Gun Control thread (merged many)

[CaptainHaplo]

The usual make up what I said to a link that you said that i said that I never said, but that you made up and said I said...
:har:

That hurt my head. Mainly because its so true of the style of "debate" some use. If they can't use (or deal with) facts, they just fabricate stuff....

[Oberon]

Not sure of your question, but gun ownership was never a legal right given by the 2nd amend. As I said earlier, you saw no congressman in the 1700's shouting he was gonna pass a law to make guns legal. The crowd would've yelled "since when were they illegal" It has been a natural common law right since guns were invented. You guys across the seas gave away your gun rights when you defined gun rights as legal rights, thus giving your govts the right to make them illegal. Gun right advocates in America see the right to hunt for food and self defense a natural common right. The 2nd amend doesn't deny the natural right of gun ownership, just extends it's use in regards to militia use...

Yes but the right is not without limit, that's sort of what I was aiming at, for example you can't purchase armour-piercing ammunition or explosive rounds (at least according to wikipedia you can't), so perhaps introduce a law that...I don't know, maybe that any gun owner has to attend a gun safety class every six months or risk a fine and/or imprisonment? Something like that, to encourage people to actually use firearm safety so that their mentally unstable teenager is not able to access their firearm and use it on a rampage. That would perhaps be a start.

By the way, in regards to weapons ownership, the 2nd Amendment is in fact based on the English Bill of Rights of 1689:

Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome (list of grievances including) ... by causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law, (Recital regarding the change of monarch) ... thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare (list of rights including) ... That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

However, after the Jacobite rebellions in the 1700s, harsh disarming laws were imposed on Scotland and the in the early 1800s, further firearms laws were put in place because of returning soldiers from the Napoleonic wars were becoming a nuisance in the countryside by using their firearms for banditry. Then again after the First World War, further legislation was brought in to control the amount of firearms being brought back from the war, and then after that laws were generally (except for the 1968 Firearms Act) only brought in after incidents such as Hungerford and Dunblane.
Has it worked? Well the number of mass shooting sprees has been pretty low, just two in my lifetime (Dunblame and the Cumbria sprees) but gun crime has been fairly fluctuating but generally a lot lower than in comparison to the US, even if you scale the populations to equal measure.
Now knives, that's a different story. :dead:

http://i.imgur.com/dM1zyHx.jpg?1

[Oberon]

But this is General Topics so Aliens and all sorts of stuff is expected.
:haha:

Now what about Alien firearms? :hmmm:

http://images.auctionworks.com/hi/3/3282/romulan_pistol-31.jpg

Can't go wrong with the old disruptor pistol, smooth, sleek and deadly. :yep:

[ikalugin]

Well I wish US would pass a law allowing militia men to own heavy weapons.

This would certainly go with the spirit and the letter of the 2nd amendment.

And i think this would be my last contribution to this special Olympics thread.

[MH]

Thats really all there is to it.

Yes... also people who go about their daily lives and think that what is good for SEALS is good for them.
It is funny how people argue about timing yet I wonder how many have actually trained shooting under pressure.

[Armistead]

Yes but the right is not without limit, that's sort of what I was aiming at, for example you can't purchase armour-piercing ammunition or explosive rounds (at least according to wikipedia you can't), sG]

And that' the argument that goes on forever. I agree because gun rights are a for granted right, that govts elected by the people have the right to set limits. They certainly have the right to regulate military type weaponry, they basically did that with militias as they progressed, because the natural common right was basically hunting and self defense. They have the right to outlaw military weaponry to the general public. We have have done much of this in the US. The problem comes when does a military use and public use come close together, such as large clips or drums... There has to be a balance and that's what we in America fight about....

The problem comes when those against guns totally argue the 2nd is in regards to militias/armies only...

Also, you can't compare the complex culture of America to Europe for statistics

[Armistead]

That hurt my head. Mainly because its so true of the style of "debate" some use. If they can't use (or deal with) facts, they just fabricate stuff....

well, we all know some here are basic trolls and mute debaters....just argue for the sake of distance and irritation...

but they can be mildly entertaining for a few post...

[Rockstar]

That's how I carry my M1911. I just can't abide the thought of carrying with a cocked hammer, even on a gun that has a double safety.


I used to carry my .45 with one in the chamber all the time. One day, I don't why maybe I was in a rush, I went out and didn't load one in. Weird because that was the first and only time anyone ever grabbed my side arm in an attempt to take it from me. Scared the poop out of me.

eventually we transitioned the Beretta M9 I thought it was a much safer weapon to carry and designed to safely carry one in the chamber.

[Armistead]

As far as I recall cybermat was the only person who said on this forum they were totally against guns.
He changed his mind after the simple 3 letter question of "why?"


and your point.....

[Armistead]

There you have it Oberon.
protestants catholics and dissenters, taxpayers and the poor, landowners and tenants, rebels and loyalists, freeman and bondsmen, white Christian male folks and errrrr....others....loads of it, its all in Armiteads link.
No wonder he had trouble finding a single example which would support his initial claim.
Restrictions applied before the revolution, restrictions applied during the revolution and restrictions applied after the revolution.

But you must understand. America swapped a bunch of idiots in Westminster for a bunch of idiots in Washington through armed rebellion.
They have this gun thing which is largely based on myth.
Ireland swapped a bunch of idiots in Westminster for a bunch of idiots in Dublin through armed rebellion, they don't have this gun myth.

I never said restrictions weren't applied, such as your fowling gun comment. I said numerous states dealt with them differently. They wanted men with muskets, not fowling pieces or most rifles. What the govt didn't regulate was what you could own, but they did try to regulate what they wanted you to bring to the militia....learn the difference....Fact is many still showed up with fowling pieces and rifles....This only became a problem as technology advanced, mobsters, etc....

Americans maintained their natural right for guns, regardless of what you peans do across the seas....

[Armistead]

tribe,
please shorten your last post to less than 25 words...oh my bad, the one before it..

you point out one person on the thread when you know I was referring to the overall public....

I almost feel dumb for answering that...

[CaptainHaplo]

tribe,
please shorten your last post to less than 25 words...oh my bad, the one before it..

you point out one person on the thread when you know I was referring to the overall public....

I almost feel dumb for answering that...

Armistead - note how instead of staying on topic, the OP meanders off to dispute (not debate) anything stated by certain people. Sometimes, you just gotta stop feeding the troll.

[August]

Armistead - note how instead of staying on topic, the OP meanders off to dispute (not debate) anything stated by certain people. Sometimes, you just gotta stop feeding the troll.


This ^

[Armistead]

What overall public?
They don't exist in that manner.
Your position there is one Ducimus took previously.
When asked for proof of those peoples views he provided a nice gun site list of those people, unfortunately his long list failed to provide any actual examples of those people he was on about apart from a single anti smoking campaigner from Florida who held rather strange views on a wide range of subjects.
As I said one person on this forum held that view you are on about, he changed his mind after a single simple question as the view makes no sense.
So what group of the "public" are you complaining about?
The one that doesn't really exist to any notable degree?

I won't argue with that, most groups don't make their intentions public. The issue is when groups seek to ban, limit or make guns or types of guns unavailable to the general public as a for granted right, but instead a legal highly regulated right to the point it's impossible for many to get a gun. Many of these bans in mostly major cities get smacked down by the supreme court.
I would agree that few want ALL guns gone, they might allow you a long gun, but they make the process of most guns so complex and expensive. Many cities created laws where you had to basically prove your need for a gun or for use as protection. When govts or groups seek to deny your natural independent right to access any gun that isn't military, basically autos and explosives, they have crossed the line into basic total gun control.

Still, you can google and get numerous sites of people wanting all guns banned...how few are they, a minority for sure, but many of them have power and great influence and all of them know it will be a step by step process, a little at a time....and the movement is growing larger.

Just search - ban guns now- ....you'll get pages of people, groups and politicians that support the banning of guns...

[Armistead]

Armistead - note how instead of staying on topic, the OP meanders off to dispute (not debate) anything stated by certain people. Sometimes, you just gotta stop feeding the troll.


it's not my first rodeo with the troll, if he keeps it short and makes a valid point, I may respond......

[Aktungbby]

you just gotta stop feeding the troll.

it's not my first rodeo with the troll, ...

AHEM!!Since the moderators are obviously on holiday, the New Years, it falls to a member of the rapid response :subsim: militia to admonish:"FAQ-We do not allow posts where people are called idiots, morons, etc." clearly this (etc.) includes troll which may be offensive to our members who are dwarves, midgets or 'little people' or acromegalic members afflicted with pituitary problems... there are better ways to express the sentiment which are nor expressly prohibited by :subsim:'s well considered and liberal rules in our beloved Tribeman's case... a picture is worth a thousand words and will suffice in this instance....without breaking the expressly stated FAQ! I beg your indulgence, compliance and cooperation. HAPPY NEW YEARS!
http://www.ahajokes.com/g/lep01.gif

[Sailor Steve]

Oh, it's being watched all right. We are just at a certain point where the specific Forum Moderator is being left to run it without interference. If I think things are getting out of hand I'll take some action. Until that point I'll leave it up to him when he's back.

[Armistead]

I apologize for the troll comments to tribesman, he has a devious method of putting words in peoples mouths then arguing against them over and over. However, he can often make valid arguments. In this case, maybe it is I that has been more out of line.....I'm not gonna go back and read it all.

I also didn't realize "troll" was off limits or that Tribe had any pituitary problems...

Sorry Tribe.....

[Onkel Neal]

But certainly there needs to be perhaps a focus on prevention of reoccuring crime, and multi-pronged approach...and not just in the US, but globally in the modern world to be honest. Eliminate poverty, make employment a more rewarding endeavour (but in a manner which does not punish those who are unable to be employed, such as the disabled) and deal harsher sentences on criminal activity...and perhaps part the Nile while you're at it... :haha: But certainly I think, in my opinion at least, that's the direction that modern society and governments should be heading...but that requires both sides of the socio-economic spectrum to work together, those at the bottom to work up, and those at the top to help down. Not for either side to just expect the other side to do all the leg work which is around about where we are now.
I've often been called a socialist...and I guess it's true, in European terms I'm not that left wing, in American terms I'm probably near Karl Marx. I just think that if everyone had a level playing field then things like crime might reduce...obviously you're not going to eliminate crime, that's impossible, but addressing the root cause of some crimes might help reduce it whilst avoiding having to turn entire states into prisons (but I suppose what else are you going to do with Alabama? :hmmm:), but it's a pretty herculean task that I don't think any government would want to touch with a barge pole.

It's pretty clear you know little about Alabama, either that, or you need a new joke wrangler. :06:

Ok, I quoted the full text to try and understand what you mean by there needs to be perhaps a focus on prevention of reoccuring crime, and multi-pronged approach and if everyone had a level playing field then things like crime might reduce. Just exactly what needs to be done "prevention of reoccuring crime, and multi-pronged approach". And the part about level playing field, I really am lost on that, could you clarify?

[Jimbuna]

Oh, it's being watched all right. We are just at a certain point where the specific Forum Moderator is being left to run it without interference. If I think things are getting out of hand I'll take some action. Until that point I'll leave it up to him when he's back.

I'm back but off to a family funeral this afternoon.

I've spent almost an hour of my life catching up on the overnight posts (GMT time) and my impression is that this thread has run its course with neither side of opinion reaching a level of understanding or agreement to the opposing side.

What to do? Lock, delete, edit, infractions?

That will depend on the contents of any further posts but further insults and or name calling will inevitably facilitate remedial action.

Hopefully we can all stay on topic and disagree where necessary but in a more polite manner.

[Oberon]

It's pretty clear you know little about Alabama, either that, or you need a new joke wrangler. :06:

I need a new joke wrangler, if it was in the UK I'd have said something like Peckham. Perhaps I should have used California as a better example, I've noticed Americans here tend to pick that when they're using a derogative example for a state.

Ok, I quoted the full text to try and understand what you mean by there needs to be perhaps a focus on prevention of reoccuring crime, and multi-pronged approach and if everyone had a level playing field then things like crime might reduce. Just exactly what needs to be done "prevention of reoccuring crime, and multi-pronged approach". And the part about level playing field, I really am lost on that, could you clarify?

It was a bit waffley wasn't it? I really should be a politician. When I mean a multi-pronged approach, I mean that rather than just looking to enact tougher reponses for crime, one should also look at hitting the causes of crime. For example in guns, tougher sentences for those violating gun safety protocols should also be accompanyed by a campaign to inform and educate people on gun safety as well as an effort by gun manufacturers to ensure that new firearms have as many safety features as possible (although tbh I'm pretty sure that they already do) and perhaps research into whether a non-intrusive device can be made for making older firearms safer. We're living in a world of micro-electronics, I'm sure that such a thing could be possible and be built into the grip of an old pistol by a professional.
That's just an example, and to be honest it probably wouldn't go exactly that way so there's no need to start picking specific holes in it in regards to my lack of knowledge on firearms safety. It's about giving a little bit of a carrot as well as a stick.

The level playing field comes back to trying to create a more equal society, where the money isn't quite so lopsided. Now obviously this isn't going to stop crime and create a utopia, but it might help a little. Again though, it's got to be from both ends of the scale, there's no point extending a ladder down from the top if people aren't going to use it. However, equally you've got to be very careful not to punish those who legitimately are unable to work because of the actions of the fraudsters.

What you've got to try and avoid though, is the criminalisation and demonisation of the poor, which is becoming a sadly too common occurrence and it's something that appeals to that inner part of a person that likes to feel superior to someone else.
I don't know the situation in the US, but in the UK there's been a determined focus by the ConDems to fight benefit fraud, by making it tougher to gain certain benefits. Now in theory this might sound like a good solution, but in practice it's had the unfortunate side effect that many people who are legitimately in need of these benefits have been unable to get them, in particular people who are disabled. This has had a knock on effect (http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/04/32-die-a-week-after-failing-in.html).

That's one of the more tougher problems facing a government who wants to encourage people back to work but doesn't want to punish those who cannot. Hopefully as communications get better and medical diagnosis gets better then this might improve, but the current situation of using private medical 'practitioners' to test people for disability benefits instead of actually believing the Doctor who diagnosed them as disabled in the first place...well it doesn't work very well at all. Perhaps better emphasis should be put on the initial diagnosis of disability, and that GPs (General Practitioners...aka your local Doctor) should actually be trusted by the government rather than having to bring in a second opinion.

I know we don't agree about pay rates, and that's fair enough, that's only one part of trying to create an equal society, and to be honest, it's a pretty latter stage thing anyway and not really something likely to ever happen because of human nature. Likewise a fully equal society, sadly, is something I don't think is actually possible because there will always be people who think that they are superior to other people because of factor x or y, but we all come into this world the same way, and we all wind up back in the dirt the same way at the end of it, quite why people need to divide themselves up into groups and judge other people based on what group they're in in the middle of it all is beyond me, and it's rather sad really. Imagine what we as a race could have achieved by now if there was just a bit more co-operation in the world? :hmmm:

Still, a guy can dream, and where we can I believe that we should aim for a more equal world, full equality is never going to happen, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to make what parts we can more equal for everyone. As I'm sure that many people do. :yep:

[Platapus]

What to do? Lock, delete, edit, infractions?


Sorry to hear about the funeral. :(

As for this thread, how about just append it to the other big gun thread so it can be ignored. :)

[Oberon]

Sorry to hear about the funeral. :(

As for this thread, how about just append it to the other big gun thread so it can be ignored. :)

Likewise, sorry for your loss.

I'd go with the merge. Me and Neal can always continue our social discussion another time or in another thread. :yep:

[MH]

For example in guns, tougher sentences for those violating gun safety protocols should also be accompanyed by a campaign to inform and educate people on gun safety as well as an effort by gun manufacturers to ensure that new firearms have as many safety features as possible (although tbh I'm pretty sure that they already do) and perhaps research into whether a non-intrusive device can be made for making older firearms safer. We're living in a world of micro-electronics, I'm sure that such a thing could be possible and be built into the grip of an old pistol by a professional.
Strong education toward safety should be the solution the problem.
I think though it would be very hard to accomplish when there are almost no preconditions for owning firearms.
With the general ability of guns and no clear rules about carrying in public besides this nonsense about concealed/open carry, people seem to go along with what is availed on internet or marketed to them as if they where professionals.
People who have absolutely no training are represented with extreme scenarios and would be solution which often require some exercising and strict self discipline.
In reality the same people often have no tools to deal with such problems yet they act and carry with the illusion they could.

I'm not sure that using electronics and turning guns into IPhone is good idea as well.

[CaptainHaplo]

I'm back but off to a family funeral this afternoon.

My thoughts and prayers go out for the family of the deceased.

[MH]

I'm back but off to a family funeral this afternoon.

I've spent almost an hour of my life catching up on the overnight posts (GMT time) and my impression is that this thread has run its course with neither side of opinion reaching a level of understanding or agreement to the opposing side.

What to do? Lock, delete, edit, infractions?

.

Sorry about that.

Do nothing...why... I really don't see anything so bad here.

[CaptainHaplo]

For example in guns, tougher sentences for those violating gun safety protocols should also be accompanyed by a campaign to inform and educate people on gun safety as well as an effort by gun manufacturers to ensure that new firearms have as many safety features as possible (although tbh I'm pretty sure that they already do) and perhaps research into whether a non-intrusive device can be made for making older firearms safer.

The problem is that people often can be informed about what safe protocols are - and ignore them. This is what occurred in the Idaho shooting. The woman was educated, trained and chose to ignore well established rules - and it cost her and her family her life. People choose all the time to violate good sense - and no amount of "laws" are going to change that. The problem isn't people with guns - its people with guns who make bad choices, but going after the ones who make "safety errors" instead of those that commit actual crimes is putting the cart before the horse. If you want to focus on guns - lets focus on those that use guns in a manner that violates the rights of others before anything else. That is what frustrates so many legal gun owners - gun control advocates want to stop gun crime/violence (so they say) - yet they somehow expect some new gun law to help. If a criminal with a gun is going to violate the law by robbing / assaulting someone - is some "gun law" magically going to make them reconsider? No - they are already going to violate the law - so one more violation won't matter to them....

The level playing field comes back to trying to create a more equal society, where the money isn't quite so lopsided.

What you've got to try and avoid though, is the criminalisation and demonisation of the poor, which is becoming a sadly too common occurrence and it's something that appeals to that inner part of a person that likes to feel superior to someone else.

Yes, we all start out and end up the same in a physical sense. But what differentiates people is the choices they make in between birth and death. There are a LOT of people who grew up poor and have worked their way out of poverty. This is found across racial boundaries - but it is found less in some social demographics. When you take a closer look, you find that the social structure of those demographics has been eroded significantly, and the majority who are stuck in poverty are also being victimized by the "benevolent" government - never given any reason or encouragement to work to get out of poverty.

Example - why should a person choose to work when they can choose not to - and get their housing, food and essential bills paid for? What encourages them to get out and make a better life for themselves? Why practice responsibility when a woman on government aid can get pregnant, have yet another child and then collect more money from the aid program instead of being encouraged (or even "pushed") to make something out of her life?

The problem with the poor isn't that they are poor. It is that they are being victimized - primarily by a government (in the US at least) that gains power from them being poor. After all - if they keep you in power because you give them freebies - the more they need and the more you give the more power you have....

I don't know the situation in the US, but in the UK there's been a determined focus by the ConDems to fight benefit fraud, by making it tougher to gain certain benefits. Now in theory this might sound like a good solution, but in practice it's had the unfortunate side effect that many people who are legitimately in need of these benefits have been unable to get them, in particular people who are disabled. This has had a knock on effect (http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/04/32-die-a-week-after-failing-in.html).

If a person can prove via documentation that they have a true need, like a disabled person who has been determined to be disabled, I have no problem with certain benefits being offered. But when you have people like my ex-wife, who is trying to get disability right now - yet texted me that she was "working holiday hours" at a call center to make money for Christmas - yea that needs to be denied. That kind of fraud happens a LOT and it actually costs those who need services.

Finally - you can not have a "fully equal society". Not everyone is equal. Some people have talents in one area - others have talents in others. I am not equal to any NBA player on the court, but I doubt many of them can perform a double-tap. Its like gender "equality". Men and women can do different things better than the other. I know a few women who are mechanically inclined, but the vast majority don't have the skill to tear down a small block and rebuild it. I don't know a single guy capable of having a baby, or picking out the latest "stylish" clothes. Heck, as a guy I am proud I can make my socks match! I know people of many races and both genders who are better chemists, physicists, researchers, etc. that I am. Equality can not exist because not everyone is equal. When a person is born, they are a blank slate of limitless potential - and it is the choices they make that let them reach - or limits - that potential.

Sorry, but your just not going to get me to agree that the 20yr old kid who chooses to rob a liquor store for cash, gets drunk, beats up and kills his pregnant girlfriend is somehow my "equal". His choices made him NOT my equal. Personal responsibility matters - and until we as a society get back to that - there is little hope for those that are trapped and told that its everyone else's fault that they are poor and downtrodden.

[Jeff-Groves]

Well I wish US would pass a law allowing militia men to own heavy weapons.



With the proper licenses and tax stamps?
One can own Heavy Weapons in the U.S.A.
:D

And without those? Something able to lob punkin's out to about a mile is always fun.
http://www.eyeflare.com/images/illustrations/1224-punkin-chunkin-machine.jpg

[Betonov]

With the proper licenses and tax stamps?
One can own Heavy Weapons in the U.S.A.



That reminds me, I need to find out what are the laws here about building a trebuchet.

[MH]

That reminds me, I need to find out what are the laws here about building a trebuchet.

Make it very big and no one will bother you. :arrgh!:

[Betonov]

Make it very big and no one will bother you. :arrgh!:

Austria might bomb me, if I make it too big I might bombard Klagenfurt and that's a problem :o

If all the laws from the feudal age were destroyed when the communists took over then I shouldn't have a problem.

[Oberon]

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0811/what-if-demotivational-poster-1226597638.jpg

[ikalugin]

Austria might bomb me, if I make it too big I might bombard Klagenfurt and that's a problem :o

If all the laws from the feudal age were destroyed when the communists took over then I shouldn't have a problem.

Ukrainians did build a siege engine of their own to aid their efforts on Maidan.

Not that did it actually help their cause.

As to the heavy weapons - I was talking about actually useful ones, such as mortars, ATGMs, MANPADS and even heavier systems maybe.

[Betonov]

As to the heavy weapons - I was talking about actually useful ones, such as mortars, ATGMs, MANPADS and even heavier systems maybe.

Ye man of eastern virtues, ye say thou noble trebuchet not usefull ??

[Oberon]

Nay! Perchance it is fallacy?

Although simmillimus est onager. :yep:

http://spartacus-educational.com/ROMsoldiers.jpg

[Stealhead]

That reminds me, I need to find out what are the laws here about building a trebuchet.

You supply the trebuchet and I'll supply the livestock. :arrgh!:
http://eng431.pbworks.com/f/1363879186/0407-montypython-s2-600.jpg

[Betonov]

Here comes Bessy ~ Stronghold Crusader, siege engineer

[nikimcbee]

That reminds me, I need to find out what are the laws here about building a trebuchet.

You'll shoot your eye out.:dead:

[Dowly]

Not unless you want to claim that Harvard decided to publish research by 2 professors (one a PH. D. from U.C.) that did the same thing......

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

The murder rate for Luxembourg is.. well.. quite strange. Checking NationMaster.com for the murder rates, LUX has been at about .7 to 1.5 at that period.

And that paper has not been peer reviewed, right? Just because they have titles doesnt make something true. :)

[CaptainHaplo]

And that paper has not been peer reviewed, right? Just because they have titles doesnt make something true. :)

Generally a paper will not be published like that by a major university like Harvard unless it has been reviewed. I don't see a definitive answer on that either way though.

[Aktungbby]

You supply the trebuchet and I'll supply the livestock. :arrgh!:
http://eng431.pbworks.com/f/1363879186/0407-montypython-s2-600.jpg
DEADSTOCK ACTUALLY and not animals! The first example of catapulting plague victims into a besieged city was that of Caffa (Modern day Feodosia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feodosiya)) in the Crimea. This was in fact the first account of plague in European history.
Caffa had been under siege by the Mongol (aka. Tartar or Golden Horde) army. The siege had been long a protracted. First starting in 1343, it was lifted by the arrival of Italian reinforcements in January 1344. The city was again under siege in 1345 however, a year later the Mongols started to die from a new disease - plague.
The Mongols tried to force the siege by catapulting victims corpses into the city and they were successful in spreading the disease to Caffa people. Even during the siege, Caffa's sea ports remained open and trade was conducted by Italian merchants with other nearby cities under Mongol control. Thus from here the plague was spread out to the rest of Europe. http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/360/how-did-a-besieged-city-castle-defend-itself-vs-catapulting-diseased-dead-bodie (http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/360/how-did-a-besieged-city-castle-defend-itself-vs-catapulting-diseased-dead-bodie)

[Dowly]

Generally a paper will not be published like that by a major university like Harvard unless it has been reviewed. I don't see a definitive answer on that either way though.
Well, then, has it been peer-reviewed? I am curious

[Dan D]

It is not that such incidents „fatal accidents with kids with guns“ don't happen in Germany, too. One of my father's friends son was shot by his playground comrade at the age of11 by accident. He had a sleep-over at his frends' home. His daddy was a head of department. The two boys opened the weapon's safe, took out a gun and played „Cowboys and Red Indians“. Obvously the hand gun was loaded and so Daddy's sun shot his friend.


Daddy was facing a prosecution for negligent homicide which was later turned down because the weapon had been kept in a gun safe, Daddy had a gun permit, and had told his son not to play with guns etc. pp.


The family that had lost a son of age of 11 later split up, too much of a Trauma for each of them.

[CaptainHaplo]

Well, then, has it been peer-reviewed? I am curious

It took me a while to find out - but yes - it is a peer reviewed article. It falls under the Harvard Law publication rules, which is peer reviewed.

http://hls.harvard.edu/dept/dos/student-journals/journals-and-publications/

If you note the link for the article, as well as a google search, it does show it was published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (Vol. 30). Thus it would be a peer reviewed article/paper.

[ikalugin]

Well, it would be sort of amusing if the dreams of Ukrainian pro Maidan people do come true and a Moscow version of Maidan would happen... only to be crashed under the walls of Kremlin of course.

[Oberon]

Well, it would be sort of amusing if the dreams of Ukrainian pro Maidan people do come true and a Moscow version of Maidan would happen... only to be crashed under the walls of Kremlin of course.

I dunno, 1991 was scary enough.

http://valdaiclub.com/media/main/98/9175.jpg

[Dowly]

It took me a while to find out - but yes - it is a peer reviewed article. It falls under the Harvard Law publication rules, which is peer reviewed.

http://hls.harvard.edu/dept/dos/student-journals/journals-and-publications/

If you note the link for the article, as well as a google search, it does show it was published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (Vol. 30). Thus it would be a peer reviewed article/paper.
Gotcha.

Though, the high murder rate for Luxembourg still is very strange.
I know where they got it from, but it still doesn't make much sense,
if you compare it to other available sources that indicate the rate is
much lower than that shown in that paper. :hmmm:

EDIT: Here are the numbers from Nationmaster.com for Luxembourg:
2000: 0.92
2001: 1.37
2002: 0.90
2003: 0.70

And as Finland is mentioned, I can tell you the amount of guns has very little to do with the murder rate.
Vast majority of our guns are for hunting or hobby purposes.
This is a country where many feel safe to keep their front doors unlocked. :yep:

[MH]

Zitat von CaptainHaplo http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images_de_4/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2274418#post2274418)
It took me a while to find out - but yes - it is a peer reviewed article. It falls under the Harvard Law publication rules, which is peer reviewed.





What is interesting is the murder rate competition in between European courtiers with higher gun ownership to the one with almost none , where often the numbers are in favor of the courtiers with more guns....
I have not red this research in detail yet it does seem this research has not taken into account the legislations surrounding gun ownership in such countries and the gun culture deriving in part from this legislation.

It is not just a matter of numbers but whole legislation and culture surrounding it.

Something almost non existent in the USA where it is mostly every one for himself.

[MH]

Here comes Bessy ~ Stronghold Crusader, siege engineer

Bessy the terrible...


http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/31/50/95/3150958b4ff6411bf10ede28124b7345.jpg

[Oberon]

Bessy the terrible...

Good Queen Bess

http://trocheniepowagi.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/tumblr_mdi2j2glag1r9ko5bo1_500.gif

[ikalugin]

I dunno, 1991 was scary enough.

http://valdaiclub.com/media/main/98/9175.jpg
Well those are heavy AFVs, something Maidan activists lacked and that the 2nd amendment also does not provide.

[CaptainHaplo]

It is not just a matter of numbers but whole legislation and culture surrounding it.

Something almost non existent in the USA where it is mostly every one for himself.

OK - I am not TRYING to be offended, but what you wrote states that either gun regulation through legislation does not exist in the US - which is in error - OR - you are simply saying that the US has no "culture".

I am going to assume that its just coming across wrong. Still, I will address the claim.

Every State has its own laws concerning firearms - and every State must also follow Federal firearms laws. To say that there is a lack of legislation regulating firearms in the US is simply not accurate. A person can not just turn 18, go down to the local gun store, plop down a few Franklins and walk out with a firearm. Such a purchase requires a Federal background check. (Before someone starts talking "gun show loophole" - remember that most states also require a purchase permit that entails a background check as well).

As to the "gun culture" - whether in the US or in other civilized countries, firearms are generally treated with a certain modicum of respect as the dangerous weapons they are. The situation in Idaho is a perfect example - I have not seen any serious gun owner in the US who does not hold the "victim" as the most responsible party for what happened. The general population of any society that has a high gun ownership rate also has a healthy RESPECT and understanding for how dangerous a firearm CAN be. While those not in the US may not comprehend that the average gun owner in the US shares that attitude, it does not mean that it does not exist. Media paints a picture that is not always accurate - and most media has an agenda that is furthered by pushing the "American Gun Nuts" picture.

Just as an example - take a look at the following:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?128488-Toddler-fatally-shoots-mom-in-Idaho-Walmart

While people disagree on a lot in the thread - the one agreement is that the victim failed to carry in a safe manner - because her kid could get to it. Safety tends to be the first consideration by most gun owners who carry - but people (both in the US and outside it) don't get to see that often. It goes back to the picture painted by the media.

[Oberon]

I think the thing that the US has that many other nations doesn't is a very recent history, the US's early roots and struggle for survival came about in an era where the gun had replaced the sword. Whereas in other nations, in particular Europe, most nations were pretty well cemented by the era of the gun, and thus there isn't that connection between the gun and the country.
Oddly though, presumably because of the legislation that has regulated the ownership of weaponry since the 1700s in most nations, other weapons haven't become quite as synonomous with European nations as the gun has to the USA. Although I think if one was to dig hard enough they might find some, English Longbowmen, Scottish claymores, Swiss Pikemen, Scandinavian axemen. However, there's not as much of a fascination with those weapons as there is with guns in the US. So perhaps it's a legislation thing. :hmmm:

[Schroeder]

Although I think if one was to dig hard enough they might find some, English Longbowmen, Scottish claymores, Swiss Pikemen, Scandinavian axemen. However, there's not as much of a fascination with those weapons as there is with guns in the US. So perhaps it's a legislation thing. :hmmm:
Well, it's difficult to put a longbow, hand axe or claymore into a holster under your jacket. Furthermore they probably require more training than a gun that you basically just align with your target and then squeeze the trigger.
Or in short, those weapons aren't very handy and aren't up to date so no one wants to use them.

[August]

Or in short, those weapons aren't very handy and aren't up to date so no one wants to use them.

Yeah the general public just said "nah forget it". It had absolutely nothing to do with the efforts of Europes historical leaders to keep the peasantry as disarmed as possible.

Reminds me of a quote from Braveheart (always the acme of authority in these discussions) :D

William: You dropped your rock.
Hamish: It's a test of manhood.
William: You win.
Hamish: Call it a test of soldiery then. The English won't let us train with weapons, so we train with stones.
William: Well, a test of a soldier is not in his arm, it's here [points to his head].
Hamish: No, it's here [points to his fist, then punches William]

[Betonov]

Yeah the general public just said "nah forget it". It had absolutely nothing to do with the efforts of Europes historical leaders to keep the peasantry as disarmed as possible.



Duh, We didn't really need weekend warriors playing revolutions and rebellions every second weekend.
A peasant needs only two tools, the plow and the scythe.

[Rockstar]

What is the European fascination and distaste of the U.S. 2nd amendment? Is it because it was written by rebellious Europeans, mostly Englishmen, who didn't like living in Europe?

Oh, just an FYI I still wouldnt want to live in Europe. Too many wars throughout the centuries has pacified the population into becoming bean counters. Thinking they can now enlighten the world and show us the error of our ways with their statistics and numbers. :D

[Oberon]

Too many dead people will do that to you. :yep:

[Oberon]

Well, it's difficult to put a longbow, hand axe or claymore into a holster under your jacket. Furthermore they probably require more training than a gun that you basically just align with your target and then squeeze the trigger.
Or in short, those weapons aren't very handy and aren't up to date so no one wants to use them.

Going off off off off topic for a moment, what's the German/Germanic equivilent of the English Longbowman in terms of a sort of symbolic Germanic weapon/unit? The Teutonic knight? :hmmm:

[Rockstar]

Duh, We didn't really need weekend warriors playing revolutions and rebellions every second weekend.
A peasant needs only two tools, the plow and the scythe.

Thats true no need to train on weekends. Just look at European History it is littered with the stench of war. Peasants either hacking each other to death with farm tools or killing one another with rifles issued by their kings and queens. Such disdain for firearms is probably because europeans just simply equate firearms with war.

[Betonov]

And two world wars that completely destroyed our infrastructure, food production and access to utilities like healthcare, while Americans had a warehouse or two sabotaged and apart from the the poor soldiers that were actually sent into the hell that's a European war, you never really grew out of the ''gentleman game'' mentality when it comes to war. An adventure in foreign lands.

So no, we're not bean bags. We're civilized.

[Schroeder]

Going off off off off topic for a moment, what's the German/Germanic equivilent of the English Longbowman in terms of a sort of symbolic Germanic weapon/unit? The Teutonic knight? :hmmm:
I'm not even sure we have anything like that. Probably the Germanic warriors with axes and swords who defeated the Romans.
Could also be medieval knights though...
Hard to say.

[ikalugin]

Going off off off off topic for a moment, what's the German/Germanic equivilent of the English Longbowman in terms of a sort of symbolic Germanic weapon/unit? The Teutonic knight? :hmmm:
On the bottom of the Ladoga lake?

[Schroeder]

On the bottom of the Ladoga lake?
Unlike in most other countries WWII soldiers don't get much recognition here.
The entire generation has sort of been convicted as agressors by the following generations. Not that I think that's ok but that's what it is.

[Oberon]

I'm not even sure we have anything like that. Probably the Germanic warriors with axes and swords who defeated the Romans.
Could also be medieval knights though...
Hard to say.

That's about what I reckoned. Does the HRE get much talk? :hmmm:

[Aktungbby]

I'm not even sure we have anything like that. Probably the Germanic warriors with axes and swords who defeated the Romans.
Could also be medieval knights though...
Hard to say.

I've often thought highly of the German Landsknechts who were the only ones on given occasions that could maul the otherwise redoubtable Swiss Pikemen as at the Battle of Bicocca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bicocca) and the Battle of Pavia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pavia) (1525), where they performed exceptionally well, notably crushing the famed Swiss Pikemen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_mercenaries) in French service. Their attire and distinctive Katzbalger small sword augmentation of their huge ZweiHander (two hander sword) meant they weren't hiding in the least. The two-handed warrior has passed into English: DOPPELGANGERhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Landsknecht_with_his_Wife.jpg/170px-Landsknecht_with_his_Wife.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Landsknecht_with_his_Wife.jpg)the hundreds ofhttps://www.knightsedge.com/images/Product/medium/landsknechte-sword-2630.jpg different parry's that could be achieved with this sword..and these mercenaries knew every one of them!.


the distinctive blade of the Landsknecht however WAS the short Katzbalger.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Katzbalger.jpg/200px-Katzbalger.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Katzbalger.jpg) Not always worn in a scabbard, the weapon was the 'Catgutter' reflecting the bearer's predilection for close nasty combat. Foot note to it all:: amid the hack and hew of the era in general, battle between $wiss and Landsknech$ mercenaries was referred to as 'BAD WAR'... JEEZE!!! such a distinction!http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Bad-war.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Bad-war.jpg)

[Oberon]

PMCs were frowned on back then, even if most wars were fought with shed loads of mercenaries. :haha:
Good point on the Zweihander, they are fantastic weapons, and, of course the Landsknechts, I'd forgotten about them but they were real powerful warriors.

[Schroeder]

That's about what I reckoned. Does the HRE get much talk? :hmmm:
HRE = Holy Roman Empire?
Depends on what you would call much talk. We didn't do much in history about that (or I've forgotten it all again which wouldn't surprise me as I hardly recall what we did in history regarding the years before the Weimar Republic).
Over here everything is overshadowed by WWII. Occasionally one can catch some documentaries on the other eras on TV though, whether that means we talk a lot about that is a different question though. (Maybe some of the other Germans here can answer that better than me)

[MH]

Such disdain for firearms is probably because europeans just simply equate firearms with war.

Yep
You are into somthing here…
Firearms is more of a tool to use on enemy, not fellow citizens.
It is sort of taboo rooted in the legislation.

[August]

Yep
You are into somthing here…
Firearms is more of a tool to use on enemy, not fellow citizens.
It is sort of taboo rooted in the legislation.

I think it's more a taboo rooted in the instinctual European fear that the local prince will send a swarm of Cossacks to cut down any potentially troublesome peasant and raze his village. Not only have we Americans not had as much experience living under that kind of regime but we're mostly all the descendents of those who chose to brave the wilds of the New World than continue to live at some nobles leave. Adventurers, Troublemakers, Gutter Sweepings, Wretched Refuse, that's us to a tee. European potentates were glad to get rid of us. :yep:

That probably goes a long way to explaining our like of firearms as anything else.

[Betonov]

That's it, you're spot on. A soon as I'll buy a gun the democratically elected prime minister.... khm... feudal prince of Slovenia will send a division of armored Cossacks with torches to burn down my non-flammable brick house with a non-flammable concrete roof.
Or maybe send a royal decree to one of his citizens... I mean serfs, my neighbour, hunter, with 5 registered rifles, 2 shotguns and 2 handguns that will lead an army of his stuffed African game animals to revoke my priviliges as a free citizen of an European nation... excuse me, a landed serf to the Empire.
Or maybe the free construction companies that employes payed citizens.... damn... slavery based siege machine construction guilds will make a huuuuuge trebuchet in the parliament... ups... castle Ljubljana and bombard my house... scratch that... mud hut.

[Betonov]

I hope that ''Merkins'' is a typo, because it was hilarious when I googled it.

And I'm not mocking. The Swiss guard visited me today and confiscated my bow because the house Cerar, current rulers of Slovenia were afraid of an another uprising. Those pikes destroyed my ceiling.

[Aktungbby]

Oh! now you've done it! draggged perfectly good Minnesota pikes into it! Although one looked like a Muskie...:hmmm: I'll sent the Landsknecht doppelgangers to deal with those Swiss. Those Katgutters know how to turn'm into cheese.:woot:http://www.in-fisherman.com/files/2013/02/World-Record-Muskie.jpgMichigan? muskie http://www.luckylures.nl/esox_muskellunge_record.php (http://www.luckylures.nl/esox_muskellunge_record.php)

[Jeff-Groves]

We need a well armed milita, like these people with pikes.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imu00ZaSbtk

I gotta give you a cookie for that. :up:
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n12/privateer_2006/captain-picard-cookie-cutter.jpg

[August]

That's it, you're spot on. A soon as I'll buy a gun the democratically elected prime minister.... khm... feudal prince of Slovenia will send a division of armored Cossacks with torches to burn down my non-flammable brick house with a non-flammable concrete roof.
Or maybe send a royal decree to one of his citizens... I mean serfs, my neighbour, hunter, with 5 registered rifles, 2 shotguns and 2 handguns that will lead an army of his stuffed African game animals to revoke my priviliges as a free citizen of an European nation... excuse me, a landed serf to the Empire.
Or maybe the free construction companies that employes payed citizens.... damn... slavery based siege machine construction guilds will make a huuuuuge trebuchet in the parliament... ups... castle Ljubljana and bombard my house... scratch that... mud hut.

You misunderstood. When you're done mocking look me up and i'll explain.

[Aktungbby]

I gotta give you a cookie for that. :up:
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n12/privateer_2006/captain-picard-cookie-cutter.jpg
there are other kinds of 'cookies' :D http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Lancaster_I_NG128_Dropping_Load_-_Duisburg_-_Oct_14_-_1944_new.jpg

[Rockstar]

http://www.popchix.com/images/made/images/uploads/cookie_monster_original_300_200_s_c1_center_center _0_-10.jpg

[Oberon]

Speaking of the Swiss:

http://i.imgur.com/y2CvbAN.jpg?1

[Betonov]

You misunderstood. When you're done mocking look me up and i'll explain.

OK, I'll buy. Explain away and I promise I won't mock you back.

But first, take into account that our culture simply does not give a thought about guns. We consider them a non issue. One more thing to maintain.

So let's make some points:

-Hunting: European wildlife was hunted 3/4 to extinction and we had 2000 years to do it. Not to mention that we have twice as many people living on a landmass about the same size as the USA and a lot of forrests were cut down to house and feed that population. Therefore, hunting is severely limited and for a good reason. Only if you're a hunter in a ''hunting family'' you're allowed to own a hunting rifle and a hunting licence and even then you're only allowed to shoot a deer or two in a year. Plus, venison is readily available from said families so there's really no need for us to own hunting weapons.

-Defense: Today we have large conscript armies and modern profesional forces (depends on the country) and NATO. Small militias are really artillery and drone fodder.
But when it comes to militia, Yugoslavia had what is really called a well regulated citizen militia. Every citizen was trained to fight and had to attend regular exercises. Weapons were in hidden caches, locations known only to certain individual, JNA (Yugoslav national army) and as soon as the area was overrun people would receive weapons and went to the hills to treat the new enemy as the Germans were treated. The other republics not yet overwhelmed would then mobilise with the 5 million conscripts in reserves and the enemy would soon find himself attacked from the front and the rear.

-Personal defense: crime rate is lower than it has ever been. Burglaries are always when one is away, pickpocketing is something you can't really do anything about it even with a bazooka, we have a competent police force that even if you are robbed at gunpoint, you'll have everything back within a week. Plus most of us believe that the last thing we need is every third person on the street carrying a gun. Especially after happy hour when half the town is drunk. Oh, and all the criminals here work in packs and they will surround you. Shoot one and the two behind you will jump you and then it's game over. Pulling out a gun only means that they'll come home with more booty.

-Fun: €50 is a yearly fee in a shooting shooting gallery, you receive a gun there, maintained and clean. You don't really need a license, you just have to be over 18 or with parents.

-Laws: I can own a gun. I just send the application to the state and receive the license after they check my background and if I have a suitable locker. I just don't feel the need.

-Regime: Slovenia is a western parliamentary democracy. We have the same liberties as you do. Exactly the same liberties. The protest from 2 years ago were not drowned in blood when the police armed with AK-74 started moving down the civilians. No. The police just made a circle around the important buildings and the people were allowed to protest. The water canon was brought in to cool down some vandals abusing the protests for looting and the cops were even cheered by the crowd after they went after the said looters. And the protests worked, the corrupt rulling party was forced to step down and an early election was called.

-History: Yugoslavia was not a semi-Stalinist communist death camp state. It was free society with some limitations and a one party election. But on a personal level people were free to work and thrive and the state provided. People worked, payed taxes, went to Croatia in the summer and to the Alps in the winter. My parents worked half as much to provide for the entire family than today when they only have to provide for themselves.
Austria-Hungary was conservative as an empire can be. On a local level though, the people enjoyed a high level of freedom. They were no longer serfs. They weren't serfs since the 16th century. They were citizens to an empire and subjects to an emperor that didn't really have an interest in oppressing everyone. And that was an empire that was the most conservative right after Russia. I'm not going to even mention pre-WW1 Germany and their reforms we can only hope for today.
Before 16th century, well, that's not relevant. The USA hadn't existed yet. I just know that we weren't allowed guns and no one really had much use for guns. People with guns came by in their thousands every few years and they left a barren land anyway.

-European peasant uprisings: peasants armed with scythes held against feudal armies. But the peasantry was allowed to own scythes after a rebellion and we're still allowed to own scythes today. And axes, and saws, hay forks, shovels and those hooks on a stick we still use to shake apple tree branches. The lords never just burned down a village just because someone owned a gun. Peasants were their income source. And they were also more interested in fighting each other to even enforce laws on the peasantry. If a village owned a cannon, nothing would have been done about it.

-Propaganda: we're not brain washed by the state to think we're not oppressed. Quite opposite. We're all so cynical that we don't even believe the state when they're telling the truth. Sheeples are plentiful but ignored and even shunned from the public life. Guns are never an issue. If someone would want to run on a platform to allow guns for everyone, he'd loose because no one gives a damn.

-Europeans weak: you wish. We've been slaughtering each other long enough for war to be imprinted in our DNA. We're just collectively tired and we prefer to play tourists. Something you can't do in a war zone.

And I have already said: you can keep your 2nd amendment, I don't want it, my life won't be better or worse with a gun in my room. I already have a bayonet, a machete, 3 swiss pocket knives, one santoku knife, a small butcher knife set, a bow with 5 carbon arrows, 2 airguns, one airsoft G-36 replica, and a kilogram of home made amonium nitrate.

[Nippelspanner]

OK, I'll buy. Explain away and I promise I won't mock you back.

But first, take into account that our culture simply does not give a thought about guns. We consider them a non issue. One more thing to maintain.

So let's make some points:

-Hunting: European wildlife was hunted 3/4 to extinction and we had 2000 years to do it. Not to mention that we have twice as many people living on a landmass about the same size as the USA and a lot of forrests were cut down to house and feed that population. Therefore, hunting is severely limited and for a good reason. Only if you're a hunter in a ''hunting family'' you're allowed to own a hunting rifle and a hunting licence and even then you're only allowed to shoot a deer or two in a year. Plus, venison is readily available from said families so there's really no need for us to own hunting weapons.

-Defense: Today we have large conscript armies and modern profesional forces (depends on the country) and NATO. Small militias are really artillery and drone fodder.
But when it comes to militia, Yugoslavia had what is really called a well regulated citizen militia. Every citizen was trained to fight and had to attend regular exercises. Weapons were in hidden caches, locations known only to certain individual, JNA (Yugoslav national army) and as soon as the area was overrun people would receive weapons and went to the hills to treat the new enemy as the Germans were treated. The other republics not yet overwhelmed would then mobilise with the 5 million conscripts in reserves and the enemy would soon find himself attacked from the front and the rear.

-Personal defense: crime rate is lower than it has ever been. Burglaries are always when one is away, pickpocketing is something you can't really do anything about it even with a bazooka, we have a competent police force that even if you are robbed at gunpoint, you'll have everything back within a week. Plus most of us believe that the last thing we need is every third person on the street carrying a gun. Especially after happy hour when half the town is drunk. Oh, and all the criminals here work in packs and they will surround you. Shoot one and the two behind you will jump you and then it's game over. Pulling out a gun only means that they'll come home with more booty.

-Fun: €50 is a yearly fee in a shooting shooting gallery, you receive a gun there, maintained and clean. You don't really need a license, you just have to be over 18 or with parents.

-Laws: I can own a gun. I just send the application to the state and receive the license after they check my background and if I have a suitable locker. I just don't feel the need.

-Regime: Slovenia is a western parliamentary democracy. We have the same liberties as you do. Exactly the same liberties. The protest from 2 years ago were not drowned in blood when the police armed with AK-74 started moving down the civilians. No. The police just made a circle around the important buildings and the people were allowed to protest. The water canon was brought in to cool down some vandals abusing the protests for looting and the cops were even cheered by the crowd after they went after the said looters. And the protests worked, the corrupt rulling party was forced to step down and an early election was called.

-History: Yugoslavia was not a semi-Stalinist communist death camp state. It was free society with some limitations and a one party election. But on a personal level people were free to work and thrive and the state provided. People worked, payed taxes, went to Croatia in the summer and to the Alps in the winter. My parents worked half as much to provide for the entire family than today when they only have to provide for themselves.
Austria-Hungary was conservative as an empire can be. On a local level though, the people enjoyed a high level of freedom. They were no longer serfs. They weren't serfs since the 16th century. They were citizens to an empire and subjects to an emperor that didn't really have an interest in oppressing everyone. And that was an empire that was the most conservative right after Russia. I'm not going to even mention pre-WW1 Germany and their reforms we can only hope for today.
Before 16th century, well, that's not relevant. The USA hadn't existed yet. I just know that we weren't allowed guns and no one really had much use for guns. People with guns came by in their thousands every few years and they left a barren land anyway.

-European peasant uprisings: peasants armed with scythes held against feudal armies. But the peasantry was allowed to own scythes after a rebellion and we're still allowed to own scythes today. And axes, and saws, hay forks, shovels and those hooks on a stick we still use to shake apple tree branches. The lords never just burned down a village just because someone owned a gun. Peasants were their income source. And they were also more interested in fighting each other to even enforce laws on the peasantry. If a village owned a cannon, nothing would have been done about it.

-Propaganda: we're not brain washed by the state to think we're not oppressed. Quite opposite. We're all so cynical that we don't even believe the state when they're telling the truth. Sheeples are plentiful but ignored and even shunned from the public life. Guns are never an issue. If someone would want to run on a platform to allow guns for everyone, he'd loose because no one gives a damn.

-Europeans weak: you wish. We've been slaughtering each other long enough for war to be imprinted in our DNA. We're just collectively tired and we prefer to play tourists. Something you can't do in a war zone.

And I have already said: you can keep your 2nd amendment, I don't want it, my life won't be better or worse with a gun in my room. I already have a bayonet, a machete, 3 swiss pocket knives, one santoku knife, a small butcher knife set, a bow with 5 carbon arrows, 2 airguns, one airsoft G-36 replica, and a kilogram of home made amonium nitrate.
Quite soon for the post of the year but... damn! :har:

[Dowly]

http://replygif.net/i/1196.gif

[Oberon]

http://media3.giphy.com/media/jShr8wkP38XTO/giphy.gif

I think that about sums it up really.

By the way Betonov, the SIS called, they'll be around in the morning about that ammonium nitrate... :haha:

http://media.giphy.com/media/ePBtnkjZeYsik/giphy.gif

[Betonov]

By the way Betonov, the SIS called, they'll be around in the morning about that ammonium nitrate... :haha:



That's why we need to start that minecraft server, so I can tell them I use it for rare earth extraction :03:

[Oberon]

That's why we need to start that minecraft server, so I can tell them I use it for rare earth extraction :03:

:haha: Reminds me of Jeremy Clarksons idea of ploughing...with dynamite. :yep:

[Jeff-Groves]

By the way Betonov, the SIS called, they'll be around in the morning about that stuff... :haha:


I was thinking the same thing but I'd probably trip DHS watched words list!
:o

[August]

OK, I'll buy. Explain away and I promise I won't mock you back.

But first, take into account that our culture simply does not give a thought about guns. We consider them a non issue. One more thing to maintain.

So let's make some points:

...bla bla, bla

Have you really calmed down Betonov? Doesn't look like it to me. You still seem very defensive so if you and those cackling hyenas are just going to continue braying then i'll pass.

For what it's worth it not not just guns that i'm talking about here, it's weapons of all types.

[CaptainHaplo]

But first, take into account that our culture simply does not give a thought about guns. We consider them a non issue. One more thing to maintain.

So let's make some points:

Actually - I think I will, thank you. This will be fun....

Regime: Slovenia is a western parliamentary democracy. We have the same liberties as you do. Exactly the same liberties. Well, based on the following quotes of yours, you are simply incorrect....

Hunting: European wildlife was hunted 3/4 to extinction and we had 2000 years to do it. Not to mention that we have twice as many people living on a landmass about the same size as the USA and a lot of forrests were cut down to house and feed that population. Therefore, hunting is severely limited and for a good reason. Only if you're a hunter in a ''hunting family'' you're allowed to own a hunting rifle and a hunting licence and even then you're only allowed to shoot a deer or two in a year. While there are regional limits to how much one can shoot, hunting itself - along with the ownership of a hunting rifle, is not "severely limited" or based on if your a "hunting family" - whatever that is. Every person without a mental instability or felony conviction can generally own a firearm - including a hunting rifle. A hunting permit is available to anyone for a minor (under $15 in NC for example) fee - no other qualifications necessary. So - was your claim of "exactly the same liberties" a knowledgeable bold face lie, or simply a statement of ignorance?

-Defense: Today we have large conscript armies and modern profesional forces (depends on the country) and NATO. Small militias are really artillery and drone fodder. I have 2 points - but the second one can wait a moment. The first - so militias (non-official, non-military fighting forces) like the civilized world has faced for the last decade+ in places like Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria and such are merely artillery and drone fodder.... So how come they haven't lost yet then?????

But when it comes to militia, Yugoslavia had what is really called a well regulated citizen militia. Point #2 now: So Yugoslavia has - in your terms, plenty of artillery and drone fodder. How nice...

Every citizen was trained to fight and had to attend regular exercises. Weapons were in hidden caches, locations known only to certain individual, JNA (Yugoslav national army) and as soon as the area was overrun people would receive weapons and went to the hills to treat the new enemy as the Germans were treated. How are they going to do that after being blown to smithereens by that artillery and the drones?

The other republics not yet overwhelmed would then mobilise with the 5 million conscripts in reserves and the enemy would soon find himself attacked from the front and the rear. Uhm - more fodder to the rescue? What's the plan - overrun them once they run out of ammo? Remember - YOU are the one that said a citizen militia would be fodder against modern weaponry......

Personal defense: crime rate is lower than it has ever been. Not sure where you come by that. Assuming you are in fact from Slovenia. According to NationMaster.com, 64.29% of your fellow countrymen believe that crime has increased in the last 3 years. Violent crime in 2014 you are ranked 84th out of 93. The last available murder rates (2010) has you 80th out of 86.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Slovenia/Crime

Burglaries are always when one is away Because when your home - its not burglary - its a home invasion.

pickpocketing is something you can't really do anything about it even with a bazooka Sure you can - unless you are keeping that bazooka in your pocket. Though most people would suggest a less "explosive" response to such a crime.

we have a competent police force that even if you are robbed at gunpoint, you'll have everything back within a week. So your saying every robbery that happens will be solved within a week - with a return of the stolen goods? Source that claim for me, will ya?

Plus most of us believe that the last thing we need is every third person on the street carrying a gun. But - I thought:

But first, take into account that our culture simply does not give a thought about guns. Which is it?

Especially after happy hour when half the town is drunk. So what you are saying is half your town is too irresponsible in their control of their liquor to be safe with firearms - so you don't want them to have guns. Are they somehow too irresponsible for guns - but responsible enough to drive cars - or carry knives? Both are legal but deadly, you know...

Oh, and all the criminals here work in packs and they will surround you. Shoot one and the two behind you will jump you and then it's game over. Wait - but you have:
we have a competent police force How can "packs of criminals" exist if this is the case?

Pulling out a gun only means that they'll come home with more booty. I am confused - because that is only booty that they get to have for like ... a week or less, right? Because your police always return the stolen goods within that timeframe..

Question: With police that good - even assuming a pack of criminals COULD organize and exist within that society - what would be the use of crime if they know they are going to get caught within a week??? How does that work?

Makes no sense to ever be a criminal in that society - yet you admit they exist. Something doesn't pass the smell test here.......

Laws: I can own a gun. I just send the application to the state and receive the license after they check my background and if I have a suitable locker. What is a "suitable locker"? No such requirement in the US - another significant difference where our liberties differ. Just so you are ... better informed.... :up:

History: It was free society with some limitations and a one party election. When you only can vote for one party - you don't have a free society. Freedom requires CHOICE - therefore you had no free society.

Propaganda: we're not brain washed by the state to think we're not oppressed. Quite opposite. We're all so cynical that we don't even believe the state when they're telling the truth. Is that before or after you buy into the "the police here are so good they solve every robbery in a week" line????

Sheeples are plentiful Obviously...

If someone would want to run on a platform to allow guns for everyone, he'd loose because no one gives a damn. Well you must - to have written such a lengthy farce so devoid of logic. :up:

Europeans weak: you wish. We've been slaughtering each other long enough for war to be imprinted in our DNA. We're just collectively tired and we prefer to play tourists. Something you can't do in a war zone. So perhaps you can explain.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe#21st_century

or perhaps you prefer this line of thinking...

It isn't that you want to play tourist. You do not want to confront the threat of things like global islam. Europe chooses to do little about such threats - even when it bombs and beheads in your own countries.... That isn't playing tourist, that is playing "victim" - and to many in the US - choosing to be a victim makes you look weak.


And I have already said: you can keep your 2nd amendment, I don't want it, my life won't be better or worse with a gun in my room. 2A doesn't require people to own guns - it gives them CHOICE. Remember we already covered that - Choice is integral to a free society...

I already have a bayonet, a machete, 3 swiss pocket knives, one santoku knife, a small butcher knife set, a bow with 5 carbon arrows, 2 airguns, one airsoft G-36 replica, and a kilogram of home made amonium nitrate. Good for you. Glad you don't think you need a gun. Hope you can notch an arrow, aim and fire faster than a bad guy with a gun can pull a trigger. Your choice - oh wait - not really, huh. But you are right about one thing - it would be "just one more thing to maintain" for you.

When your ready to speak with reason and logic instead of making provably false claims and when your ready to stop contradicting yourself - then MAYBE you will actually be able to have a reasonable discussion on the matter.

[Betonov]

August, I am buyin' but you ain't sellin'



CaptainHaplo, at least one American read the entire thing. Perhaps Steve has, he is a moderator. Where do I begin though.


Point #2 now: So Yugoslavia has - in your terms, plenty of artillery and drone fodder. How nice...

First, Yugoslavia doesn't have, Yugoslavia HAD. Yugoslavia ceased to exist in 1991 all but name. Even Serbia dropped that name in 2003 so Yugoslavia HAD plenty of drone fodder and artillery fodder, which was supported by tanks, artillery and jet planes of all shapes and sizes. Because Yugoslavia had a large conscription based standing army with millions in reserve, just like the US had until 1973. But saying the US army was artillery fodder would bring in a tirade from August and you.
And since we are nitpicking, when Yugoslavia still existed, drones were nothing but a novelty on proving grounds. A Yugoslav soldier could not have been drone fodder.

Not sure where you come by that. Assuming you are in fact from Slovenia. According to NationMaster.com, 64.29% of your fellow countrymen believe that crime has increased in the last 3 years. Violent crime in 2014 you are ranked 84th out of 93. The last available murder rates (2010) has you 80th out of 86.


We also believe we will go bankrupt next year. Like we did last year. And in 2012. And in 2011. We're a pessimist nation. With an amateur sensationalist media that sells every pickpocketing like the robbery of the century.
And even if crime did increase, from almost nothing to what, a little above almost nothing ??? And bar brawls are considered a violent crime but there's a difference between watching two drunks fight or being a collateral in a mob shootout.

And when it comes to polls what people believe, as an American, please don't...
http://time.com/7809/1-in-4-americans-thinks-sun-orbits-earth/
(I dislike polls, they only show what the poller wants them to show, so if you want to diss my link, it automatically disses your poll)

Because when your home - its not burglary - its a home invasion.

Yeah, and we had one in 10 years. And even then it was personal grievances. And the police/army/parliamentary death squads never invade homes here, like August believes in his EuromeansStalinistcommiepolicestate dreams. They make a polite knock with a warrant. How many incidents we had when the special police force broke down a door on a phone tip ?? None. How about the US ????

So what you are saying is half your town is too irresponsible in their control of their liquor to be safe with firearms - so you don't want them to have guns. Are they somehow too irresponsible for guns - but responsible enough to drive cars - or carry knives? Both are legal but deadly, you know...

Do you actually think that we don't allow drunks weapons but we allow them to drive drunk ???
Cars and knives are legal when you're sober. And half my town is irresponsible enough in control of their liquor but that has nothing to do with the state laws.

How can "packs of criminals" exist if this is the case?


Do criminals in the US carry a sign around their neck saying ''I'm a criminal'' and confront you in front of a cop ?? Or maybe you have a law that forbids people to gather in public in groups more than 3 ?? How oppressive.
People go out in groups, honest or criminals. Packs of criminals don't have signs around their necks, policemen are not allowed to arrest a group of people just because they look suspicious, and the pack never attacks in plain sight. Sometimes you're dumb enough to find yourself in an alley far from any cop and you get mugged. Happens in Switzerland, happens in Somalia.
But as you said:
Violent crime in 2014 you are ranked 84th out of 93. The last available murder rates (2010) has you 80th out of 86.
And then Tribes added
80th is better than 14th.
It means that our police force is sooooooooo much more efficient than your police force, since we're at the bottom of that list and you're at the top.

I am confused - because that is only booty that they get to have for like ... a week or less, right? Because your police always return the stolen goods within that timeframe..
If you don't shot one, you get to the police station with a black eye and you get the wallet back in a week.
If you shoot one and the rest jump you, they will kill you. And you're family get's the wallet back.

What is a "suitable locker"? No such requirement in the US - another significant difference where our liberties differ. Just so you are ... better informed.... :up:
A locker a child cannot open and accidentally kills himself. You can keep that liberty, I prefer the life of my child.

When you only can vote for one party - you don't have a free society. Freedom requires CHOICE - therefore you had no free society.
You know that was in Yugoslavia, the state that does no longer exist ??
So it was only a 95% free society. More than enough to live a pleasant, healthy, safe life for you and your family.

Is that before or after you buy into the "the police here are so good they solve every robbery in a week" line????

Can't see the connection but:
We trust the police because the cops actually work with the people and they respond when called. The cop is the help on the street, like the firefighter and paramedic. Not the statesman.

So perhaps you can explain.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...e#21st_century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe#21st_century)
Because unrest in Kosovo is actually a total war like the one in 1939-1945

and


2008 Russia–Georgia war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_war)

You need a new atlas. You still see Yugoslavia and Georgia as Europe.
(hint, the USSR broke apart and there's only one Germany)


It isn't that you want to play tourist. You do not want to confront the threat of things like global islam. Europe chooses to do little about such threats - even when it bombs and beheads in your own countries.... That isn't playing tourist, that is playing "victim" - and to many in the US - choosing to be a victim makes you look weak.

Not going to war makes us look prudent, smart and civilized. Especially when we choose not to go to war in the name of anti-terorism against a country that had nothing to do with terorism. It's only crime against the US was sitting on an ocean of oil.
And when it comes to Afganistan, where terrorists actually are:
http://molokaireef.com/userfiles/image/Operation_eBook_Drop/ISAF-oct-09.png

My god, will you look at all those European countries. I can even see Slovenia in there. (hint: Slovenia and Slovakia are two different countries)

2A doesn't require people to own guns - it gives them CHOICE. Remember we already covered that - Choice is integral to a free society...
I know, I have that choice. I choose not to own a gun. Like I said and you ignored: I can own a gun after I register for a license

Good for you. Glad you don't think you need a gun. Hope you can notch an arrow, aim and fire faster than a bad guy with a gun can pull a trigger. Your choice - oh wait - not really, huh. But you are right about one thing - it would be "just one more thing to maintain" for you.

I don't live in the US. I live in a safe AND free country.

When your ready to speak with reason and logic instead of making provably false claims and when your ready to stop contradicting yourself - then MAYBE you will actually be able to have a reasonable discussion on the matter.

One Englishman (wikipedia on two legs), one Finn (levelheaded) and one Irishman (a walking legal library) already agree with me.
If two Americans that are known for their lack of knowledge about European geo-political situation and history think I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm not going to loose sleep over it. Like some Americans thinking if there's a SWAT team at their door with a wrong lead.


And remember kids, Atlases should be updated every couple of years. Pre-1991 are seriously out of date.

[Betonov]

Come on betonov hit him on the details which are obviously absolute bollox.
There is no shortage.


I have a weight problem, my life won't last that long.


But his latest episode does raise another issue.
He maintains that you are oppressed and not free because you have firearm regulations infringing on your liberty, whereas he is free and has an amendment saying he shall have no infringements.
Since America as a nation has so many more regulations covering firearms than your country does in spite of his bit of paper doesn't that suggest that by his measure of liberty he is far more oppressed and constrained under tyranny than you are?

We don't actually have that much regulation. It's license yes, no license no. Just like with a car.

[Betonov]

So you're telling me
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--ZNpRenzs--/18ec5pzyb2j3yjpg.jpg
I've been defending a country with gun regulations against a country with gun regulations

[Rockstar]

Lets get this over with, everyone rally around their talking points shall we?

A) If only France had stricter gun regulations.

B) If only everyone in France had an Ak47 and a rocket launcher.


:D fixed

[Oberon]

What about a rock and roll launcher?

[ikalugin]

This thread amuses me.

Good posting Betonov.

[Dowly]

One Englishman (wikipedia on two legs), one Finn (levelheaded) and one Irishman (a walking legal library) already agree with me.
Who are you calling levelheaded?! :stare:

[Betonov]

Who are you calling levelheaded?! :stare:

Seriously: you're a bit above average when keeping it cool and not let your emotions type your response.

Not seriously: I think I was referring to your forehead :)

[Dowly]

Seriously: you're a bit above average when keeping it cool and not let your emotions type your response.

Not seriously: I think I was referring to your forehead :)
There might be a few who would disagree with that, but I'll take it. :rotfl2:

[Betonov]

There might be a few who would disagree with that, but I'll take it. :rotfl2:

Some would disagree that I don't come from Slovakia so you're off easy

[Rockstar]

Where I come from he would be known as a squarehead.

[Dowly]

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/ferretsetc/images/Sad2.jpg

[Rockstar]

such a sad look.

It wasnt meant to be offensive and have I never heard it used in a derogatory manner. There is an abundance of Norwegians, Finlanders, Germans, and Swedes that have immigrated to my neck of the woods Minnesota and Wisconson I guess back in the late 1800's and later.

The term stems from the perceived nature of said immigrants brain bucket. . and I mostly heard the term used by other 'square heads'. Only once did I hear it from 'outsider' when after seeing my last name on my Coast Guard uniform he said with a smile "Sorensen eh? you know you square heads make the best sailors" and I must admit we are the best sailors.

[Schroeder]

such a sad look.

It wasnt meant to be offensive and have I never heard it used in a derogatory manner. There is an abundance of Norwegians, Finlanders, Germans, and Swedes that have immigrated to my neck of the woods Minnesota and Wisconson I guess back in the late 1800's and later.

The term stems from the perceived nature of said immigrants brain bucket. :D. and I mostly heard the term used by other 'square heads'. Only once did I hear it from 'outsider' when after seeing my last name on my Coast Guard uniform he said with a smile "Sorensen eh? you know you square heads make the best sailors" and I must admit we are the best sailors.
He's just sad because he has no beer. Your post had nothing to do with it.:cool:

[Dowly]

such a sad look.

It wasnt meant to be offensive and have I never heard it used in a derogatory manner. There is an abundance of Norwegians, Finlanders, Germans, and Swedes that have immigrated to my neck of the woods Minnesota and Wisconson From as far back as the late 1800's.

The term stems from the perceived nature of said immigrants brain bucket. :D. and I mostly heard the term used by other 'square heads'. Only once did I hear it from 'outsider' when after seeing my last name on my Coast Guard uniform he said with a smile "Sorensen eh? you know, you square heads make the best sailors" to which I responded "I must admit we do"

My mistake then. All good. :up:

He's just sad because he has no beer. Your post had nothing to do with it.:cool:
It's Friday and you think I have no beer? You mad?! :doh:

[Schroeder]

It's Friday and you think I have no beer? You mad?! :doh:
Well, there's non in the picture....but I was expecting hidden caches.:D

[Betonov]

I thought square head means someone that's cool under pressure, not a Scandinavian person. But they do have square chins and large foreheads looking like a square head

[Dowly]

I thought square head means someone that's cool under pressure, not a Scandinavian person. But they do have square chins and large foreheads looking like a square head
Never heard of the term, so I looked it up and it said "Inept or Stupid". :haha:

Well, there's non in the picture....but I was expecting hidden caches.:D
My right to beer arms shall not be infringed! :hmph:

[Schroeder]

My right to beer arms shall not be infringed! :hmph:
Well, but it should be infridged or it'll taste bad.:yep:

[Dowly]

Well, but it should be infridged or it'll taste bad.:yep:Wise words. :salute:

[Oberon]

Only term about square head I'm aware of relates more towards Schroeders direction... :O:

[Schroeder]

Only term about square head I'm aware of relates more towards Schroeders direction... :O:
So it means good looking Teutonic super man? Good for Dowly.:yep:


:O:

[Dowly]

https://www.glenmuir.com/cms_media/images/jake_shepherd_sports_white_golf_apparel_for_david_ coulthard_challenge.jpg
Pictured: Squarehead

[Jeff-Groves]

My right to beer arms shall not be infringed!
I have so ripped this off to put on FB!
:har:
:yeah:

[Wolferz]

Crap. My popcorn's all gone.:D

[Sailor Steve]

Crap. My popcorn's all gone.:D

Here, try some of this.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/167278.gif (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/167278.gif.html)

Or just sit and stare.

Your choice

[August]

Here, try some of this.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/167278.gif (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/167278.gif.html)

Or just sit and stare.

Your choice

The clip needs to be longer. We don't get to see her chew!

[nikimcbee]

I'm sorry, what were you guys saying again?

[Jimbuna]

The clip needs to be longer. We don't get to see her chew!

I'm sorry, what were you guys saying again?

Something about chewing.

http://i.imgur.com/awiRWef.gif

[August]

Something about chewing.

http://i.imgur.com/awiRWef.gif


This is why people say the English are gay. :yep:

[Onkel Neal]

I need a new joke wrangler, if it was in the UK I'd have said something like Peckham. Perhaps I should have used California as a better example, I've noticed Americans here tend to pick that when they're using a derogative example for a state.



It was a bit waffley wasn't it? I really should be a politician. When I mean a multi-pronged approach, I mean that rather than just looking to enact tougher reponses for crime, one should also look at hitting the causes of crime. For example in guns, tougher sentences for those violating gun safety protocols should also be accompanyed by a campaign to inform and educate people on gun safety as well as an effort by gun manufacturers to ensure that new firearms have as many safety features as possible (although tbh I'm pretty sure that they already do) and perhaps research into whether a non-intrusive device can be made for making older firearms safer. We're living in a world of micro-electronics, I'm sure that such a thing could be possible and be built into the grip of an old pistol by a professional.
That's just an example, and to be honest it probably wouldn't go exactly that way so there's no need to start picking specific holes in it in regards to my lack of knowledge on firearms safety. It's about giving a little bit of a carrot as well as a stick.

The level playing field comes back to trying to create a more equal society, where the money isn't quite so lopsided. Now obviously this isn't going to stop crime and create a utopia, but it might help a little. Again though, it's got to be from both ends of the scale, there's no point extending a ladder down from the top if people aren't going to use it. However, equally you've got to be very careful not to punish those who legitimately are unable to work because of the actions of the fraudsters.

What you've got to try and avoid though, is the criminalisation and demonisation of the poor, which is becoming a sadly too common occurrence and it's something that appeals to that inner part of a person that likes to feel superior to someone else.
I don't know the situation in the US, but in the UK there's been a determined focus by the ConDems to fight benefit fraud, by making it tougher to gain certain benefits. Now in theory this might sound like a good solution, but in practice it's had the unfortunate side effect that many people who are legitimately in need of these benefits have been unable to get them, in particular people who are disabled. This has had a knock on effect (http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/04/32-die-a-week-after-failing-in.html).

That's one of the more tougher problems facing a government who wants to encourage people back to work but doesn't want to punish those who cannot. Hopefully as communications get better and medical diagnosis gets better then this might improve, but the current situation of using private medical 'practitioners' to test people for disability benefits instead of actually believing the Doctor who diagnosed them as disabled in the first place...well it doesn't work very well at all. Perhaps better emphasis should be put on the initial diagnosis of disability, and that GPs (General Practitioners...aka your local Doctor) should actually be trusted by the government rather than having to bring in a second opinion.

I know we don't agree about pay rates, and that's fair enough, that's only one part of trying to create an equal society, and to be honest, it's a pretty latter stage thing anyway and not really something likely to ever happen because of human nature. Likewise a fully equal society, sadly, is something I don't think is actually possible because there will always be people who think that they are superior to other people because of factor x or y, but we all come into this world the same way, and we all wind up back in the dirt the same way at the end of it, quite why people need to divide themselves up into groups and judge other people based on what group they're in in the middle of it all is beyond me, and it's rather sad really. Imagine what we as a race could have achieved by now if there was just a bit more co-operation in the world? :hmmm:

Still, a guy can dream, and where we can I believe that we should aim for a more equal world, full equality is never going to happen, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to make what parts we can more equal for everyone. As I'm sure that many people do. :yep:

I'm sorry I never replied, I asked and you outlined some ideas. My job sometimes keeps me offline for a day or more. Plus, most of my online time is dealing with people going crazy because they don't like what someone else said in GT....

Ok, I am not going to pick this apart, I like many of your ideas. We probably agree more than we disagree. I guess it's a glass half full, or half empty perception thing.


I guess it's normal human nature for people to behave as you described, dividing themselves into groups and judging, competing. I don't see a problem, as long as none of them force me to contribute my time or energy for their ends.

I know there are needy people, and just like you, I really want to help them. But, where we differ is, I and many like me, feel the onus is on the needy to demonstrate their qualifications for assistance. And no, beggars cannot be choosers, as the old children's saying goes. I know that means a loss of a little dignity, but that comes with the territory. If a guy needs our money, he better be agreeable to our rules.

Anyway, we are talking about keeping crime down, I guess that means we have to pay off a percentage of the population not to rob and kill us. Why does being poor = criminal? I'm pretty close to poor, and I don't mind working 12 hours a day. Why should my tax money go to some drug dealing gangbanger in an inner city? :hmm2: I prefer to take violent criminals and give them free housing for life....apart from society that knows how to behave.

[Mr Quatro]

Consider this for gun control ... even folds down to fit in a back pack :yep:

http://rethinksurvival.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/XCAL_fold.jpg

http://rethinksurvival.com/the-ultimate-survival-gun-x-caliber-folding-12ga22lr-overunder-link/

[August]

Consider this for gun control ... even folds down to fit in a back pack :yep:



http://rethinksurvival.com/the-ultimate-survival-gun-x-caliber-folding-12ga22lr-overunder-link/

That is very neat! :salute:

[Oberon]

I imagine reloading might be a bit finicky though, getting the shells or individual bullets out of the stock. That's not necessarily a bad thing though, in an active shooter scenario that kind of delay gives the police time to react. :hmmm:

[August]

in an active shooter scenario that kind of delay gives the police time to react. :hmmm:

Is that your professional opinion? :)

Just remember that this is a lever action that, judging by the tube length, holds maybe 15-20 rounds of 22LR and it can be adapted for a bunch of different calibers too. Then there's the .12ga shotgun as backup. It's a more capable weapon than it's looks may imply.

[antikristuseke]

According to the Chiappa website it is a double barrel over/under where both barrels are singel shot and there is no magazine.
http://www.chiappafirearms.com/product/2677

[Rockstar]

I imagine reloading might be a bit finicky though, getting the shells or individual bullets out of the stock. That's not necessarily a bad thing though, in an active shooter scenario that kind of delay gives the police time to react. :hmmm:


Thats why I prefer to keep a semi-auto handy in case the police cannot respond fast enough to an active shooter situation.

[Aktungbby]

Correct! and the proper technique as with my single shot Sharps or trapdoor Springfield is to hold two extra rounds between the last two fingers of the trigger hand...in anticipation of a quick reload. Robert Redford amply demonstrates the technique in Out of Africa in the lion hunt scene with his double barreled rifle. Saves fumbling around in a clutch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb6svoM3UWE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb6svoM3UWE) I wish I owned that double barreled rifle! $100K and up these days if it's a Purdy!

[Mr Quatro]

I hope I put this in the right thread ... gun control is about guns too.

But this gun is very unique, even a blind man (pun) could use this gun.


X -Caliber® is designed for use in any condition and with any ammunition available.

Originally designed with two calibers, a rifled .22 LR and a smooth bore .12 GA -, this rifle can fire up to 12 different calibers thanks to the 8 steel adapters supplied.

In addition to the two original gauges, adapters allow you to shoot 8 pistol calibers ( .380 , 9 mm , .357Mag/.38SP , .40 S & W, .44 Mag, .45 ACP , .410/.45colt ) and two shotgun calibers (410 ga, 20ga), combining the flexibility of a shotgun and the power of a rifled gun.


all you need is a shooting vest with a pocket full bullets along with the optional adapter. Would this be legal to carry folded up in the trunk of the car?

There was a gun shop on TV out of Carlsbad, California (near Oceanside, California which is the US Marine base) that offers to sell you machine guns that are disassembled and it is legal.

Then they show you how to assemble the same gun they just sold you.

[Oberon]

Is that your professional opinion? :)

Just remember that this is a lever action that, judging by the tube length, holds maybe 15-20 rounds of 22LR and it can be adapted for a bunch of different calibers too. Then there's the .12ga shotgun as backup. It's a more capable weapon than it's looks may imply.

Well, I don't know about professional, but it's an opinion, I'll give it that. :haha:
It's a very adaptable weapon, the range of rounds it can fire is very impressive, but it looks like a single shot/reload function, although I might be wrong and you might be able to load multiple rounds. :hmmm:


Correct! and the proper technique as with my single shot Sharps or trapdoor Springfield is to hold two extra rounds between the last two fingers of the trigger hand...in anticipation of a quick reload. Robert Redford amply demonstrates the technique in Out of Africa in the lion hunt scene with his double barreled rifle. Saves fumbling around in a clutch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb6svoM3UWE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb6svoM3UWE) I wish I owned that double barreled rifle! $100K and up these days if it's a Purdy!

Sounds like a throw-back to the old bow and arrow technique, but in the post-Winchester era the speed difference between a single-shot and a repeating rifle is fairly big. I mean, even between lever action and automatic, if you look at the difference in the amount of rounds that a Garand and a Lee Enfield can put down field in the space of a few minutes.
Interesting form of weapon though, I honestly had never heard of a double-barreled rifle until now, must sacrifice a bit of long range accuracy but in the situation that Redford is in then it works well, much like the double barrel shotgun which is more lethal the closer to it you are.

I hope I put this in the right thread ... gun control is about guns too.

But this gun is very unique, even a blind man (pun) could use this gun.



all you need is a shooting vest with a pocket full bullets along with the optional adapter. Would this be legal to carry folded up in the trunk of the car?

There was a gun shop on TV out of Carlsbad, California (near Oceanside, California which is the US Marine base) that offers to sell you machine guns that are disassembled and it is legal.

Then they show you how to assemble the same gun they just sold you.

I think this thread was more about the contentious issue of gun control in the United States rather than an appreciation of firearms themselves. We have two other threads for that:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=205808

And

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=204019

Although the former is a bit more serious than the latter which was started as an expression of exasperation at the number of seperate gun threads which were started around that time.

Thats why I prefer to keep a semi-auto handy in case the police cannot respond fast enough to an active shooter situation.

That's fair enough, and is your right as an American citizen. Although one does have to wonder that if you're pointing a gun and shooting when the police show up, which person do they shoot? :hmmm:

[Aktungbby]

if you look at the difference in the amount of rounds that a Garand and a Lee Enfield can put down field in the space of a few minutes.
AHHH you English and your 'Mad Minute"; 300 yards is about it actually.:D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute)

[August]

It's a very adaptable weapon, the range of rounds it can fire is very impressive, but it looks like a single shot/reload function, although I might be wrong and you might be able to load multiple rounds. :hmmm:



I was thinking it was a tube fed given that it has a lever action. I guess it could be just for looks?

[Oberon]

I was thinking it was a tube fed given that it has a lever action. I guess it could be just for looks?

I think so, according to the link antikristuseke posted it's a single shot system and the butt just acts as storage rather than a feeding device.

[antikristuseke]

I was thinking it was a tube fed given that it has a lever action. I guess it could be just for looks?

I gave a link to the manufacturers website with their information on the firearm. I hope they know what they manufacture and according to them it is not a lever action.

[Betonov]

The lever could be the release for the folding mechanism.

[Sailor Steve]

Continued from the 'Terrorist Attack In South Carolina' Thread:

I think this is where between America and the rest of the world there is the vital disconnect. There's not many other countries out there that have such a fear of government, bordering in some cases on paranoia.
We've already side-stepped from another tragedy to another gun control argument. I'd like to side-step a little further, into other reasons why the United States and other countries don't always understand each other. We are currently commemorating the 100th anniversary of the First World War, and a new thread has been started observing the 75th anniversary of the Battle Of Britain. One of the things I've encountered from various Europeans of my acquaintance over the years is a mild animosity towards the United States over our reluctance to get involved in either of those wars until rather late in the game. In one case it was more than mild, tending towards outright condemnation. I had to explain and remind that our Revolution was against British actions, yet we always faced the reminder that we were still British ourselves. This meant maintaining a hostility toward our closest relatives while holding court with our traditional enemies. The fact that the closest of those enemies (France) was also our greatest help during our break with Britain might have made a difference, but then we had to face a new France that had killed the royalty and nobility who had helped us and set up a new, supposedly democratic but in actuality truly tyrannical government, which was itself soon replaced by an outright dictatorship.

Where all of this led was to our first president, after having allied himself with the British against the French, which cause trouble for the next two administrations, finished his second term with an admonishment that "... nothing is more essential than that permanent inveterate antipathies against particular Nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded; and that in place of them just & amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated."
-George Washington, Farewell Address, 1797

In fact after breaking the ties with France formed in 1778 the United States did not enter into another formal military alliance until the creation of NATO in 1949. Many of us consider the alliances that led to World War 1 to be the perfect justification for our reluctance to do the same.

This is often classified by Americans as blind obedience to governments, whereas others would classify it as a form of trust.
The basic concept in America is that the government has no rights. Any power granted to the government is done so by the people. If you trust the government so much that you give up your freedoms to them, what do you do in the case where the government does indeed turn tyrannical and decides to take the rest? No trust should ever be placed in the government. It should serve the people, and never the other way around.

I would ponder though, since 1787, how many times the US government has legitimately earned that distrust? Not just in a way that would upset those of a particular political leaning, but an active lurch into an area that the populace did not want it to go.
A good question. The answer would seem to be none, which could be said to imply that our distrust is wrong. On the other hand it could be said to imply that

A) The people in charge of the government are themselves distrustful, and are careful to keep it that way, or

B) The government is careful not to earn that distrust because they've see what happens when we don't like the way the government treats us.

Many times people in the US will state that gun control is the first step into a tyrannical, dictatorial government...
Possibly, possibly not, but without an armed citizenry what is to keep that from happening? As people have also stated in the US, the Second Amendment is what makes the First Amendment possible. Like the other, that is a trite homily, but there is also some truth behind it. If your leaders stated tomorrow that no books could be published without direct permission from Parliament, what could anyone do about it?

completely ignoring the relaxation of gun control in Nazi Germany (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/).
I read that article, and it is more than a little biased. The author mentions the disarming of the Jews, but justifies it with the point that very few of them were armed anyway, and their handful of guns was of no help in Warsaw and they may have even made it worse. My objection to that is that the author implies that they shouldn't have tried at all. The gun-rights advocate would point out that if they had all been armed it might have been a different story. I will only point out that while it is true that the Nazis did relax gun control, they only did so for the "right" people. The also disarmed the populace of the countries they conquered and occupied.

Of course the author of the article is a gun-control advocate. The problem there is that every article arguing the other side is also a highly biased gun advocate site. There seems to be no one willing to look at both sides of the question and seek honest answers.

...and this is logical, but one could argue that there are plenty of other ways to curb a peoples freedom than removing firearms, and in that respects there are some nations that it could be argued have greater freedoms in areas than the US has but who practice firearm regulation in a stricter manner than the US.
It could also be argued that those greater freedoms are granted by the government, and are in place only so long as the government continues to grant them.

It's something that's going to come to a head there at some point in the future, and it could, legitimately, lead to civil strife.
One can only hope that some equitable solution is found before that happens.

And now I've stayed up way past my bedtime, and I have to go crash. :sunny:

[Oberon]

Continued from the 'Terrorist Attack In South Carolina' Thread:


We've already side-stepped from another tragedy to another gun control argument. I'd like to side-step a little further, into other reasons why the United States and other countries don't always understand each other.

Firstly, thank you for replying over here, I imagine you might need to prune and bring across other comments as time goes on because it's inevitable that this shooting has brought up the gun control question.


We are currently commemorating the 100th anniversary of the First World War, and a new thread has been started observing the 75th anniversary of the Battle Of Britain. One of the things I've encountered from various Europeans of my acquaintance over the years is a mild animosity towards the United States over our reluctance to get involved in either of those wars until rather late in the game. In one case it was more than mild, tending towards outright condemnation.

Secondly, an apology from me on behalf of Europe for the treatment you received in that regard. Whilst I believe that it can be used as a tool to rib America with, I certainly do not think that it's something that can be used as condemnation. America had her reasons for entering the wars when she did, and certainly in the case of the Second World War, Roosevelt did everything he could, short of actual declaration in order to help keep the Allies afloat before Germanys declaration of war on America.
I think people tend to forget the lend lease supplies, certainly in Western Europe, but I know that Russia has never forgotten, and it's a shame that there are such enmities between East and West again at the moment because there's a debt of gratitude there for both the lend-lease equipment and the men (such as Jimbunas father) who delivered it.

I had to explain and remind that our Revolution was against British actions, yet we always faced the reminder that we were still British ourselves. This meant maintaining a hostility toward our closest relatives while holding court with our traditional enemies. The fact that the closest of those enemies (France) was also our greatest help during our break with Britain might have made a difference, but then we had to face a new France that had killed the royalty and nobility who had helped us and set up a new, supposedly democratic but in actuality truly tyrannical government, which was itself soon replaced by an outright dictatorship.

I think that the United States of America is possibly one of the few nations who has faced a revolution that did not involve major loss of life amongst its own people. Not immediately at least. France underwent the reign of terror, Russia had civil war and purges, it's one of the things that has always tempered my left leanings and made me cautious of the people that call for revolution. They're always rather vague about what will replace the status quo.


Where all of this led was to our first president, after having allied himself with the British against the French, which cause trouble for the next two administrations, finished his second term with an admonishment that "... nothing is more essential than that permanent inveterate antipathies against particular Nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded; and that in place of them just & amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated."
-George Washington, Farewell Address, 1797


It's a wise move, really, honestly a move of self-preservation, since Europe of that time, and the century before and after it, was a place of war and rival nations. It always bemuses me (if that's the right word) that we are now in the longest period of peace in Europe since the days of the Roman Empire.
Besides, America of the early 1800s was still focusing inward, expanding west, dealing with the Native American situation, straightening out borders with Mexico and British Canada. The last thing you'd want to do is to get involved in a European war. Of course, that didn't stop you from winding up in one in 1812, but that, really I think was a case of tying up matters left over from the War of Independence.

In fact after breaking the ties with France formed in 1778 the United States did not enter into another formal military alliance until the creation of NATO in 1949. Many of us consider the alliances that led to World War 1 to be the perfect justification for our reluctance to do the same.

Perfectly understandable, and, honestly, for a nation such as America, you have the luxury of being able to consider isolation as an option, even though it eventually does lead to not inconsiderable problems. We once, perhaps, could have felt the same back when we had our considerable colonial holdings, but as a small island nation now, we are sadly lost in reminiscing about our past with delusions of grandeur. It's one of the reasons I'm in support of the EU, the nations of Europe are insignificant on their own now, the people we once sneered at as 'backward' have overtaken us, it took them longer because they were geographically larger, but they did it, and now western Europe can only consider itself relevant as a unified force.

The basic concept in America is that the government has no rights. Any power granted to the government is done so by the people. If you trust the government so much that you give up your freedoms to them, what do you do in the case where the government does indeed turn tyrannical and decides to take the rest? No trust should ever be placed in the government. It should serve the people, and never the other way around.

Now this is the meat of the matter. Yet, I think that people will give up certain freedoms depending on how they are asked to do so. Now, something like the Second Amendment is too big a thing to tackle in any particular way, you can chip away at it, and slowly sleepwalk a country into it. Just as an act such as the PATRIOT act was passed through with begrudging acceptance as necessary because of 9/11 and the new threat of terror. Benjamin Franklin called it years ago, and I'm sure I don't need to repeat the quote.
Now, you make an important point in the last sentence of your paragraph there, A government should serve the people and never the other way around. I fully agree with this, completely. However, there are a lot of problems in how much a government can help and serve the people without in turn people serving the government. It is, I believe, a two-way street. In this particular example, surely it is the role of the government to help reduce domestic terrorist attacks on its people? However, the government would face a quandary, as indeed it does, in how to do such a thing while preserving the second amendment. Catch-22.
One day someone might come up with an answer to that question, and they'll probably be made President. I hope it isn't me that thinks of the answer. :haha:


A good question. The answer would seem to be none, which could be said to imply that our distrust is wrong. On the other hand it could be said to imply that

A) The people in charge of the government are themselves distrustful, and are careful to keep it that way, or

B) The government is careful not to earn that distrust because they've see what happens when we don't like the way the government treats us.


A sceptical mind in regards to government is a healthy thing, but I think that the US is fast approaching the point where technology is going to make that approach to keeping tyrannical government in check a thing of the past. Once it was safely assumed that if a government went tyrannical that the military would split and that the defenders would at least have the aid of some military force in the inevitable war.
However, as the military moves towards a robotic force requiring less manpower to operate a similar amount of destructive potential, then a tyrannical government would have little to fear of its people.
Earlier in this exact thread I posed the question of how much effectiveness an AR15 would pose against a Predator drone at 15,000 ft.
As technology goes on and machine replaces man in the military, small amounts of people are going to wield a lot of power, and it will only take the loyalty of these people in order to rob the public of a defensive army.
I dare say there would be compromises, it certainly wouldn't go all the governments way, but as Harvs pointed out, it has been a very long time since the Second Amendment was written, and I think that the part of it that retains to protecting the American people against a tyrannical government needs to be re-examined closely in light of new technology.

Possibly, possibly not, but without an armed citizenry what is to keep that from happening? As people have also stated in the US, the Second Amendment is what makes the First Amendment possible. Like the other, that is a trite homily, but there is also some truth behind it. If your leaders stated tomorrow that no books could be published without direct permission from Parliament, what could anyone do about it?

One would hope that such a leader would be swiftly removed by parliament, or indeed by Her Majesty herself. There are some checks and balances in our political system in order to prevent the rise of tyranny, however the disconnect between the elite in Westminster and the general public as well as the complete mess that is the 'First Past the Post' voting system does show that it's not perfect and I think that in the next century or two there's going to be problems from that.

Ultimately, in both our nations, power lies in the military rather than in the people. They are the ones that, whilst not controlling all the guns, do control the big guns, the tanks, the jets, the helicopters and the drones.
When the people rose up in Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood was elected into power, it was the military that removed them and put into power a government of their own, and it's the military that has spent its time since then systematically rounding up and arresting as many Muslim Brotherhood and former Mubarak ministers as it can.

I read that article, and it is more than a little biased. The author mentions the disarming of the Jews, but justifies it with the point that very few of them were armed anyway, and their handful of guns was of no help in Warsaw and they may have even made it worse. My objection to that is that the author implies that they shouldn't have tried at all. The gun-rights advocate would point out that if they had all been armed it might have been a different story. I will only point out that while it is true that the Nazis did relax gun control, they only did so for the "right" people. The also disarmed the populace of the countries they conquered and occupied.

Yeah, I do apologise for the bias, it was the first article I came across whilst googling for that particular situation. I do see where you're coming from in regards to the Jewish resistance, and indeed you can see that the French did put up a good resistance of their own. Ultimately though, it needed the backing of the Allied army to achieve its goal of a free France.

Of course the author of the article is a gun-control advocate. The problem there is that every article arguing the other side is also a highly biased gun advocate site. There seems to be no one willing to look at both sides of the question and seek honest answers.

That is the sad truth there. Too many people shout at each other rather than listen.

It could also be argued that those greater freedoms are granted by the government, and are in place only so long as the government continues to grant them.

It can be truthfully argued indeed.

One can only hope that some equitable solution is found before that happens.

Likewise, it would be a very sad day for the world if America were to undergo a Second civil war.

And now I've stayed up way past my bedtime, and I have to go crash. :sunny:

And I, almost time for me to crash into bed too. It's always a pleasure to discuss these things with you, and a learning experience too. :yeah:

[Von Tonner]

I have to say, given how extremely strict it is to buy and own a gun in SA - one could almost say the opposite in extreme to USA where one can buy a gun through the mail - we still land up second to the USA in gun related deaths.

http://businesstech.co.za/news/government/91284/south-africa-is-the-second-worst-country-for-gun-deaths-in-the-world/

[Sailor Steve]

Secondly, an apology from me on behalf of Europe for the treatment you received in that regard.
If you're talking about my personal experiences, don't worry about it. I've always found it odd that some people can carry hostility over events that took place before they were even born. I'm talking about a couple of odd individuals who have their own skewed visions of history. I doubt either of them ever bothered to pick up a book, let alone a dozen, and explore what really happened and why.


...it's one of the things that has always tempered my left leanings and made me cautious of the people that call for revolution. They're always rather vague about what will replace the status quo.
Very true. I try to remind people that while, as John Adams said later, "The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people..."
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/john-adams-to-h-niles/

In fact the shooting only started with that whole Lexington/Concord thing. Even that has its debating points, as the colonials perceived the move to be an infringement of their rights while the Governor saw himself as trying to curtail a dangerous threat. Did he see himself as a tyrannical dictator? I would say almost certainly not.

Of course, that didn't stop you from winding up in one in 1812, but that, really I think was a case of tying up matters left over from the War of Independence.
That is a great example of what can happen when hotheads collide. As usual the British had already apologized for the impressments, and always returned the American sailors when it was proven that they were indeed from our side of the pond. It was the Americans this time who made a mistake, and we're lucky we came out of it the way we did.

A government should serve the people and never the other way around. I fully agree with this, completely. However, there are a lot of problems in how much a government can help and serve the people without in turn people serving the government. It is, I believe, a two-way street. In this particular example, surely it is the role of the government to help reduce domestic terrorist attacks on its people? However, the government would face a quandary, as indeed it does, in how to do such a thing while preserving the second amendment. Catch-22.
I agree. What seems obvious to one side is obviously wrong to the other. If we can't look into the private lives of our citizens it's impossible to tell if they are potential terrorists. On the other hand the government looking into our private lives is the biggest thing we don't want.

In the gun control debate both sides have good and valid points. Neither side wants to admit that the other may have something worthwhile to say. It's true that if all guns are removed from society it becomes impossible for mass shootings to take place. Well, almost impossible. A soldier or policeman with problems can still pull it off. Recent events on the other side of the spectrum bring to light what a retired cop I once knew like to say: "If guns are outlawed only the police will have guns. Do you feel safer now?"

I don't have any answers, but there is one thing I'm sure of. This debate will never come to a conclusion until both sides stop seeing only their own truths and open themselves to the truth of what the other side is saying and start working together to find a real solution. "I'm right and you're stupid" never solved anything.

[Oberon]

I agree. What seems obvious to one side is obviously wrong to the other. If we can't look into the private lives of our citizens it's impossible to tell if they are potential terrorists. On the other hand the government looking into our private lives is the biggest thing we don't want.

I agree, and whilst I'm not a big fan of Rand Paul, I will wholeheartedly applaud his filibuster of the PATRIOT act renewal. Of course, the USA Freedom Act has since come in which could be seen as PATRIOT lite, but it was a good effort nevertheless. The problem with something like the PATRIOT act and the 'War on Terror' is that civilian surveillence can actually be used to prevent terrorism, but at what cost? Do we take the risk of another mass terrorist strike on the scale of 9/11 while keeping the government out of our private lives, or accept the intrusion for our safety?
It's not an easy question to answer, Ben Franklin did say that those who would sacrifice essential liberty for the sake of a little safety deserve neither, but who could have foreseen in his era the deaths of nearly 3000 civilians in one horrific day?

In the gun control debate both sides have good and valid points. Neither side wants to admit that the other may have something worthwhile to say. It's true that if all guns are removed from society it becomes impossible for mass shootings to take place. Well, almost impossible. A soldier or policeman with problems can still pull it off. Recent events on the other side of the spectrum bring to light what a retired cop I once knew like to say: "If guns are outlawed only the police will have guns. Do you feel safer now?"

That touches on another massive question which is, like race relations, not solely an American problem, and that's the relationship between the public and the police, and the gradual erosion of trust between the two. I think as the public have become more aware of some of the abuses perpatrated by the police they are often focused on these issues rather than the good. Perhaps this is also a part of the race relations problem in that people get focused on the negative aspects of it more than the positive ones. Media plays a heavy part in this, but equally we cannot solely blame media for it only parrots to us what we want to see from it, otherwise it would not profit from its demographically targetted audience.
In that way you can also see why politicians lie, because who would vote in a politician that told hard hitting truths?

I don't have any answers, but there is one thing I'm sure of. This debate will never come to a conclusion until both sides stop seeing only their own truths and open themselves to the truth of what the other side is saying and start working together to find a real solution. "I'm right and you're stupid" never solved anything.

Very true indeed, and I think that the internet is both a cure and a problem with this. The internet has opened our horizons to thousands of different opinions, but we as a species tend to flock towards those who share the same viewpoints, Roof most likely was partially radicalised by the internet, instead of opening his mind to the opposite viewpoint of his beliefs, he chose as many do, to embrace and cement what he already believed in and to dig deeper into that, to radicalise to the extent that he believed that he had a mission to save America from the blacks.
Of course, that is speculation at the moment, but I doubt he would be the first to walk that road, sadly.

[Harvs]

Ok, August, you need to pull your head in a bit mate, i have a rifle, i use that rifle to hunt for food either to fill my freezer or for dog food, the rifle i have is not a toy its a tool, i was taught from an early age to be aware of what lies behind your point of aim, to shoot straight and shoot to kill, my father was a great shot and a great teacher, i have served time in the Royal Australian Army, i have used all types of weapons, my favourite was the L1A1 SLR, a deadly accurate rifle with a 7.62 round that blows things apart, that rifle is banned now under our laws and thank Ghandi's sandals it is, as i have said there is NO reason on earth that you can give me to justify a civilian owning a military type auto or semi auto weapon, are you that bad of a shot that you have to take down your kill with 20 rapid fire rounds? or do you just like to go down to the range and show of to your mates or take off down the bush and take out a few trees just for the fun of it, as i said, a rifle is a tool, but unfortunately so are many of the people that own them.

[Nippelspanner]

...as i said, a rifle is a tool, but unfortunately so are many of the people that own them.

Beautiful. :up:

[August]

Ok, August, you need to pull your head in a bit mate, i have a rifle, i use that rifle to hunt for food either to fill my freezer or for dog food, the rifle i have is not a toy its a tool, i was taught from an early age to be aware of what lies behind your point of aim, to shoot straight and shoot to kill, my father was a great shot and a great teacher, i have served time in the Royal Australian Army, i have used all types of weapons, my favourite was the L1A1 SLR, a deadly accurate rifle with a 7.62 round that blows things apart, that rifle is banned now under our laws and thank Ghandi's sandals it is, as i have said there is NO reason on earth that you can give me to justify a civilian owning a military type auto or semi auto weapon, are you that bad of a shot that you have to take down your kill with 20 rapid fire rounds? or do you just like to go down to the range and show of to your mates or take off down the bush and take out a few trees just for the fun of it, as i said, a rifle is a tool, but unfortunately so are many of the people that own them.

Pull my head in? In spite of your little digs about my marksmanship and my character, I don't have to justify my rights to you or anyone else, not that you'd listen anyways since you seem to have already made up your mind about it.

As for shooting trees maybe that's why you Australians can't be trusted by your masters to handle firearms. :) A competent marksman should always know where his bullets are going and a patch of forest is never a proper backstop. Such practices are likely to get someone injured or killed.

[Nippelspanner]

One dead, shooter sought at Delta State University (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/14/mississippi-shooter-delta-state-university/72255856/)

If the professor only would have had a gun... :nope:

[Buddahaid]

One dead, shooter sought at Delta State University (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/14/mississippi-shooter-delta-state-university/72255856/)

If the professor only would have had a gun... :nope:

So?
Report: Woman dies after knife attack in Saco supermarket
http://bangordailynews.com/2015/08/19/news/portland/report-woman-hurt-in-knife-attack-in-saco-supermarket/

[Nippelspanner]

Ah right...
For whatever reason, I forgot that posting in this thread is a bad idea.
Nevermind my post... and the dead professor, and the 20+ kids from Sandy Hook and all the others who have been killed by knife-lovers... oh wait...

[Onkel Neal]

Then again, I've owned guns for 40 years and haven't killed anyone.

[Nippelspanner]

Then again, I've owned guns for 40 years and haven't killed anyone.
I hope you didn't! :D
There is no problem in owning guns at all, if the laws in my country would be a tiddy tad more lax, I'd probably be on the range now and then, for now it is too much a pain in the bum to do shooting over here.
However, I think there should be limits to who owns them and how easily they are distributed/obtained though. Why would that hurt? Why are so many people reacting sensitive to stricter gun laws, if they actually have nothing to fear?
As we can see in other countries, that helps a lot bringing the numbers of gun related victims down. Not sure why this is a bad thing...

[Oberon]

Gun control is heresy, heresy is punishable by death, keep moving citizen.

[Armistead]

Last night went to the corner store late to get coffee. Came out, sat in car and saw a man take a pistol from his waistline, just sort of walking. Heard guys yell at him from a SUV parked to my left and he walked over showing it to them, then back to his car, shoved it down into his sagging pants, then back, walked near the store with it back in his hand, turned around and walked to his buds. I love the old man that works in there, thought they may gonna rob him. I have a AR in my extended cab, but didn't bring my phone. I did get it, stepped out when his back was turned and drew down on him. He was probably 20ish. I did say I was police for effect. He did turn when I yelled, but followed commands and I was being very very forceful. I was more worried about a car load of friends, but had cover. Anyway, police were called, turned out to be a damn pellet pistol, although very real like. However, the SUV had a few guns in it and I think most had warrants.

Not sure it was so smart of me or not. Anyway, a detective supposed to come talk to me today, hopefully I won't have to get further involved as I don't need my name out.

[Aktungbby]

Not sure it was so smart of me or not As with me pulling over a drunk young lady ( Neal's Trucker thread; post #667) using my security shield when her deflated spark-showering wheel rim threatened the bone-dry hillsides and livestock, be sure to apologize for 'personating a peace officer'.:D As a citizen you did good and the detective will probably say what the CHP humorously said to me "ya gotta do what ya gotta do." The matter was highly suspect; got handled; and you handled it. and kept it out of the headlines!!! The police make bad mistakes with authentic looking toy guns and your action did no harm and was not unreasonable both in practice and the fact that, as a legally armed citizen, you are the well ordered militia with power to detain 'till the gendarmes arrive...in my case: nearly an hour!:nope: Occasionally that puts you 'on point' as the only difference between nothing happening and severe consequences- If the detainee has issues, he can always sue you civilly. Well done.:salute:

[Onkel Neal]

I hope you didn't! :D
There is no problem in owning guns at all, if the laws in my country would be a tiddy tad more lax, I'd probably be on the range now and then, for now it is too much a pain in the bum to do shooting over here.
However, I think there should be limits to who owns them and how easily they are distributed/obtained though. Why would that hurt? Why are so many people reacting sensitive to stricter gun laws, if they actually have nothing to fear?
As we can see in other countries, that helps a lot bringing the numbers of gun related victims down. Not sure why this is a bad thing...

I won't argue with stricter background checks. As long as you will go along with my proposal: stricter, longer mandatory sentencing when someone commits a crime with a gun, assault (with or without a gun), robbery, burglary, battery, arson, DWI, domestic violence, and rape, to name a few. If you can agree to 20 years minimum, no parole, I would be happy to go along with stricter limits and checks.

Last night went to the corner store late to get coffee. Came out, sat in car and saw a man take a pistol from his waistline, just sort of walking. Heard guys yell at him from a SUV parked to my left and he walked over showing it to them, then back to his car, shoved it down into his sagging pants, then back, walked near the store with it back in his hand, turned around and walked to his buds. I love the old man that works in there, thought they may gonna rob him. I have a AR in my extended cab, but didn't bring my phone. I did get it, stepped out when his back was turned and drew down on him. He was probably 20ish. I did say I was police for effect. He did turn when I yelled, but followed commands and I was being very very forceful. I was more worried about a car load of friends, but had cover. Anyway, police were called, turned out to be a damn pellet pistol, although very real like. However, the SUV had a few guns in it and I think most had warrants.

Not sure it was so smart of me or not. Anyway, a detective supposed to come talk to me today, hopefully I won't have to get further involved as I don't need my name out.

That happened last night? Whew, well, you may get some heat from the law for impersonating a cop. I think I would have called the police and waited and watched. My training is pretty clear, citizens should not attempt to use their concealed carry weapons unless their safety or property is in jeopardy. Pretty brave of you, none the less.

[August]

I think there should be limits to who owns them and how easily they are distributed/obtained

There are such limits already.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blnoguns.htm

The Gun Control Act of 1968 (http://usgovinfo.about.com/www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/ch44.html) prohibits certain people from possessing a firearm. The possession of any firearm by one of these "prohibited persons" is a felony offense. It is also a felony for any person, including a registered Federal Firearms Licensee to sell or otherwise transfer any firearm to a person knowing or having "reasonable cause" to believe that the person receiving the firearm is prohibited from firearm possession. There are nine categories of persons prohibited from possessing firearms under the Gun Control Act:

Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;
Fugitives from justice;
Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;
Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution;
Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;
Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;
Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and
Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

With limited exceptions, persons under eighteen years of age are prohibited from possessing handguns.

[Onkel Neal]

Well, there you go. Problem solved, now on to stricter enforcement and incarceration of criminals and social misfits.:up:

[Jeff-Groves]

Then again, I've owned guns for 40 years and haven't killed anyone.

I can say the same.
Oh! Wait! There was a few Cubans but I was in the Army at the time so does that count?
:o

[August]

I can say the same.
Oh! Wait! There was a few Cubans but I was in the Army at the time so does that count?
:o

We had a couple of Urgent Fury vets at my Paratrooper Reunion last week. :salute:

[Stealhead]

I can say the same.
Oh! Wait! There was a few Cubans but I was in the Army at the time so does that count?
:o
In that case I'd split hairs and say that the firearm you used was property of the US government also you where following orders given by said government to kill Cuban soldiers. I say it only counts if you owned the firearms and then killed with them of your own free will while not following orders.(lawful given orders as opposed to crazy person microwave transmitted orders)

[Jeff-Groves]

you where following orders given by said government to kill Cuban soldiers.
No.
I was under orders to achieve my objectives.
Rules of Engagement were not to fire unless fired upon.
Nobody said anything about Cubans.

[Oberon]

NOBODY EXPECTS THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS!!

http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/ch_article_main_image/articles/soldier.JPG

[Buddahaid]

NOBODY EXPECTS THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS!!



:salute: :up: :arrgh!:

:|\\

[Aktungbby]

NOBODY EXPECTS THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS!!
:salute: :up: :arrgh!:

:|\\ the Castro brothers::()1:"¡Aye Raul!:D"... "What Fidel?:doh:"... "We've been recognized by the imperialist Yanqui pigs after 50 years! The revolution's a success!":woot:... "you senile idiot they just want to import our Cohíba cigars legally":oops:..."well then I'll be rich! that's my personal brand":cool:...'So much for socialism Bro'":wah: two months after President Obama announced in December that he planned to loosen some of the US-Cuba restrictions, including the easing of the decades-long trade embargo. Under an easing of travel restrictions between the US and Cuba, American visitors will be able to buy up to $100 worth of cigars and bring them home... no longer violating the Trading with Enemy Act

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/76/Three_cohiba_cigars.jpg/250px-Three_cohiba_cigars.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Three_cohiba_cigars.jpg)
When you're the president of the United States, you can get just about anything you'd like. What the 35th president, JFK, wanted in early 1962 was a bunch of Cuban cigars, 1,000 Petit Upmanns to be exact. He gave his press secretary, Pierre Salinger, less than 24 hours to round them up. Short notice for such a big request, but then JFK had a pressing reason for procuring the stash in such a timely fashion. He was about to sign an embargo prohibiting any Cuban products from entering the country, including his beloved cigars. The embargo was born of a nasty spat that the United States was having with Cuba and its fears that Fidel Castro represented a growing threat to America's security. But before Kennedy could act, he needed Salinger to complete his assignment. The press secretary didn't let him down, as he managed to scrounge up 1,200 cigars. Kennedy then signed the embargo, and Cuban tobacco has been off-limits to Americans ever since. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/c1yzcq/picture8425560/ALTERNATES/FREE_960/castro.JPG

[Lionclaw]

I don't usually post in these kinds of threads, maybe it's Off Topic for this thread.


What is the American view of all the continued incidents regarding shootings?


Can something be done about it, or has it become a part of the American culture, like the firearm itself is a fundamental part of your culture?


It's like when I see on the news that there's been a shooting. I think to myself before clicking the link: "In America?"

When I click the link and see that it indeed happened over there. I just shrug it off since it happens so often over there.

You get numbed by the number of news reports of the events. :-?

[Onkel Neal]

NOBODY EXPECTS THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS!!

http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/ch_article_main_image/articles/soldier.JPG

Day-um, that missile has a sharp point :o

Lionclaw, you'll get a lot of varied opinions on this. I've said before (so now I am repeating myself), the guns have been part of American culture for centuries. It's who we are, having the freedom to own reasonable firearms. The govt and the opponents to gun ownership have no right to say otherwise, it's the 2nd Amendment in our Bill of Rights. And why not? Tens of millions of gun owners such as myself, August, Armistead, Jeff and Aktungbby are responsible members of society and there is no problem with our behavior.

Now, there are thousands of individuals who break the law and misbehave, how do we keep them from obtaining firearms with laws? Only by removing all gun ownership? Yes, that might help, but at what cost? Why punish me for the bad deeds of others?

Again, I say if one examines the cases where someone uses a gun in a crime, he will find that person is likely to have a long criminal record (not always, but in most). It's my belief that our criminal justice system is far too lenient. Why is this guy on the street? After convictions for distribution of narcotics, second-degree assault, fourth-degree burglary, trespassing....for example, he should not be in the population at all. Longer periods of incarceration would not solve all gun related deaths, But I think it would help.

You know, there are 35,000 people who die by traffic accidents. There are a lot of things we as a society could do to impact that, but it does not seem to get the same attention as shootings.

[Betonov]

OK, since Neal pointed out his full view on guns in America, I'll put forward mine.
I really don't care about guns in America. You have your second amendement and certain regulations that August pointed out. Which got me thinking, so many rules about owning guns, like you're in Europe or something.
We don't have our version of a second amendment and gun control. But we are not banned from owning guns. No where in our constituition it says we can't have guns. We just have to get a permit first which is a matter of formality if you don't fall into the same categories August gave when he posted the law about who is not allowed to own a gun. Anyone that can own a gun in the US can own one in Europe.
The low number of guns in Europe is not because the state won't allow us, it's because very few people are interested to.
I am not going to get involved in gun issue in the US. Hell, if I ever visit the US I'll go to a gun store and just browse a bit and maybe taking one out to the range. I'm also planing to join a gun club next year to learn how to handle and shoot.
But I am going to get involved when there's another ''you can't have guns because Yuropeons are rulled by kings and dukes and fear a rebellion'' type of post.

But I will admit this. A gun licence in Europe is expensive and I believe that it is a money making racket from the state.

[Aktungbby]

Tens of millions of gun owners such as myself, August, Armistead, Jeff and Aktungbby are responsible members of society and there is no problem with our behavior. Where I'm at today BBY (that's the nicest thing anyone ever said about me:wah:)
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/napavalleyregister.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/8e/78ea8a5d-4718-5c2e-b67b-ecdda9b83a66/55f8b43e2f829.image.jpg

[Catfish]

Hehe, i would have never thought i loved some posts in this thread, but now i do.
And i think what Armistead did was right, adequate, and also courageous :salute:

[Nippelspanner]

OK, since Neal pointed out his full view on guns in America, I'll put forward mine.
I really don't care about guns in America. You have your second amendement and certain regulations that August pointed out. Which got me thinking, so many rules about owning guns, like you're in Europe or something.
We don't have our version of a second amendment and gun control. But we are not banned from owning guns. No where in our constituition it says we can't have guns. We just have to get a permit first which is a matter of formality if you don't fall into the same categories August gave when he posted the law about who is not allowed to own a gun. Anyone that can own a gun in the US can own one in Europe.
The low number of guns in Europe is not because the state won't allow us, it's because very few people are interested to.
I am not going to get involved in gun issue in the US. Hell, if I ever visit the US I'll go to a gun store and just browse a bit and maybe taking one out to the range. I'm also planing to join a gun club next year to learn how to handle and shoot.
But I am going to get involved when there's another ''you can't have guns because Yuropeons are rulled by kings and dukes and fear a rebellion'' type of post.

But I will admit this. A gun licence in Europe is expensive and I believe that it is a money making racket from the state.
Good post, sums it up really precise and nice!
I also agree on your final sentence, it's all about money making...
Err, kings 'n dukes I mean! :D

[August]

But I am going to get involved when there's another ''you can't have guns because Yuropeons are rulled by kings and dukes and fear a rebellion'' type of post.

Well maybe next time you'll actually want to understand what I said instead of continuing to spout this totally inaccurate take on it.

[Lionclaw]

Lionclaw, you'll get a lot of varied opinions on this. I've said before (so now I am repeating myself), the guns have been part of American culture for centuries. It's who we are, having the freedom to own reasonable firearms. The govt and the opponents to gun ownership have no right to say otherwise, it's the 2nd Amendment in our Bill of Rights. And why not? Tens of millions of gun owners such as myself, August, Armistead, Jeff and Aktungbby are responsible members of society and there is no problem with our behavior.

Now, there are thousands of individuals who break the law and misbehave, how do we keep them from obtaining firearms with laws? Only by removing all gun ownership? Yes, that might help, but at what cost? Why punish me for the bad deeds of others?

Again, I say if one examines the cases where someone uses a gun in a crime, he will find that person is likely to have a long criminal record (not always, but in most). It's my belief that our criminal justice system is far too lenient. Why is this guy on the street? After convictions for distribution of narcotics, second-degree assault, fourth-degree burglary, trespassing....for example, he should not be in the population at all. Longer periods of incarceration would not solve all gun related deaths, But I think it would help.

You know, there are 35,000 people who die by traffic accidents. There are a lot of things we as a society could do to impact that, but it does not seem to get the same attention as shootings.

Fair enough. :)

I have never been to the USA, so I can't really put myself in your (American) shoes and see things from your perspective. About your culture I mean. :)

[Betonov]

Well maybe next time you'll actually want to understand what I said instead of continuing to spout this totally inaccurate take on it.

Alright alright, so I jumped up on two occasions when I missunderstood you :O:
I was missled by the other 98 times I was right :O:

[Dowly]

At least 13 killed in college shooting in Oregon

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34419802

[Oberon]

At least 13 killed in college shooting in Oregon

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34419802

Yup, that'll happen.

[Oberon]

http://i.imgur.com/KzQhSuo.jpg

[Rockstar]

Here's where I say what does the decision of another to kill someone have to do with me? People have been killing each other long before the invention of gun powder. If you remove firearms from the planet, people whose desire it is to do harm to another would just revert to more primitive tools.

[Frömmler Vogel]

Here's where I say what does the decision of another to kill someone have to do with me? People have been killing each other long before the invention of gun powder. If you remove firearms from the planet, people whose desire it is to do harm to another would just revert to more primitive tools.
Thus reducing the number of people impacted by their actions. QED

[Buddahaid]

Maybe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

[Nippelspanner]

Maybe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
Tragedy.
The only logical solution is to force kids and teachers to wear stab and cut-secure protection clothing and at least arm the teachers with knives and teach them how to use them...

[Oberon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_crimes_in_Japan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

[Jeff-Groves]

Oh how the Media people love this stuff!
Try not making the nut bags infamous sometime.
That's what seems to drive the loonies.
:nope:

[August]

Oh how the Media people love this stuff!
Try not making the nut bags infamous sometime.
That's what seems to drive the loonies.
:nope:


This ^

The last one they captured alive and that's exactly what he said was his motivation.

[mapuc]

Have only two things to say about this terrible

1. I feel so sad for those who has lost a love one.

2. As said a few times before. This is an all American problem and shall be solved by them self.

Markus

[Jeff-Groves]

"Authorities are searching for a motive"

Here's a clue.
He was a sissy that dressed in his momma's under clothing and was probably a closet queen.
He failed at everything in life including how to kill himself without hurting others.
Probably attempted to rape small animals but failed at that.
His name should never be released and all mention of him should be stricken from records.
Not even a picture of him should remain.
Media should refer to him as "Scum Bag" and nothing more.
How's that fit your infamy plan Scum Bag?

[Oberon]

I imagine most of the focus and ire this time will probably fall onto 4chan, it seems like a convenient target.

[Nippelspanner]

"Authorities are searching for a motive"

Here's a clue.
He was a sissy that dressed in his momma's under clothing and was probably a closet queen.
He failed at everything in life including how to kill himself without hurting others.
Probably attempted to rape small animals but failed at that.
His name should never be released and all mention of him should be stricken from records.
Not even a picture of him should remain.
Media should refer to him as "Scum Bag" and nothing more.
How's that fit your infamy plan Scum Bag?
Beautiful how simple some peoples world is when you just see everything in black and white...
Meanwhile in the real world, I feel the need to remind you that motive =/= cause.
Assuming all your assumptions and claims are true, answer me the following:

Why was he a "sissy who dressed in momma's clothes"?
Why did he fail at everything in live?
Why did he want to kill himself in the first place?
Why did he attempt to rape small animals?

Maybe, just maybe, it is time to think further than 2 yards and start to analyze the actual cause(s) of all these shootings to, maybe, start doing something so these events at least don't happen more and more.

Maybe.

[Nippelspanner]

I imagine most of the focus and ire this time will probably fall onto 4chan, it seems like a convenient target.
Yes, good old days when clearly Marylin Manson was the cause of school shootings...because of her diabolic music. :03:

[Jeff-Groves]

Maybe, just maybe, it is time to think further than 2 yards and start to analyze the actual cause(s) of all these shootings to, maybe, start doing something so these events at least don't happen more and more.

Maybe.

Na.
My first thought is why are Non-Citizens of the U.S.A. so slap happy to mess with our rights and tell us we are wrong?
:hmmm:

Here's what's wrong. The Nuts want to be infamous, Media is more then glad to do that, and people like you bleed at the heart for the scum that slaughtered people.
:nope:

Given the choice to stop a future crime by killing him you'd hesitate and debate I'll bet.

[Nippelspanner]

Na.
My first thought is why are Non-Citizens of the U.S.A. so slap happy to mess with our rights and tell us we are wrong?
:hmmm:
I'm not messing with your rights, I have no way to influence them for as long as I am no US citizen - which I most likely never will be, don't worry.Still, I wonder about the butt-hurt and defensive behavior as soon as "foreigners" dare to criticize an obviously flawed system.Maybe this topic is bigger than your nationalism, Jeff. :03: However, this is an international forum where everyone can debate and discuss whatever he pleases - as long as it goes alongside the rules - so maybe you just take your nationalism elsewhere?
Cause this doesn't belong on Subsim the last time I checked.
Especially not when North Korea, Russia, Europe, Israel, ... and everyone else is always in the crosshair of debates on here - but sure, the holy rights of a US citizen must not be debated by pesky europoors.


Here's what's wrong. The Nuts want to be infamous, Media is more then glad to do that, and people like you bleed at the heart for the scum that slaughtered people.
:nope:
Why do they want to be infamous?
And please, don't make up some BS about me just to desperately build some snowman, ok?
I do not feel sorry for him, I didn't even imply that.
My interest lies in analyzing the cause, the root and stop it from happening or at least try to.
It doesn't help to label people and shove them away - obviously - so maybe a new approach with a more open mind with less old-fashioned hate-mongering might be worth trying?... Maybe.


Given the choice to stop a future crime by killing him you'd hesitate and debate I'll bet.
Thank you for showing so clearly that you don't even understand what I said. But it might not be your fault. Since I am a foreigner from your point of view, it might be a language related problem - I apologize.

[Buddahaid]

It's just venting. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible owners, and when these high profile shootings occur, we are upset because it's one more brick in the wall of ban. I've experienced too many things that are now outlawed because of the few who abuse their privileges and I don't want gun ownership to be added to that list as well.

The reality is you can't prevent all determined people from doing whatever evil scheme they dream up even in the most restrictive environments. I don't think there really is a solution, or if there is one, it's worse than the problem it's designed to correct.

[Oberon]

Yes, good old days when clearly Marylin Manson was the cause of school shootings...because of her diabolic music. :03:

:har: And Doom, that bringer of death and destruction upon the world.

Where's Jack Thompson when you need him? :O: :haha:

[August]

It's just venting. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible owners, and when these high profile shootings occur, we are upset because it's one more brick in the wall of ban. I've experienced too many things that are now outlawed because of the few who abuse their privileges and I don't want gun ownership to be added to that list as well.

The reality is you can't prevent all determined people from doing whatever evil scheme they dream up even in the most restrictive environments. I don't think there really is a solution, or if there is one, it's worse than the problem it's designed to correct.


Well said.

[Nippelspanner]

I DON'T BELIEVE THIS! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=8&v=LU4W0ef2654) :/\\!!

[Buddahaid]

I DON'T BELIEVE THIS! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=8&v=LU4W0ef2654) :/\\!!

Then what would you BELIEVE? What is your solution then and how would it work? Maybe the differing attitude comes from growing up with, or without guns in the house. It doesn't bother me that there are and it's perfectly normal feeling.

[Nippelspanner]

Then what would you BELIEVE? What is your solution then and how would it work? Maybe the differing attitude comes from growing up with, or without guns in the house. It doesn't bother me that there are and it's perfectly normal feeling.
Err, what? Next time maybe watch the video I linked?
The video isn't about guns, it is showing how ridiculously stupid our media is these days, reporting about something they do not know and do not understand - yet making crap up "educating" people.

Maybe you need to google what 4Chan is to understand, not sure, but to me this is extremely cringe worthy.

Speaking of videos, here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/multiple-fatalities-reported-in-shooting-at-oregon-community-college/2015/10/01/b9e9cc4c-686c-11e5-9ef3-fde182507eac_story.html) is Obama's statement regarding the shooting.
Think of him what you want, but it is hard to disagree with what he says... oh no what did I just do...

[Hawk66]

It's just venting. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible owners, and when these high profile shootings occur, we are upset because it's one more brick in the wall of ban. I've experienced too many things that are now outlawed because of the few who abuse their privileges and I don't want gun ownership to be added to that list as well.

The reality is you can't prevent all determined people from doing whatever evil scheme they dream up even in the most restrictive environments. I don't think there really is a solution, or if there is one, it's worse than the problem it's designed to correct.

Frankly, I do not think this is true....just have a look around the world and statistics and you will see that just tragedys are not evenly distributed. And I am not considering non-democratic countries.

Every society seems to have its irrational, beloved, thing. In Germany it's the crazy driving on the autobahn without speed limits. When you think rational about it, it makes no sense....
In the U.S. it's the gun.

Interestingly both topics have similar root causes. In both cases there is a big (commercial) lobby behind it, which has managed to emotionalize the topic and 'auto-spreading' the idea from generation to generation. Even the reaction if someone tries to question it, is often very similar: It's not to be discussed since I am free and this is my right...

[Buddahaid]

Err, what? Next time maybe watch the video I linked?
The video isn't about guns, it is showing how ridiculously stupid our media is these days, reporting about something they do not know and do not understand - yet making crap up "educating" people.

Maybe you need to google what 4Chan is to understand, not sure, but to me this is extremely cringe worthy.

Speaking of videos, here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/multiple-fatalities-reported-in-shooting-at-oregon-community-college/2015/10/01/b9e9cc4c-686c-11e5-9ef3-fde182507eac_story.html) is Obama's statement regarding the shooting.
Think of him what you want, but it is hard to disagree with what he says... oh no what did I just do...

OK. Reset. I didn't watch the link so we are arguing from different standpoints......

Please Stand By.........

[Oberon]

Turns out that the 4chan link was false anyway, it wasn't the same guy who posted on the board.

Anyway, I hear the response that restricting guns won't stop the people who want to do this kind of thing from doing it a lot, so let's examine that.

Obama made a comment back in June that the US was the only nation in the world where this kind of thing happens and happens so often. He was only half correct. Certainly other nations suffer from mass killings, and by mass killings I define this as incidents when more than 3-4 people are killed by one or more people. Putting aside terrorist incidents for a moment, if you look at figures, such as those posted by politifact:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/

You'll see that while the number per population may not put US that highly, nor per 100k...the frequency in which it happens far outweighs the other denominating factors.
In short, whilst other nations may have had more killings, the frequency in which they happen in the United States, to the extent where it is treated almost as norm by many of its populace, that is a factor that really does deserve examining. In fact, if one takes a mass shooting to mean that four or more people are shot, including the shooter, than the US has had more mass shootings than it has had days in this current year. (source: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015 )
Now, outside of war-zones and failed states, I don't think there are any nations you can put a similar figure on, certainly none in the western world.
Why is this? Well, to try and find out the answer to this, I think that a comparison between the US and other westernised nations need to be made, and that comparison needs to look at the following:

1) Access to firearms and weaponry
2) Access to mental health care
3) Media reporting

Now, one can argue about the state of youth culture, but that's a problem that is hardly unique to the United States.

In all the furor we make about hunting down terrorists, all the money spent, all the fuss about the dangers of radical Islam and the possibility of a Muslim kid making a bomb...more people have died in America through shootings than have died through terrorism over the past decade.
That's not right, guys, and I know you don't need people from outside the country to tell you this, you all know this already...and yet here we are, on a frequent basis, having this same conversation. Would any other nation have let this carry on for as long as it has?

I've said my piece, and no doubt I'll get shat on for saying it, but please America...stop killing yourselves.

[U505995]

I support universal background checks and possibly mental health evaluation but completely banning firearms or further restricting what type of firearms we own is not the answer. Unlike the UK or Europe where most people have grown up not ever using a firearm in their life, the US has an immense gun culture. I grew up using my rifle to hunt for food, shooting for fun, and educating others on gun safety. Taking away legal gun owners right to bear arms because of a select few psychopaths who cannot control themselves is ridiculous.

[Rockstar]

I've said my piece, and no doubt I'll get shat on for saying it, but please America...stop killing yourselves.


Tell Ya what, I'll give up my firearms just as soon as you allow a migrant family from morrocco or syria occupancy in your home or backyard.

btw I'm a gun owner and an American and Im not killing myself.

[Jimbuna]

:ping:

[Nippelspanner]

Tell Ya what, I'll give up my firearms just as soon as you allow a migrant family from morrocco or syria occupancy in your home or backyard.
Yeah, so related and on topic...:up:

btw I'm a gun owner and an American and Im not killing myself.You knew exactly what and how he meant it.
You're just butthurt that some europoors criticize Murica.
How about not taking this personal, leaving nationalism aside and focus on the problem?
There is a problem, is there not?

[Rockstar]

I support universal background checks and possibly mental health evaluation but completely banning firearms or further restricting what type of firearms we own is not the answer. Unlike the UK or Europe where most people have grown up not ever using a firearm in their life, the US has an immense gun culture. I grew up using my rifle to hunt for food, shooting for fun, and educating others on gun safety. Taking away legal gun owners right to bear arms because of a select few psychopaths who cannot control themselves is ridiculous.

I can agree with that.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nHKZXeIbnpE/UdX-YWdiaJI/AAAAAAAAQCs/9FK8mot8PX0/s616/Gabby_Johnson_Blazing_Saddles.JPG
I wash born here, an I wash raished here, and dad gum it, I am gonna die here, an no sidewindin' bushwackin', hornswagglin' cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter

[Rockstar]

Yeah, so related and on topic...:up:

Point is, Talk is cheap.

You knew exactly what and how he meant it.
You're just butthurt that some europoors criticize Murica.
How about not taking this personal, leaving nationalism aside and focus on the problem?
There is a problem, is there not?

No problem, no butthurt either, criticize all you want and have fun doing it. I just wanted to point out not all 316 million Americans are killing themselves. We all know how blanket statements like that are in poor taste and need to be pointed out.

[Onkel Neal]

Tell Ya what, I'll give up my firearms just as soon as you allow a migrant family from morrocco or syria occupancy in your home or backyard.
.

Don't say that! There are African/Middle Eastern migrants headed his way as we speak, don't make that promise. :cool:

[Jimbuna]

Don't say that! There are African/Middle Eastern migrants headed his way as we speak, don't make that promise. :cool:

Nice one :)

My attempt at injecting a little humour....

Hundreds of refugees, fleeing violence in their own country, arrived in the UK today.

On various flights from America.

[Oberon]

Tell Ya what, I'll give up my firearms just as soon as you allow a migrant family from morrocco or syria occupancy in your home or backyard.

btw I'm a gun owner and an American and Im not killing myself.


Ok.

My country is taking 20,000 refugees over the next five years, with many people lobbying for us to take more. We're putting money into improving the refugee camps in the nations surrounding Syria, in particular Lebanon.

What, exactly, has your nation done to reduce the number of mass shootings per year? :hmmm:

[Oberon]

In better news, and before we tred down oft trodden paths.

http://i.imgur.com/w4IhEIv.jpg

This is Chris Mintz, a US army vet, was his sons birthday when the attack happened, he charged the shooter to help save others (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/oregon-college-shooting-army-veteran-chris-mintz-charged-gunman-during-attack-a6676621.html) and took seven bullets in the upper back, left hand, abdomen and both legs.
Get better soon Mr Mintz and thank you, I hope you and your son can celebrate his birthday together soon. :up:

[U505995]

I can agree with that.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nHKZXeIbnpE/UdX-YWdiaJI/AAAAAAAAQCs/9FK8mot8PX0/s616/Gabby_Johnson_Blazing_Saddles.JPG
I wash born here, an I wash raished here, and dad gum it, I am gonna die here, an no sidewindin' bushwackin', hornswagglin' cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter
So because i'm a gun owner i'm a white trash, trailer dwelling redneck. Way to stereotype.

[August]

Anyone looking for reasons should start with the killers own words:

"I have noticed that so many people like him (the Virginia news crew killer) are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are. A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you're in the limelight."

These monsters feed off each other and the media, eager for ratings and damn the consequences, are happy to provide the fodder.

[Oberon]

Anyone looking for reasons should start with the killers own words:

"I have noticed that so many people like him (the Virginia news crew killer) are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are. A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you're in the limelight."

These monsters feed off each other and the media, eager for ratings and damn the consequences, are happy to provide the fodder.

I think that's definitely part of the problem, but not the whole problem.
Our media is just as bad, take a look on youtube at clips from all the programs that were aired during and after our last mass-shooting:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Raoul+moat
I mean, this was treated as a big thing in the UK, even though by American standards it was pretty small fry, 2 dead and 2 injured.
Admittedly, I think part of the focus was because it happened only one month after another nutjob went postal in a much bigger way, and here's the same media frenzy:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Cumbria+shootings

Ok, it's perhaps not quite as frothing at the mouth as the US media gets, with all their special graphics and talking heads, but between that and twitter, it's not that far off. The end result is the same, the guy gets their name out there for a good time, gets their own wikipedia entry and eternal fame.

So...why does it happen with such a frequency in the US as opposed to elsewhere? What are the differing factors? If the US and the UK has similar media treatment of spree killers (you should have seen the fuss over the Ipswich Ripper incident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipswich_serial_murders) never seen so much press in Ipswich before) then why does the UK not see more spree killings?

Personally, I think that there is a trifecta of issues, the firearms, mental health care and the press. Unless you treat all three of the issues, then the other two will mean that the issue won't go away but will just morph into another way. Ban the press from reporting it, and people will go on the internet where you can't ban it, ban firearms and people will probably switch to knives, fix mental health care and you might reduce the number but probably not by as much as would be possible under a three pronged approach.
Of course, the 1st and 2nd Amendments are the key factors in two of the three issues and those will be the hardest to examine and deal with.

However, just writing the problem off as being natural or just a part of life, becoming numb and normalised to it...I don't think that's a healthy way for a country to go.

[Onkel Neal]

Nice one :)

My attempt at injecting a little humour....

Hundreds of refugees, fleeing violence in their own country, arrived in the UK today.

On various flights from America.

:arrgh!: Make them welcome there, and tell them not to come back.

[vienna]

Nice one :)

My attempt at injecting a little humour....

Hundreds of refugees, fleeing violence in their own country, arrived in the UK today.

On various flights from America.

Ah, then our plan is working...


<O>

[Betonov]

:arrgh!: Make them welcome there, and tell them not to come back.

The one guy I know and did that was made welcome and wouldn't go back if you payed him :O:

[Onkel Neal]

Good, glad to hear it. Want more?

[Betonov]

If they're experianced and/or have a trade, sure

[Onkel Neal]

No no no, don't discriminate. Where's your humanitarian spirit?

[Betonov]

Died with the last unemployment stint. Along with a lot of my other emotions.

[August]

So...why does it happen with such a frequency in the US as opposed to elsewhere? What are the differing factors?

Well for one thing we have 6 times the population of say England. Just that factor alone should dictate we have 6 times the incidents.

[Oberon]

The one guy I know and did that was made welcome and wouldn't go back if you payed him :O:

We had some...but the US took them back off us in 1993, wouldn't even let them leave their cool toys behind either. :nope:

Well for one thing we have 6 times the population of say England. Just that factor alone should dictate we have 6 times the incidents.

That's true, but by numbers alone you have six times the amount of the UKs shooting sprees of the last decade in about a month. :hmmm: I mean, this year there has been more incidents than there has been days in the year so far.

[Rockstar]

So because i'm a gun owner i'm a white trash, trailer dwelling redneck. Way to stereotype.

Im originally from Wisconson, left over 43 years ago. Travelled alot and came to find out there is a huge difference between a frontiersman as portrayed on Blazing Saddles speaking authentic frontier gibberish and a stereotypical redneck or a white trash trailor dweller.

Additionnaly it was directed at myself.

Sorry cheeshead. :D

[Rockstar]

What, exactly, has your nation done to reduce the number of mass shootings per year? :hmmm:

We're reducing the number of refugees. :D

[Oberon]

We're reducing the number of refugees. :D

Reducing the number of children too...

[mapuc]

Have to go against what I said in my last post.

Every time this happens I hope the authorities and whoever it may concern would sit down and start talking, about what can be done to prevent this or make it harder to happen again in the future.

All I see is, people throwing stone at each other or bite each others head if in different forums, every time it happens.

Markus

[August]

However, just writing the problem off as being natural or just a part of life, becoming numb and normalised to it...I don't think that's a healthy way for a country to go.

There's a lot of things that can be done without gutting the Constitution.

One thing that needs to be done right away is to get rid of "gun free zones". They do nothing constructive at all. They just tell the killer that his victims will not be able to stop him. It's why they pick those places. You don't see them trying it at a police station or a gun shop where somebody might shoot back.

As for banning coverage I disagree with what you said earlier. Confine their identities to the dark recesses of the internet and you take away 99% of the fame. That's 99% of their motivation. I like the County sheriffs take on it. Never say their name. Never post their picture. Do not give them what they want!

[Jeff-Groves]

You don't see them trying it at a police station or a gun shop where somebody might shoot back.


Obviously 'Down Under' some idiot tried it!
:haha:

Didn't go so well for him.
:rock:

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

As for banning coverage I disagree with what you said earlier. Confine their identities to the dark recesses of the internet and you take away 99% of the fame. That's 99% of their motivation. I like the County sheriffs take on it. Never say their name. Never post their picture. Do not give them what they want! I would tend to agree with you on this, and I also think that while the media should report such shootings when they happen, they should not report the number of killed and wounded until after the facts have been made known by the hospitals and the police. I mean the first report I saw about this was that fifteen people where dead and twenty where injured, and then the numbers preceded to yo-yo throughout the day. As to the news media I don't think there should be a ban but there should be a some form of an information "blackout" for a certain length of time with regards to shooters identity.

[Platapus]

Confine their identities to the dark recesses of the internet and you take away 99% of the fame. That's 99% of their motivation. I like the County sheriffs take on it. Never say their name. Never post their picture. Do not give them what they want!


I remember a bunch of years ago we had this home invader/rapist going around the LA area. The news media dubbed him "the Nightstalker"

Crikey, why give this scum a cool sounding name that will only make him feel more important?

The media should have called him "the Impotent Tiny Dicked Scumbag".

But then the media is not really on the side of the law.. they are on the side of continuing bleeding-edge articles so it is in the media's best interest to encourage such scum. :nope:

Sad to say that these shootings are just what editors dream about. :nope:

[Jeff-Groves]

But if the Media don't make them popular how can the over sea people claim it's the Gun Laws in the U.S.A. and give us expert advise?

[Dan D]

I support universal background checks and possibly mental health evaluation but completely banning firearms or further restricting what type of firearms we own is not the answer. Unlike the UK or Europe where most people have grown up not ever using a firearm in their life, the US has an immense gun culture. I grew up using my rifle to hunt for food, shooting for fun, and educating others on gun safety. Taking away legal gun owners right to bear arms because of a select few psychopaths who cannot control themselves is ridiculous.

You get my vote.

[Onkel Neal]

There's a lot of things that can be done without gutting the Constitution.

One thing that needs to be done right away is to get rid of "gun free zones". They do nothing constructive at all. They just tell the killer that his victims will not be able to stop him. It's why they pick those places. You don't see them trying it at a police station or a gun shop where somebody might shoot back.

As for banning coverage I disagree with what you said earlier. Confine their identities to the dark recesses of the internet and you take away 99% of the fame. That's 99% of their motivation. I like the County sheriffs take on it. Never say their name. Never post their picture. Do not give them what they want!


Yep, these killers go straight for the gun free zones. The only thing that puts a stop to their spree is when cops (men with guns) show up and return fire.

I remember a bunch of years ago we had this home invader/rapist going around the LA area. The news media dubbed him "the Nightstalker"

Crikey, why give this scum a cool sounding name that will only make him feel more important?

The media should have called him "the Impotent Tiny Dicked Scumbag".


I like that. Reminds me of years ago, when I was post divorce and totally broke, living in the rough side of town (I was the only white person for 20 blocks); some gang bangers tagged my garage with stuff like "Los Totados" or whatever their gang was called. All over the side of my recently painted garage. :stare: Man, I was mad. I went out and added a few tag words, so it read "Los Totados are fags" and left it there for two weeks.

Ps: that was before GaY rights made me a better person.

[Jeff-Groves]

Ps: that was before GaY rights made me a better person.

Oh great! You did a funny type on the 'Gay'!
Opening a whole new thread derail option!
:har:

[August]

That's true, but by numbers alone you have six times the amount of the UKs shooting sprees of the last decade in about a month. :hmmm: I mean, this year there has been more incidents than there has been days in the year so far.

You're claiming there have been more than 273 mass murders this year? Source please? :cool:

[Rockstar]

"According to a careful analysis of data on mass shootings (using the widely accepted definition of at least four killed), the Congressional Research Service found that there are, on average, just over 20 incidents annually. More important, the increase in cases, if there was one at all, is negligible. Indeed, the only genuine increase is in hype and hysteria."

Still waiting on those photos of your new refugee roommates.

[Aktungbby]

You're claiming there have been more than 273 mass murders this year? Source please? :cool:

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014 (http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014) http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015 (http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015)

[Jeff-Groves]

Damn it Rockstar!
You know better then to posts facts without a link!
With out a proper link?
There will be several following post about how you didn't post a link.
Others will argue links are not needed as the 'feeling comes through'.
Then the fring that suggest maybe a hint to a link is ok but maybe by PM.
And the Never mention the names ones that say all links are part of a Black Bag Op!

What were you THINKING!!!
:har:

[August]

"According to a careful analysis of data on mass shootings (using the widely accepted definition of at least four killed), the Congressional Research Service found that there are, on average, just over 20 incidents annually. More important, the increase in cases, if there was one at all, is negligible. Indeed, the only genuine increase is in hype and hysteria."

Still waiting on those photos of your new refugee roommates.

I wonder how much of that average is gang related?

[August]

Damn it Rockstar!
You know better then to posts facts without a link!
With out a proper link?
There will be several following post about how you didn't post a link.
Others will argue links are not needed as the 'feeling comes through'.
Then the fring that suggest maybe a hint to a link is ok but maybe by PM.
And the Never mention the names ones that say all links are part of a Black Bag Op!

What were you THINKING!!!
:har:

How's this?

http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MassShootings_CongResServ.pdf

[Jeff-Groves]

How's this?

http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MassShootings_CongResServ.pdf

That doesn't meet the parameters I posted above.
I refuse to read it.
:hmph:

:03:

[Jeff-Groves]

Thank you for showing so clearly that you don't even understand what I said. But it might not be your fault. Since I am a foreigner from your point of view, it might be a language related problem - I apologize.

Humor.
I like that.
:har:

[Aktungbby]

I wonder how much of that average is gang related?

HEY! "GANG LIVES MATTER" HOMEY!:nope: :ohttp://thumb1.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/80635/119250244/stock-photo-gang-members-or-guerrilla-with-gun-and-rifle-on-the-street-119250244.jpg

[Jeff-Groves]

Says the Guy with a Blue Beret.
:03:

[Lionclaw]

Perhaps someone should ask the media the following: How does it feel to be the official speaker for the looneys who are doing the shootings?

The media are giving them the "Fifteen minutes of fame" the looneys want. Perhaps it's the media that need to be changed. :hmmm:

[Oberon]

"According to a careful analysis of data on mass shootings (using the widely accepted definition of at least four killed), the Congressional Research Service found that there are, on average, just over 20 incidents annually. More important, the increase in cases, if there was one at all, is negligible. Indeed, the only genuine increase is in hype and hysteria."

Still waiting on those photos of your new refugee roommates.

I never said mass murder, I said mass shooting, I guess if there's one good thing to come out of the frequency in which Americans shoot each other it's that you've become very good at treating bullet wounds. The FBI definition of mass murder is at least four killed, this is true, therefore a mass shooting should involved four or more shot without a cooling off period in between. As such, Aktungbby has shown the page with the details.
How many of these are gang related? Probably more than a few, but equally there are those that are not.
I'm not sure I can understand the mentality of a supposedly advanced western nation shrugging off these incidents with a 'these kind of things happen' attitude...because it's the only country in the western world where these kind of things happen every month, if not every week.

I tried to be polite about it, I didn't even suggest banning guns or harsh regulation, I just suggested that they need looking at as well as mental health care and media response. For this I get the usual defensive attitude, the old hackles come up and the usual 'Europeans don't understand' attitude kicks off.
I guess Wim was right, I was wasting my time here. :nope:

[Torplexed]

Well, I've never owned a gun not do I plan to. It's not out of disdain for guns, I just figure I'm doing society a favor as I am one of those inept clods for whom nothing is ever where I think I left it. With me the gun would probably be misplaced, lost and out on the streets causing mischief I never intended. Either that or I'd shoot my eye out or lose a foot without even pulling the trigger. :O:

The debate as I see it from a mostly neutral point of view, is that it is less about controls (though I think some controls might be a wise move), it's the rhetoric around guns and the cultural place of guns in America.

Guns have always had a major role in American culture, but in recent decades the fight for gun rights versus gun control, has over-emphasized that role. Guns are now up there with Jesus. They're not just a right, for some they have become an essential expression of patriotism and nationhood, both sanctified, and fetishised. Hollywood certainly plays its part, but the NRA have done a great deal to imbue guns with far greater significance at an identity level, than they should ever have. The NRA could be a big help by taking the position that the laws would help the law biding gun owners by keeping the weapons out of the hands of baddies. But they've staunchly maintained a "fer us or agin us" position, because that makes them the most high profile leader of the fight for the common man against the big bad government/eastern eggheads, which makes the money flow into their coffers.


Our politicians give the same answers because the debate hasn't changed in all these years. As always, it's the politicians who blame the guns, versus politicians who blame everything but the guns. We agree it's a terrible thing, we all send our thoughts and prayers, and we all salute the ordinary people who step up and who become heroes. But I'm ashamed to admit that when I first saw the news bulletin, I didn't have the sense of shock I used to have.

Anyway, gotta go. If I could just find where I lost my car keys...

[Nippelspanner]

I'm not sure I can understand the mentality of a supposedly advanced western nation shrugging off these incidents with a 'these kind of things happen' attitude...because it's the only country in the western world where these kind of things happen every month, if not every week.

I tried to be polite about it, I didn't even suggest banning guns or harsh regulation, I just suggested that they need looking at as well as mental health care and media response. For this I get the usual defensive attitude, the old hackles come up and the usual 'Europeans don't understand' attitude kicks off.
I guess Wim was right, I was wasting my time here. :nope:
My exact observation as well.

[Oberon]

The debate as I see it from a mostly neutral point of view, is that it is less about controls (though I think some controls might be a wise move), it's the rhetoric around guns and the cultural place of guns in America.

Guns have always had a major role in American culture, but in recent decades the fight for gun rights versus gun control, has over-emphasized that role. Guns are now up there with Jesus. They're not just a right, for some they have become an essential expression of patriotism and nationhood, both sanctified, and fetishised. Hollywood certainly plays its part, but the NRA have done a great deal to imbue guns with far greater significance at an identity level, than they should ever have. The NRA could be a big help by taking the position that the laws would help the law biding gun owners by keeping the weapons out of the hands of baddies. But they've staunchly maintained a "fer us or agin us" position, because that makes them the most high profile leader of the fight for the common man against the big bad government/eastern eggheads, which makes the money flow into their coffers.


Our politicians give the same answers because the debate hasn't changed in all these years. As always, it's the politicians who blame the guns, versus politicians who blame everything but the guns. We agree it's a terrible thing, we all send our thoughts and prayers, and we all salute the ordinary people who step up and who become heroes. But I'm ashamed to admit that when I first saw the news bulletin, I didn't have the sense of shock I used to have.

Anyway, gotta go. If I could just find where I lost my car keys...

Very well put, Torplexed. The whole deadlock in the situation has become...well, it would be farcical if it wasn't so tragic. I don't know what has caused guns to be, as you put it, 'up there with Jesus', perhaps it's the shock and fear that rippled through the western world after 9/11, or the internet bringing together all the people who are convinced that the government is two steps away from turning into Joseph Stalins Russia, or perhaps it's a form of defence, after the increase of mass shootings in the last decade and a half, or at the very least what seems to be the increase now that they are attracting global attention.
It's definitely a sore spot, this thread serves as witness to that...I can understand this, there are plenty of sore spots in Europe, the inability of the EU to find its arse with both hands is one, and I can sympathise with those who feel that a recreational activity that they enjoy is under threat because of idiots. That is fair enough. But there does come a time, surely, when you have to look at the pros and cons of a situation, and act.
Take cares for example, thousands of people die in car accidents every year, but car companies continue to try and make car crashes more survivable. You only have to compare the design and construction of a modern car to that of an old Ford from the 1930s (although one could argue that the Ford is probably cleaner than a new Volkswagen... :O:), seat-belts are another thing, it's law in the UK that you must wear them, a good number of US states have it as a primary enforcement, meaning that you can be stopped and ticketed if you're seen not wearing one while driving. Air bags are becoming mandatory in modern cars, some old cars have to undergo strict checks before they're deemed to be road-worthy.
Aircraft, many people die in aircraft crashes, so they've done all they can to improve the design of aircraft to stop them from crashing, they've developed Air Traffic Control to stop them from flying into each other, and fitted radar to stop them flying into mountains.
The average firearm, say a Glock, would be recognisable and usable by a gentleman from 1914. There are third party safety measure that can be brought, gun safes (fantastic designs there), gun locks, and so forth but there is no demand by law that a person owning a firearm should own any manner of these, that I am aware of anyway, please correct me if I am wrong. I believe that in most states, a criminal background check and being over the age of 21, as well as perhaps watching a video and doing a test is what you need to apply for a firearm, sometimes you need to wait three days to receive it.
Now...again...correct me if I'm wrong but that makes it easier to get a firearm than it is to get a driving license.
Doesn't that strike anyone as being a little off? I mean, I accept that a car is a deadly weapon in the right hands, but so is a firearm...so surely a firearm should take the same amount of effort to get as a driving licence?
Surely the same sort of safety measures that are put into a car that makes it safer than a car of the 1930s should be put into firearms?

I think it would be a folly to take away American firearms, not to mention most likely suicide, and people complain that making it harder to get firearms will just affect those who are following the law. But surely, if it does happen to help reduce the number of school and college shootings by even a tiny amount, then it's a sacrifice that's worth making? Surely jumping through a few more loops is worth it if it stops the next generation of America from being cut down by their own countrymen?

I just struggle to understand the unwillingness to act, I mean the US invaded a country because 3,000 people were killed by some Middle Eastern terrorists. 29,000 people die from firearms (and yes, that's suicide, accident and homicide statistics) in the same year and people shrug and say 'These things happen'.

I don't understand...and truth be told, given the situation, I'm not exactly a hundred percent sure that I want to.

[Oberon]

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/64867804.jpg

[em2nought]

I'd be willing to settle for prior military service being a requirement to own firearms. Keep the guns out of mostly lefty, democrat, thug, immigrant, and wack-a-doodle hands that way. :D

[Oberon]

I'd be willing to settle for prior military service being a requirement to own firearms. Keep the guns out of mostly lefty, democrat, thug, immigrant, and wack-a-doodle hands that way. :D

I wouldn't have called this latest guy, a self-confessed Republican, a lefty, nor would I called Dylan Roof, Mr Apartheid South Africa, a democrat, and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were born in Wichita and Lakewood respectively so they weren't immigrants, but they were definitely all wack-a-doodle...but then again, so was Wade Michael Page, Christopher Dorner, and John Allen Muhammad and they were all ex-military.

It's an idea though, it might cut back on the school/college shootings at least, providing these ex-military types make sure their kids don't get know how to get hold of their firearm. :hmmm:

[Rockstar]

I never said mass murder, I said mass shooting, I guess if there's one good thing to come out of the frequency in which Americans shoot each other it's that you've become very good at treating bullet wounds. The FBI definition of mass murder is at least four killed, this is true, therefore a mass shooting should involved four or more shot without a cooling off period in between. As such, Aktungbby has shown the page with the details.
How many of these are gang related? Probably more than a few, but equally there are those that are not.
I'm not sure I can understand the mentality of a supposedly advanced western nation shrugging off these incidents with a 'these kind of things happen' attitude...because it's the only country in the western world where these kind of things happen every month, if not every week.

I tried to be polite about it, I didn't even suggest banning guns or harsh regulation, I just suggested that they need looking at as well as mental health care and media response. For this I get the usual defensive attitude, the old hackles come up and the usual 'Europeans don't understand' attitude kicks off.
I guess Wim was right, I was wasting my time here. :nope:

Its the broken record of the reactionary sanctimonious crusaders. We get it , we've heard you OK? Furthermore this murder doesn't have jack squat to do with Europeans or you.

It has everything to with me a responsible gun owner who like Betenov doesnt really think about those shootin irons collecting dust in my closest until the media talking heads and crusaders come out of the woodwork with all the great ideas of what 'we' should do, again. I agree with my fellow cheesehead, better back ground checks are an acceptable idea. I have even gone so far to email the White House once with the idea of doing something similar to a TWIC card.

And stop the pity party lamenting how people just dont care. I abhorr murder no matter what tool is used to commit such a henious act. As I said before people murdering others has been going on long before the invention of gun powder. You can build all the mental institutions and jails you want, you can make firearms hard to get, you can change the laws. But you cant change human nature, sick individuals will find a way to murder another every time.

This murderer found his will through social media other like minded sick people supported. I say we better fund the NSA, change the laws to make it easiers for them and police and ICE to scan for online threats. Who knows, we might have found a red flag and kept him and his family from immigrating into the U.S. preventing this from happening in the first place.

Firearms have been around alot longer than these punks have. That gun didnt change, they did. I say no social media, cartoons and video games glorifying war, death, sex and murder allowed until one reaches the age of consent.

[Oberon]

Aw bless, did I hit a sore spot?

Its the broken record of the reactionary sanctimonious crusaders. We get it , we've heard you OK? Furthermore this murder doesn't have jack squat to do with Europeans or you.

Ah, the American last defence. Beautiful, look at its rage and roar, and ultimately on an international forum...mean sod all.

It has everything to with me a responsible gun owner who like Betenov doesnt really think about those shootin irons collecting dust in my closest until the media talking heads and crusaders come out of the woodwork with all the great ideas of what 'we' should do, again. I agree with my fellow cheesehead, better back ground checks are an acceptable idea. I have even gone so far to email the White House once with the idea of doing something similar to a TWIC card.And yet Betonov is a European (who this has nothing to do with) who lives in a nation with gun control laws. Strange that.
Yes, better background checks are a good idea, and better mental health care too, and funnily enough better background checks would come under the three points that I put forward that would need examining back in post #1344 before you jumped down my throat and started having a go. :har: Is it too easy for people with mental health issues to have access to a firearm? That's the question, and if I'm asking it I know Americans are, and what is the answer?

And stop the pity party lamenting how people just dont care. Jeb Bush - 'Stuff happens'

http://media.giphy.com/media/de39RGpTmA7lK/giphy.gif

If people cared, they might actually do something to stop it.

I abhorr murder no matter what tool is used to commit such a henious act. As I said before people murdering others has been going on long before the invention of gun powder. Yes, that's why we invented the police. To try to stop people doing these henious acts...that's why you can't take cutlery onto a plane any more, or why a German pilot was able to lock himself inside a cockpit and nose dive into a mountain, why you have to pass a test before you can drive a car, or be trained before you drive a locomotive or fly an aircraft.
The point is not to shrug your shoulders and say "Eh, it's murder, what you going to do." but to try and stop murder, and if you can't stop the mentality, you can at least help with the tools.

You can build all the mental institutions and jails you want, you can make firearms hard to get, you can change the laws. But you cant change human nature, sick individuals will find a way to murder another every time.Yes, but the point is to try and stop so many being killed at one point and so frequently. How many people can an untrained man with a knife kill before being taken down? Compare this to how many an untrained man with a gun can. Take a look at the Franklin Regional High School incident when Alex Hribal went amok with a knife and injured 21 people. The key factor there is injured, not killed. Yes, I'll admit there have been school shooting incidents where people have not died, but they tend to be the exception rather than the norm.
In short, it is a lot easier and quicker to shoot a person than it is to stab them, to stab someone you need to put force behind the blade as well as be close in to connect. To shoot you put enough force to pull the trigger and you can stand away from the subject that you're shooting at. Try doing a drive by with a knife, or even a crossbow.
There are not many ways of murder in this world that are as easy as pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger.

This murderer found his will through social media other like minded sick people supported. I say we better fund the NSA, change the laws to make it easiers for them and police and ICE to scan for online threats.So a PATRIOT act for internal America? I can foresee that being popular.

Who knows, we might have found a red flag and kept him and his family from immigrating into the U.S. preventing this from happening in the first place.Possible, but what about the home grown nutjobs?

Firearms have been around alot longer than these punks have. That gun didnt change, they did. I say no social media, cartoons and video games glorifying war, death, sex and murder allowed until one reaches the age of consent.The Jack Thompson approach. I guess that is one approach, but you're not supposed to drink alcohol, take drugs or have sex until the age of consent either and how many people follow those laws? How do you police such a thing in an era when everyone has a smart phone and the social media is built in.

[Platapus]

I'd be willing to settle for prior military service being a requirement to own firearms. Keep the guns out of mostly lefty, democrat, thug, immigrant, and wack-a-doodle hands that way. :D

I guess you don't think that there are any democrats or any sort of liberal leaning people serving in the military? And them immigrants? Nope, none of them sorts in the military. Nope.

I think you would be surprised at the number of independents and democrats serving in the military.

[Betonov]

The only people on this forum that are able to correctly type my name are those that use the actuall real one :doh:

And yes, I am a European in a country with strict gun control laws that in my opinion is that should be as they are and 90% of my countrymen don't give a rats behind about it. Remember my novel about guns in Slovenia. Reffer to it. It's a non issue.

And as I said. Keep your guns. I don't care. Just try not to compare Europe to the medieval times becasue we don't have them (and my posts in photo thread show what a desolate wasteland I live in without acces to weapons) and try, please try to see beyond the political and media BS and focus on real issues like economy and education.

Crying: ''they be stealing our rightfull guns'' means you're not focusing on the astronomical debt and the fact your children can't point the US on the map, let alone some exotic land like India. You're being played.

And get your ass to Mars

[Buddahaid]

.....The Jack Thompson approach. I guess that is one approach, but you're not supposed to drink alcohol, take drugs or have sex until the age of consent either and how many people follow those laws? How do you police such a thing in an era when everyone has a smart phone and the social media is built in.

That is pretty much what I referred to earlier about determined people that was so well received and taken as apathy. Seems you have made my point for me.