, the report indicated."
"A huge way those legally purchased firearms get into the hands of criminals is through theft, the ATF said. In five years from 2017-2021, there were more than 1 million firearms st0len from private citizens and reported to authorities.
There's a caveat here, however. Federal law doesn't require individual gun owners to report the loss or theft of their firearm to police. And while local laws vary, it also isn't a requirement in many states to report a st0len gun, either — so the number of gun thefts could be much higher."
"And over 80% of mass shooters at K-12 schools st0le guns from family members, according to research funded by the National Institute of Justice (a program of the U.S. Justice Department) that examined mass shootings that took place from 1966 to 2019."
"In five years, the number of illegal machine gun conversion devices recovered by law enforcement agencies has jumped 570%
Conversion devices make semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic machines guns.
To put this new data into context, from 2012 to 2016, ATF reported the recovery of 814 machine gun conversion devices, the agency told NPR. From 2017 to 2021, however, that number skyrocketed to 5,454 recoveries."
So......tell me again that legally purchased guns aren't the problem?
A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here's a question for the ant-gun forumers. Would you not own a gun for self protection if you were living in the USA? Their point is you shouldn't even NEED to. But in order to deal with gun crime, they want removal of even WANTING the right to own a gun without a life-or-death reason. Sounds like overkill? Quelle surprise if one day the US somehow DOES ban private ownership of guns or assault rifles in particular, and then you read news reports of yet another shootup done by someone who managed to get "black" guns from criminal elements (of which they might be part of themselves). I'm willing to bet if statistics were dug up now in 2023 of gun crime over the past 20 years, one will find that more gun crime were committed by "black" guns than registered legal ones. Just out of interest......where are all these illegal gun factories supplying the mass shooters? Because I'm only 99% sure that every mass shooting has been undertaken by an individual or individuals with legally acquired guns.
The ATF published a report just last month and here are some of the key points.
"The ATF found that 54% of traced crime guns were recovered by law enforcement more than three years after their purchase. Those guns were legally purchased, but were later used in crimes, the report indicated."
"A huge way those legally purchased firearms get into the hands of criminals is through theft, the ATF said. In five years from 2017-2021, there were more than 1 million firearms st0len from private citizens and reported to authorities.
There's a caveat here, however. Federal law doesn't require individual gun owners to report the loss or theft of their firearm to police. And while local laws vary, it also isn't a requirement in many states to report a st0len gun, either — so the number of gun thefts could be much higher."
"And over 80% of mass shooters at K-12 schools st0le guns from family members, according to research funded by the National Institute of Justice (a program of the U.S. Justice Department) that examined mass shootings that took place from 1966 to 2019."
"In five years, the number of illegal machine gun conversion devices recovered by law enforcement agencies has jumped 570%
Conversion devices make semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic machines guns.
To put this new data into context, from 2012 to 2016, ATF reported the recovery of 814 machine gun conversion devices, the agency told NPR. From 2017 to 2021, however, that number skyrocketed to 5,454 recoveries."
So......tell me again that legally purchased guns aren't the problem?
A"Using the same statistics you quoted above... The number of thieved legally-purchased guns is likely to be higher than what is officially documented/reported. 1) Legal gun ownership is suddenly the problem because legal gun owners can't lock their guns up safely away from thieves? 2) Anybody can buy a gun, pass it to someone else who then commits a crime with it. Even if then gun gets traced back to them, what's stopping them from saying "yeah that's my gun, it got nicked a while ago, I didn't report it, I didn't know it was used to shoot up someone else!"? 3) Lots of US firearms flowed into Central and South America during the Iran-Contra affair. Those guns have a nasty habit of finding their way back across the border again for sale to the highest bidder, sometimes with their numbers scratched off. Again, legally purchased guns are not the problem. It's like blaming legally purchased vehicles as the problem when you have god knows how many of them crashing into each other and killing more lives daily and more consistently than guns do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here's a question for the ant-gun forumers. Would you not own a gun for self protection if you were living in the USA? Their point is you shouldn't even NEED to. But in order to deal with gun crime, they want removal of even WANTING the right to own a gun without a life-or-death reason. Sounds like overkill? Quelle surprise if one day the US somehow DOES ban private ownership of guns or assault rifles in particular, and then you read news reports of yet another shootup done by someone who managed to get "black" guns from criminal elements (of which they might be part of themselves). I'm willing to bet if statistics were dug up now in 2023 of gun crime over the past 20 years, one will find that more gun crime were committed by "black" guns than registered legal ones. Just out of interest......where are all these illegal gun factories supplying the mass shooters? Because I'm only 99% sure that every mass shooting has been undertaken by an individual or individuals with legally acquired guns.
The ATF published a report just last month and here are some of the key points.
"The ATF found that 54% of traced crime guns were recovered by law enforcement more than three years after their purchase. Those guns were legally purchased, but were later used in crimes, the report indicated."
"A huge way those legally purchased firearms get into the hands of criminals is through theft, the ATF said. In five years from 2017-2021, there were more than 1 million firearms st0len from private citizens and reported to authorities.
There's a caveat here, however. Federal law doesn't require individual gun owners to report the loss or theft of their firearm to police. And while local laws vary, it also isn't a requirement in many states to report a st0len gun, either — so the number of gun thefts could be much higher."
"And over 80% of mass shooters at K-12 schools st0le guns from family members, according to research funded by the National Institute of Justice (a program of the U.S. Justice Department) that examined mass shootings that took place from 1966 to 2019."
"In five years, the number of illegal machine gun conversion devices recovered by law enforcement agencies has jumped 570%
Conversion devices make semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic machines guns.
To put this new data into context, from 2012 to 2016, ATF reported the recovery of 814 machine gun conversion devices, the agency told NPR. From 2017 to 2021, however, that number skyrocketed to 5,454 recoveries."
So......tell me again that legally purchased guns aren't the problem?
A"I can tell you since the pandemic and the unrest gun sales skyrocketed. Why is that surely it wasn't sport shooters buying. I go to the range all the time. The number 1 reason for purchasing one is the social unrest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here's a question for the ant-gun forumers. Would you not own a gun for self protection if you were living in the USA? Their point is you shouldn't even NEED to. But in order to deal with gun crime, they want removal of even WANTING the right to own a gun without a life-or-death reason. Sounds like overkill? Quelle surprise if one day the US somehow DOES ban private ownership of guns or assault rifles in particular, and then you read news reports of yet another shootup done by someone who managed to get "black" guns from criminal elements (of which they might be part of themselves). I'm willing to bet if statistics were dug up now in 2023 of gun crime over the past 20 years, one will find that more gun crime were committed by "black" guns than registered legal ones. Just out of interest......where are all these illegal gun factories supplying the mass shooters? Because I'm only 99% sure that every mass shooting has been undertaken by an individual or individuals with legally acquired guns.
The ATF published a report just last month and here are some of the key points.
"The ATF found that 54% of traced crime guns were recovered by law enforcement more than three years after their purchase. Those guns were legally purchased, but were later used in crimes, the report indicated."
"A huge way those legally purchased firearms get into the hands of criminals is through theft, the ATF said. In five years from 2017-2021, there were more than 1 million firearms st0len from private citizens and reported to authorities.
There's a caveat here, however. Federal law doesn't require individual gun owners to report the loss or theft of their firearm to police. And while local laws vary, it also isn't a requirement in many states to report a st0len gun, either — so the number of gun thefts could be much higher."
"And over 80% of mass shooters at K-12 schools st0le guns from family members, according to research funded by the National Institute of Justice (a program of the U.S. Justice Department) that examined mass shootings that took place from 1966 to 2019."
"In five years, the number of illegal machine gun conversion devices recovered by law enforcement agencies has jumped 570%
Conversion devices make semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic machines guns.
To put this new data into context, from 2012 to 2016, ATF reported the recovery of 814 machine gun conversion devices, the agency told NPR. From 2017 to 2021, however, that number skyrocketed to 5,454 recoveries."
So......tell me again that legally purchased guns aren't the problem?
A
Using the same statistics you quoted above...
The number of thieved legally-purchased guns is likely to be higher than what is officially documented/reported.
1) Legal gun ownership is suddenly the problem because legal gun owners can't lock their guns up safely away from thieves?
2) Anybody can buy a gun, pass it to someone else who then commits a crime with it. Even if then gun gets traced back to them, what's stopping them from saying "yeah that's my gun, it got nicked a while ago, I didn't report it, I didn't know it was used to shoot up someone else!"?
3) Lots of US firearms flowed into Central and South America during the Iran-Contra affair. Those guns have a nasty habit of finding their way back across the border again for sale to the highest bidder, sometimes with their numbers scratched off. Again, legally purchased guns are not the problem. It's like blaming legally purchased vehicles as the problem when you have god knows how many of them crashing into each other and killing more lives daily and more consistently than guns do. "You said you'd bet that illegal guns were more likely to be used in crime than legally acquired ones based on the most recently available data. Using data from a report just a month old, from the USA's own ATF, I've just shown you that's not the case. The very department responsible for investigating firearms crimes says that. Not anecdotal evidence. Not theory. Statistically based research and data. You say you study so I assume that factual data is a key component of any argument you present in your research and that it's seen as more relevant than 'opinion' or personal view? How much did you want to bet again? A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here's a question for the ant-gun forumers. Would you not own a gun for self protection if you were living in the USA? I wouldn't want either to own a gun or live in that environment. So that probably qualifies me as an anti -gun forumite! I did have a .177 airgun (not rifle) as a kid and to my eternal shame shot a sparrow dead with it. when I was in the CCF at school, to cause confusion I fired one of my rounds into someone else's target on the rifle range. On Field Days I hung around until the limited quota of .303s had been handed out so I wouldn't have to carry one all day. That got guns out of my system early on. So do you think it is okay to deny others the right to exercise their want to do/own something which you yourself don't want to do/own, simply because some of those people want to do/own something to hurt other people for their own jollies and kicks? In other words, do you want freedom of choice for yourself but not others, depending on what is up for choosing? " I love the way some people tell me the way they think I am thinking! Basically, it would be nice if far more people had as little interest in firearms and also violent behaviour as I have. Is that too much to ask in civilised society? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here's a question for the ant-gun forumers. Would you not own a gun for self protection if you were living in the USA? Their point is you shouldn't even NEED to. But in order to deal with gun crime, they want removal of even WANTING the right to own a gun without a life-or-death reason. Sounds like overkill? Quelle surprise if one day the US somehow DOES ban private ownership of guns or assault rifles in particular, and then you read news reports of yet another shootup done by someone who managed to get "black" guns from criminal elements (of which they might be part of themselves). I'm willing to bet if statistics were dug up now in 2023 of gun crime over the past 20 years, one will find that more gun crime were committed by "black" guns than registered legal ones. Just out of interest......where are all these illegal gun factories supplying the mass shooters? Because I'm only 99% sure that every mass shooting has been undertaken by an individual or individuals with legally acquired guns.
The ATF published a report just last month and here are some of the key points.
"The ATF found that 54% of traced crime guns were recovered by law enforcement more than three years after their purchase. Those guns were legally purchased, but were later used in crimes, the report indicated."
"A huge way those legally purchased firearms get into the hands of criminals is through theft, the ATF said. In five years from 2017-2021, there were more than 1 million firearms st0len from private citizens and reported to authorities.
There's a caveat here, however. Federal law doesn't require individual gun owners to report the loss or theft of their firearm to police. And while local laws vary, it also isn't a requirement in many states to report a st0len gun, either — so the number of gun thefts could be much higher."
"And over 80% of mass shooters at K-12 schools st0le guns from family members, according to research funded by the National Institute of Justice (a program of the U.S. Justice Department) that examined mass shootings that took place from 1966 to 2019."
"In five years, the number of illegal machine gun conversion devices recovered by law enforcement agencies has jumped 570%
Conversion devices make semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic machines guns.
To put this new data into context, from 2012 to 2016, ATF reported the recovery of 814 machine gun conversion devices, the agency told NPR. From 2017 to 2021, however, that number skyrocketed to 5,454 recoveries."
So......tell me again that legally purchased guns aren't the problem?
A
Using the same statistics you quoted above...
The number of thieved legally-purchased guns is likely to be higher than what is officially documented/reported.
1) Legal gun ownership is suddenly the problem because legal gun owners can't lock their guns up safely away from thieves?
2) Anybody can buy a gun, pass it to someone else who then commits a crime with it. Even if then gun gets traced back to them, what's stopping them from saying "yeah that's my gun, it got nicked a while ago, I didn't report it, I didn't know it was used to shoot up someone else!"?
3) Lots of US firearms flowed into Central and South America during the Iran-Contra affair. Those guns have a nasty habit of finding their way back across the border again for sale to the highest bidder, sometimes with their numbers scratched off. Again, legally purchased guns are not the problem. It's like blaming legally purchased vehicles as the problem when you have god knows how many of them crashing into each other and killing more lives daily and more consistently than guns do.
You said you'd bet that illegal guns were more likely to be used in crime than legally acquired ones based on the most recently available data.
Using data from a report just a month old, from the USA's own ATF, I've just shown you that's not the case. The very department responsible for investigating firearms crimes says that. Not anecdotal evidence. Not theory. Statistically based research and data.
You say you study so I assume that factual data is a key component of any argument you present in your research and that it's seen as more relevant than 'opinion' or personal view?
How much did you want to bet again?
A
"Yes, the ATF, the bastion of impartiality, objectivity, and apoliticalness in regulating firearms in the US. Sure, their statistics are ENTIRELY reliable, and not deliberately couched to push an agenda. p.s., look up the ATF gunwalking scandal, then tell me if legally-purchased guns are the majority of firearms used in crime, what do we do about the ATF which deliberately facilitated their sales to illegal criminals via straw buyers which for all intents and purposes look legal on the surface at point of purchase? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The ATF published a report just last month and here are some of the key points. "The ATF found that 54% of traced crime guns were recovered by law enforcement more than three years after their purchase. Those guns were legally purchased, but were later used in crimes, the report indicated." "A huge way those legally purchased firearms get into the hands of criminals is through theft, the ATF said. In five years from 2017-2021, there were more than 1 million firearms st0len from private citizens and reported to authorities. There's a caveat here, however. Federal law doesn't require individual gun owners to report the loss or theft of their firearm to police. And while local laws vary, it also isn't a requirement in many states to report a st0len gun, either — so the number of gun thefts could be much higher." "And over 80% of mass shooters at K-12 schools st0le guns from family members, according to research funded by the National Institute of Justice (a program of the U.S. Justice Department) that examined mass shootings that took place from 1966 to 2019." "In five years, the number of illegal machine gun conversion devices recovered by law enforcement agencies has jumped 570% Conversion devices make semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic machines guns. To put this new data into context, from 2012 to 2016, ATF reported the recovery of 814 machine gun conversion devices, the agency told NPR. From 2017 to 2021, however, that number skyrocketed to 5,454 recoveries." So......tell me again that legally purchased guns aren't the problem?
A
Using the same statistics you quoted above...
The number of thieved legally-purchased guns is likely to be higher than what is officially documented/reported.
1) Legal gun ownership is suddenly the problem because legal gun owners can't lock their guns up safely away from thieves?
2) Anybody can buy a gun, pass it to someone else who then commits a crime with it. Even if then gun gets traced back to them, what's stopping them from saying "yeah that's my gun, it got nicked a while ago, I didn't report it, I didn't know it was used to shoot up someone else!"?
3) Lots of US firearms flowed into Central and South America during the Iran-Contra affair. Those guns have a nasty habit of finding their way back across the border again for sale to the highest bidder, sometimes with their numbers scratched off. Again, legally purchased guns are not the problem. It's like blaming legally purchased vehicles as the problem when you have god knows how many of them crashing into each other and killing more lives daily and more consistently than guns do.
You said you'd bet that illegal guns were more likely to be used in crime than legally acquired ones based on the most recently available data.
Using data from a report just a month old, from the USA's own ATF, I've just shown you that's not the case. The very department responsible for investigating firearms crimes says that. Not anecdotal evidence. Not theory. Statistically based research and data.
You say you study so I assume that factual data is a key component of any argument you present in your research and that it's seen as more relevant than 'opinion' or personal view?
How much did you want to bet again?
A
"p.s. if we want to play the statistics game, try looking at more sources than just the ATF. http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-policy-info/crime-and-guns/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-u-s-has-a-lot-of-guns-involved-in-crimes-but-very-little-data-on-where-they-came-from/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Schools for instance if I have to visit one they are gun free zones. How messed up is that." Can't help protect the children. Because I legally can't. You just follow the rules. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here's a question for the ant-gun forumers. Would you not own a gun for self protection if you were living in the USA? Their point is you shouldn't even NEED to. But in order to deal with gun crime, they want removal of even WANTING the right to own a gun without a life-or-death reason. Sounds like overkill? Quelle surprise if one day the US somehow DOES ban private ownership of guns or assault rifles in particular, and then you read news reports of yet another shootup done by someone who managed to get "black" guns from criminal elements (of which they might be part of themselves). I'm willing to bet if statistics were dug up now in 2023 of gun crime over the past 20 years, one will find that more gun crime were committed by "black" guns than registered legal ones. Just out of interest......where are all these illegal gun factories supplying the mass shooters? Because I'm only 99% sure that every mass shooting has been undertaken by an individual or individuals with legally acquired guns.
The ATF published a report just last month and here are some of the key points.
"The ATF found that 54% of traced crime guns were recovered by law enforcement more than three years after their purchase. Those guns were legally purchased, but were later used in crimes, the report indicated."
"A huge way those legally purchased firearms get into the hands of criminals is through theft, the ATF said. In five years from 2017-2021, there were more than 1 million firearms st0len from private citizens and reported to authorities.
There's a caveat here, however. Federal law doesn't require individual gun owners to report the loss or theft of their firearm to police. And while local laws vary, it also isn't a requirement in many states to report a st0len gun, either — so the number of gun thefts could be much higher."
"And over 80% of mass shooters at K-12 schools st0le guns from family members, according to research funded by the National Institute of Justice (a program of the U.S. Justice Department) that examined mass shootings that took place from 1966 to 2019."
"In five years, the number of illegal machine gun conversion devices recovered by law enforcement agencies has jumped 570%
Conversion devices make semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic machines guns.
To put this new data into context, from 2012 to 2016, ATF reported the recovery of 814 machine gun conversion devices, the agency told NPR. From 2017 to 2021, however, that number skyrocketed to 5,454 recoveries."
So......tell me again that legally purchased guns aren't the problem?
A
Using the same statistics you quoted above...
The number of thieved legally-purchased guns is likely to be higher than what is officially documented/reported.
1) Legal gun ownership is suddenly the problem because legal gun owners can't lock their guns up safely away from thieves?
2) Anybody can buy a gun, pass it to someone else who then commits a crime with it. Even if then gun gets traced back to them, what's stopping them from saying "yeah that's my gun, it got nicked a while ago, I didn't report it, I didn't know it was used to shoot up someone else!"?
3) Lots of US firearms flowed into Central and South America during the Iran-Contra affair. Those guns have a nasty habit of finding their way back across the border again for sale to the highest bidder, sometimes with their numbers scratched off. Again, legally purchased guns are not the problem. It's like blaming legally purchased vehicles as the problem when you have god knows how many of them crashing into each other and killing more lives daily and more consistently than guns do.
You said you'd bet that illegal guns were more likely to be used in crime than legally acquired ones based on the most recently available data.
Using data from a report just a month old, from the USA's own ATF, I've just shown you that's not the case. The very department responsible for investigating firearms crimes says that. Not anecdotal evidence. Not theory. Statistically based research and data.
You say you study so I assume that factual data is a key component of any argument you present in your research and that it's seen as more relevant than 'opinion' or personal view?
How much did you want to bet again?
A
Yes, the ATF, the bastion of impartiality, objectivity, and apoliticalness in regulating firearms in the US.
Sure, their statistics are ENTIRELY reliable, and not deliberately couched to push an agenda.
p.s., look up the ATF gunwalking scandal, then tell me if legally-purchased guns are the majority of firearms used in crime, what do we do about the ATF which deliberately facilitated their sales to illegal criminals via straw buyers which for all intents and purposes look legal on the surface at point of purchase? "So hang on. On the one hand you argue that legal gun ownership isn't the problem and that the USA has adequate checks in place.......yet you now denounce the very government department responsible for regulating, via licensing, the sale, possession, and transportation of firearms, ammunition, and explosives. The same department whose responsibilities include the investigation and prevention of federal offenses involving the unlawful use, manufacture, and possession of firearms and explosives. So if you can't trust the regulator and legislator then you're now saying that you can't trust the legal processes under which guns are sold and distributed in the USA. You can't have it both ways bud - pick a side. 
A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Schools for instance if I have to visit one they are gun free zones. How messed up is that. Can't help protect the children. Because I legally can't. You just follow the rules." Weren't there armed security guards on site at all the recent school shootings? Weren't they there to prevent attacks? How effective were the guns the good guys had? A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here's a question for the ant-gun forumers. Would you not own a gun for self protection if you were living in the USA? Their point is you shouldn't even NEED to. But in order to deal with gun crime, they want removal of even WANTING the right to own a gun without a life-or-death reason. Sounds like overkill? Quelle surprise if one day the US somehow DOES ban private ownership of guns or assault rifles in particular, and then you read news reports of yet another shootup done by someone who managed to get "black" guns from criminal elements (of which they might be part of themselves). I'm willing to bet if statistics were dug up now in 2023 of gun crime over the past 20 years, one will find that more gun crime were committed by "black" guns than registered legal ones. Just out of interest......where are all these illegal gun factories supplying the mass shooters? Because I'm only 99% sure that every mass shooting has been undertaken by an individual or individuals with legally acquired guns.
The ATF published a report just last month and here are some of the key points.
"The ATF found that 54% of traced crime guns were recovered by law enforcement more than three years after their purchase. Those guns were legally purchased, but were later used in crimes, the report indicated."
"A huge way those legally purchased firearms get into the hands of criminals is through theft, the ATF said. In five years from 2017-2021, there were more than 1 million firearms st0len from private citizens and reported to authorities.
There's a caveat here, however. Federal law doesn't require individual gun owners to report the loss or theft of their firearm to police. And while local laws vary, it also isn't a requirement in many states to report a st0len gun, either — so the number of gun thefts could be much higher."
"And over 80% of mass shooters at K-12 schools st0le guns from family members, according to research funded by the National Institute of Justice (a program of the U.S. Justice Department) that examined mass shootings that took place from 1966 to 2019."
"In five years, the number of illegal machine gun conversion devices recovered by law enforcement agencies has jumped 570%
Conversion devices make semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic machines guns.
To put this new data into context, from 2012 to 2016, ATF reported the recovery of 814 machine gun conversion devices, the agency told NPR. From 2017 to 2021, however, that number skyrocketed to 5,454 recoveries."
So......tell me again that legally purchased guns aren't the problem?
A
Using the same statistics you quoted above...
The number of thieved legally-purchased guns is likely to be higher than what is officially documented/reported.
1) Legal gun ownership is suddenly the problem because legal gun owners can't lock their guns up safely away from thieves?
2) Anybody can buy a gun, pass it to someone else who then commits a crime with it. Even if then gun gets traced back to them, what's stopping them from saying "yeah that's my gun, it got nicked a while ago, I didn't report it, I didn't know it was used to shoot up someone else!"?
3) Lots of US firearms flowed into Central and South America during the Iran-Contra affair. Those guns have a nasty habit of finding their way back across the border again for sale to the highest bidder, sometimes with their numbers scratched off. Again, legally purchased guns are not the problem. It's like blaming legally purchased vehicles as the problem when you have god knows how many of them crashing into each other and killing more lives daily and more consistently than guns do.
You said you'd bet that illegal guns were more likely to be used in crime than legally acquired ones based on the most recently available data.
Using data from a report just a month old, from the USA's own ATF, I've just shown you that's not the case. The very department responsible for investigating firearms crimes says that. Not anecdotal evidence. Not theory. Statistically based research and data.
You say you study so I assume that factual data is a key component of any argument you present in your research and that it's seen as more relevant than 'opinion' or personal view?
How much did you want to bet again?
A
Yes, the ATF, the bastion of impartiality, objectivity, and apoliticalness in regulating firearms in the US.
Sure, their statistics are ENTIRELY reliable, and not deliberately couched to push an agenda.
p.s., look up the ATF gunwalking scandal, then tell me if legally-purchased guns are the majority of firearms used in crime, what do we do about the ATF which deliberately facilitated their sales to illegal criminals via straw buyers which for all intents and purposes look legal on the surface at point of purchase?
So hang on.
On the one hand you argue that legal gun ownership isn't the problem and that the USA has adequate checks in place.......yet you now denounce the very government department responsible for regulating, via licensing, the sale, possession, and transportation of firearms, ammunition, and explosives. The same department whose responsibilities include the investigation and prevention of federal offenses involving the unlawful use, manufacture, and possession of firearms and explosives.
So if you can't trust the regulator and legislator then you're now saying that you can't trust the legal processes under which guns are sold and distributed in the USA.
You can't have it both ways bud - pick a side.
A"Very easy to square things. I trust the processes and regulations already put in place. I don't trust the ones supposed to enforce them. One is independent of the other. ATF doesn't put in place gun control regulations or weapons bans. Congress passes laws that put those regulations in place. Sorry, try harder. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are more guns per person in Canada than there are in the US but not the same level of school shootings and other mass shootings. The US has a messy and divisive political system mixed with a really unpleasant media, expensive health care (especially mental health), underpinned by a lack of employment rights or any social safety net. The nation is kept scared by politics and politicians and this is amplified by the rolling TV “news” and more recently by Alex Jones and his ilk on social media. There is a crisis of mental health and it’s exhibiting as mass shootings" He’s de platformed on every single social media platform possible | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are more guns per person in Canada than there are in the US but not the same level of school shootings and other mass shootings. The US has a messy and divisive political system mixed with a really unpleasant media, expensive health care (especially mental health), underpinned by a lack of employment rights or any social safety net. The nation is kept scared by politics and politicians and this is amplified by the rolling TV “news” and more recently by Alex Jones and his ilk on social media. There is a crisis of mental health and it’s exhibiting as mass shootings He’s de platformed on every single social media platform possible "So is Andrew Tate. Doesn't stop his message getting out amongst his followers who share and repost stuff from him online. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My view is the US government and NRA view school shootings,ie the killing of children, as the price you pay for your ‘freedom’ and it’s the biggest moral failure of our lifetime Regarding the guns and controls- they are so deep into this mess it’s hard to reign it in now. One thing they should try is banning assault rifles and make it harder to buy guns 120 guns per person in the US. Over 20 million ARs. Unless the federal government starts kicking in doors it's not going to happen." Isn’t that 1.2 guns per person? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here's a question for the ant-gun forumers. Would you not own a gun for self protection if you were living in the USA? Their point is you shouldn't even NEED to. But in order to deal with gun crime, they want removal of even WANTING the right to own a gun without a life-or-death reason. Sounds like overkill? Quelle surprise if one day the US somehow DOES ban private ownership of guns or assault rifles in particular, and then you read news reports of yet another shootup done by someone who managed to get "black" guns from criminal elements (of which they might be part of themselves). I'm willing to bet if statistics were dug up now in 2023 of gun crime over the past 20 years, one will find that more gun crime were committed by "black" guns than registered legal ones. Just out of interest......where are all these illegal gun factories supplying the mass shooters? Because I'm only 99% sure that every mass shooting has been undertaken by an individual or individuals with legally acquired guns.
The ATF published a report just last month and here are some of the key points.
"The ATF found that 54% of traced crime guns were recovered by law enforcement more than three years after their purchase. Those guns were legally purchased, but were later used in crimes, the report indicated."
"A huge way those legally purchased firearms get into the hands of criminals is through theft, the ATF said. In five years from 2017-2021, there were more than 1 million firearms st0len from private citizens and reported to authorities.
There's a caveat here, however. Federal law doesn't require individual gun owners to report the loss or theft of their firearm to police. And while local laws vary, it also isn't a requirement in many states to report a st0len gun, either — so the number of gun thefts could be much higher."
"And over 80% of mass shooters at K-12 schools st0le guns from family members, according to research funded by the National Institute of Justice (a program of the U.S. Justice Department) that examined mass shootings that took place from 1966 to 2019."
"In five years, the number of illegal machine gun conversion devices recovered by law enforcement agencies has jumped 570%
Conversion devices make semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic machines guns.
To put this new data into context, from 2012 to 2016, ATF reported the recovery of 814 machine gun conversion devices, the agency told NPR. From 2017 to 2021, however, that number skyrocketed to 5,454 recoveries."
So......tell me again that legally purchased guns aren't the problem?
A
Using the same statistics you quoted above...
The number of thieved legally-purchased guns is likely to be higher than what is officially documented/reported.
1) Legal gun ownership is suddenly the problem because legal gun owners can't lock their guns up safely away from thieves?
2) Anybody can buy a gun, pass it to someone else who then commits a crime with it. Even if then gun gets traced back to them, what's stopping them from saying "yeah that's my gun, it got nicked a while ago, I didn't report it, I didn't know it was used to shoot up someone else!"?
3) Lots of US firearms flowed into Central and South America during the Iran-Contra affair. Those guns have a nasty habit of finding their way back across the border again for sale to the highest bidder, sometimes with their numbers scratched off. Again, legally purchased guns are not the problem. It's like blaming legally purchased vehicles as the problem when you have god knows how many of them crashing into each other and killing more lives daily and more consistently than guns do.
You said you'd bet that illegal guns were more likely to be used in crime than legally acquired ones based on the most recently available data.
Using data from a report just a month old, from the USA's own ATF, I've just shown you that's not the case. The very department responsible for investigating firearms crimes says that. Not anecdotal evidence. Not theory. Statistically based research and data.
You say you study so I assume that factual data is a key component of any argument you present in your research and that it's seen as more relevant than 'opinion' or personal view?
How much did you want to bet again?
A
Yes, the ATF, the bastion of impartiality, objectivity, and apoliticalness in regulating firearms in the US.
Sure, their statistics are ENTIRELY reliable, and not deliberately couched to push an agenda.
p.s., look up the ATF gunwalking scandal, then tell me if legally-purchased guns are the majority of firearms used in crime, what do we do about the ATF which deliberately facilitated their sales to illegal criminals via straw buyers which for all intents and purposes look legal on the surface at point of purchase?
So hang on.
On the one hand you argue that legal gun ownership isn't the problem and that the USA has adequate checks in place.......yet you now denounce the very government department responsible for regulating, via licensing, the sale, possession, and transportation of firearms, ammunition, and explosives. The same department whose responsibilities include the investigation and prevention of federal offenses involving the unlawful use, manufacture, and possession of firearms and explosives.
So if you can't trust the regulator and legislator then you're now saying that you can't trust the legal processes under which guns are sold and distributed in the USA.
You can't have it both ways bud - pick a side.
A
Very easy to square things.
I trust the processes and regulations already put in place.
I don't trust the ones supposed to enforce them.
One is independent of the other. ATF doesn't put in place gun control regulations or weapons bans. Congress passes laws that put those regulations in place.
Sorry, try harder. "Go to the ATF website. Then click on the 'what we do' tab. They're responsible for regulating the sale, possession and transportation of firearms in the USA. Nobody said they made the rules. They enforce them. So what you're now saying is that the rules in place are unenforceable and those responsible for doing so are ineffective? Yes? In which case......your trust is pretty pointless if those regulations, checks and balances aren't being done sufficiently. There may as well be none. Which to be honest, is probably closer to the truth in reality........... A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are more guns per person in Canada than there are in the US but not the same level of school shootings and other mass shootings. The US has a messy and divisive political system mixed with a really unpleasant media, expensive health care (especially mental health), underpinned by a lack of employment rights or any social safety net. The nation is kept scared by politics and politicians and this is amplified by the rolling TV “news” and more recently by Alex Jones and his ilk on social media. There is a crisis of mental health and it’s exhibiting as mass shootings He’s de platformed on every single social media platform possible
So is Andrew Tate. Doesn't stop his message getting out amongst his followers who share and repost stuff from him online.
"Correct! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here's a question for the ant-gun forumers. Would you not own a gun for self protection if you were living in the USA? Their point is you shouldn't even NEED to. But in order to deal with gun crime, they want removal of even WANTING the right to own a gun without a life-or-death reason. Sounds like overkill? Quelle surprise if one day the US somehow DOES ban private ownership of guns or assault rifles in particular, and then you read news reports of yet another shootup done by someone who managed to get "black" guns from criminal elements (of which they might be part of themselves). I'm willing to bet if statistics were dug up now in 2023 of gun crime over the past 20 years, one will find that more gun crime were committed by "black" guns than registered legal ones. Just out of interest......where are all these illegal gun factories supplying the mass shooters? Because I'm only 99% sure that every mass shooting has been undertaken by an individual or individuals with legally acquired guns.
The ATF published a report just last month and here are some of the key points.
"The ATF found that 54% of traced crime guns were recovered by law enforcement more than three years after their purchase. Those guns were legally purchased, but were later used in crimes, the report indicated."
"A huge way those legally purchased firearms get into the hands of criminals is through theft, the ATF said. In five years from 2017-2021, there were more than 1 million firearms st0len from private citizens and reported to authorities.
There's a caveat here, however. Federal law doesn't require individual gun owners to report the loss or theft of their firearm to police. And while local laws vary, it also isn't a requirement in many states to report a st0len gun, either — so the number of gun thefts could be much higher."
"And over 80% of mass shooters at K-12 schools st0le guns from family members, according to research funded by the National Institute of Justice (a program of the U.S. Justice Department) that examined mass shootings that took place from 1966 to 2019."
"In five years, the number of illegal machine gun conversion devices recovered by law enforcement agencies has jumped 570%
Conversion devices make semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic machines guns.
To put this new data into context, from 2012 to 2016, ATF reported the recovery of 814 machine gun conversion devices, the agency told NPR. From 2017 to 2021, however, that number skyrocketed to 5,454 recoveries."
So......tell me again that legally purchased guns aren't the problem?
A
Using the same statistics you quoted above...
The number of thieved legally-purchased guns is likely to be higher than what is officially documented/reported.
1) Legal gun ownership is suddenly the problem because legal gun owners can't lock their guns up safely away from thieves?
2) Anybody can buy a gun, pass it to someone else who then commits a crime with it. Even if then gun gets traced back to them, what's stopping them from saying "yeah that's my gun, it got nicked a while ago, I didn't report it, I didn't know it was used to shoot up someone else!"?
3) Lots of US firearms flowed into Central and South America during the Iran-Contra affair. Those guns have a nasty habit of finding their way back across the border again for sale to the highest bidder, sometimes with their numbers scratched off. Again, legally purchased guns are not the problem. It's like blaming legally purchased vehicles as the problem when you have god knows how many of them crashing into each other and killing more lives daily and more consistently than guns do.
You said you'd bet that illegal guns were more likely to be used in crime than legally acquired ones based on the most recently available data.
Using data from a report just a month old, from the USA's own ATF, I've just shown you that's not the case. The very department responsible for investigating firearms crimes says that. Not anecdotal evidence. Not theory. Statistically based research and data.
You say you study so I assume that factual data is a key component of any argument you present in your research and that it's seen as more relevant than 'opinion' or personal view?
How much did you want to bet again?
A
Yes, the ATF, the bastion of impartiality, objectivity, and apoliticalness in regulating firearms in the US.
Sure, their statistics are ENTIRELY reliable, and not deliberately couched to push an agenda.
p.s., look up the ATF gunwalking scandal, then tell me if legally-purchased guns are the majority of firearms used in crime, what do we do about the ATF which deliberately facilitated their sales to illegal criminals via straw buyers which for all intents and purposes look legal on the surface at point of purchase?
So hang on.
On the one hand you argue that legal gun ownership isn't the problem and that the USA has adequate checks in place.......yet you now denounce the very government department responsible for regulating, via licensing, the sale, possession, and transportation of firearms, ammunition, and explosives. The same department whose responsibilities include the investigation and prevention of federal offenses involving the unlawful use, manufacture, and possession of firearms and explosives.
So if you can't trust the regulator and legislator then you're now saying that you can't trust the legal processes under which guns are sold and distributed in the USA.
You can't have it both ways bud - pick a side.
A
Very easy to square things.
I trust the processes and regulations already put in place.
I don't trust the ones supposed to enforce them.
One is independent of the other. ATF doesn't put in place gun control regulations or weapons bans. Congress passes laws that put those regulations in place.
Sorry, try harder.
Go to the ATF website. Then click on the 'what we do' tab.
They're responsible for regulating the sale, possession and transportation of firearms in the USA.
Nobody said they made the rules. They enforce them.
So what you're now saying is that the rules in place are unenforceable and those responsible for doing so are ineffective? Yes?
In which case......your trust is pretty pointless if those regulations, checks and balances aren't being done sufficiently.
There may as well be none. Which to be honest, is probably closer to the truth in reality...........
A"And is the answer to that "just ban all guns from private ownership"? If the ATF is already so useless and politically compromised by whichever party's presidential administration is in power at any point in time to enforce arbitrary changes in gun category definition or banning gun components, you want them to take on the even bigger task of taking away guns from private ownership when there's literally like more than 100 MILLION guns in private ownership circulation? Forget the semantics or moral debates over whether guns should be banned or not. As you said. A rule that cannot be enforced is no rule at all. Who's gonna do it, ATF? All the police departments in the US? The entire US Army? Of which how many servicemen and women themselves own guns and support private gun ownership? If you are so hard up for the "moral high ground win" of arguing that yes, the US should ban private gun ownership, say the word here; you can have it and I'll stop responding to you immediately. But it'll be a hollow one because there'll be no way to enforce it and for all your moralising private gun ownership will STILL be a thing in the US. And I wonder what your moral stance would be then when you consider the amount of state centralised force and threats of state-sanctioned violence needed to even BEGIN enforcing a blanket ban on firearms or even certain gun categories. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
