Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Oberon]

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.

It's all about tools though, if a person determined to create a mass incident is unable to access a firearm then what else will he use? Usually it's a knife or a sword, now compare and contrast how many people an untrained person can kill with a gun to how many people an untrained person can kill with a knife, time how long each incident takes from start to finish.

Here's a good article:
http://harvardpolitics.com/special_features/gun.html

At the bottom of it there's an interesting set of statistics which I will screenshot and post here:

http://i.imgur.com/mK0gMID.jpg?1

Food for thought.

[Betonov]

Bosnia and Herzergovina: 1
The time frame on that table means the data includes the war period.
12 course meal for thought.

[Buddahaid]

You could drive a car onto a crowded sidewalk, or into any crowd for that matter.

[Oberon]

You could drive a car onto a crowded sidewalk, or into any crowd for that matter.

And people do...but not as frequently as they take a gun into a crowded place and open up.

[Buddahaid]

And people do...but not as frequently as they take a gun into a crowded place and open up.

I'm wondering how many of those school shootings were gang related. The definition used was one dead with more victims intended.

[August]

This is an interesting article which attempts to move past the control debate and get into the heart of the real problem.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-oregon-shooting-kass-met-1004-20151002-column.html

Shooting in Oregon another sign our culture is ill


A madman kills nine people in Oregon and the world seems to stop and gun control is demanded. But in Chicago, the killings are marginalized, as barbarians mow people down, with thousands shot in a town with strict gun laws, and the politicians do little if anything.

There is no national conversation from Chicago. The national political stars stay away. Even the president isn't engaged much. There is silence.
What the president certainly understands, what politicians don't tell the people, is that Chicago political corruption has a cost. And that leaves less money to pay for longer incarcerations for gun crimes, let alone any space to institutionalize the dangerously mentally ill.


So it's a game, here, everywhere. And right now I'm less interested in arguments about competing rights — the right to bear arms colliding with the supposed rights of psychotics to wander freely among us — than I am about the culture.


Because for all the talk of gun control and rights and politics, the one thing I don't hear enough about is that our culture is ill.
Oddly, the political left, which demands more federal gun control in the hope of protecting life, adamantly supports abortion. Over the past four decades or so, some 53 million abortions have taken place in the U.S. Whatever your position on abortion, whether you believe that which is taken is life or just tissue, there is a collective psychic cost to it all.
Our most popular sport, football, is about ritualized, gladiatorial violence. Our most popular movies are called "action movies," but truly they should be called "kill movies" for all the corpses they produce, piles of them.


Our humor is rhetorically violent. Our popular music just as violent. We're addicted to social media, where anonymity breeds a freedom to ridicule others, to peel their skin with venomous fingers from unknown keyboards. And we give our children phones at young ages so they may play, too.


Is there a cost to all of this? Sometimes a tragedy like what happened in Oregon makes denial all but impossible.

[Oberon]

I'm wondering how many of those school shootings were gang related. The definition used was one dead with more victims intended.

Gangs are not a purely American problem. :hmmm:

August, that article was going well until

Oddly, the political left, which demands more federal gun control in the hope of protecting life, adamantly supports abortion. Over the past four decades or so, some 53 million abortions have taken place in the U.S. Whatever your position on abortion, whether you believe that which is taken is life or just tissue, there is a collective psychic cost to it all.

Then it fell over. But certainly there is a more violent culture today than many years ago, although to be honest there has always been a violent undertone in culture, it's just more at the forefront these days than before. Why is this? No idea, current people blame social media, before that it was games, before that it was televisions, before that it was movies, and before that it was music.

[August]

August, that article was going well until...Then it fell over.

Why does it fall over? Personally i'm perfectly fine with abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy. We have far too many people on this planet as it is without encouraging people to have more of them, but everything i've heard or read on the subject is that an abortion takes a psychic or emotional toll upon a woman.

Are the battle lines on abortion so rigidly drawn that even showing a little regret causes you to dismiss his entire article?

[Torplexed]

And get your ass to Mars

http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/22870000/ngbbs4debd004ade3b.jpg

[Oberon]

Why does it fall over? Personally i'm perfectly fine with abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy. We have far too many people on this planet as it is without encouraging people to have more of them, but everything i've heard or read on the subject is that an abortion takes a psychic or emotional toll upon a woman.

Are the battle lines on abortion so rigidly drawn that even showing a little regret causes you to dismiss his entire article?

It was the tone, as if allowing abortion equals a decline in morality and leads to mass shootings when there really is no such link.
Aside from that though, it does make good points, especially when it comes to popular music, and the anonymity of social media to 'flay people', I am reminded somewhat of the latest craze of 'roasting' with people volunteering themselves to be humiliated by a host of people they've never met. I don't understand that, perhaps there's some kind of 'what doesn't kill me makes me stronger' thought behind it, but I don't know.

Of course, in that respects we come to another thread that's up in GT at the moment in regards to the 'Coddling of the American Mind', does exposure to the brutality of the internet create a worse kind of person than shielding them from it? Where is the middle ground?

It's tricky, I mean we've been asking ourselves the question of 'what the hell is up with kids these days' since the 1950s and I don't think anyone has had the answer to that, but I won't disagree that things took a turn for the darker in the 1980s and have gotten steadily more so ever since.
I couldn't put an exact finger on the cause of it, but I would recognise the shift from the 'peace and love' of the hippy movement (for the most part) to the 'screw everyone, push the button we'd be better off dead' of the punk movement of the late 1970s as to where we started expressing the more violent sides of ourselves, and that's also around the time when the skinheads started reviving if I recall correctly.

I dunno...maybe it's all one giant downer from the high trip society took in the sixties. :hmmm: :03:

[u crank]

I dunno...maybe it's all one giant downer from the high trip society took in the sixties. :hmmm: :03:

I hope you are joking. Yes?

[Oberon]

I hope you are joking. Yes?

Yeah, don't worry, I was.
I know the 1960s weren't all peace and love, and it's hard to get an unbiased view of it from those who lived through it because of the rose spectacles affect. But I really don't think that mainstream culture in general was as violent as it is now...perhaps that is because of the change of the pace of life, how things have become a lot faster now as we compete against machines, thing has to be done right now, I want to have it right now. Instant gratification, whilst we are constantly reminded by the mass media that another terrorist incident could happen 'any time now'.

Perhaps as a society we have become so depressed after 9/11 that life carries less of the meaning that it once did?

That's one for the philosophers really, it's hard to prove any mood or emotion to a society because of its nebulous existance. You can only state what you think that society is based upon your own experience of it, and there's more society on this planet than one human can take in in their lifespan. So, one has to make generalisations a bit, or build Deep Thought.

This, of course, brings us back to the problem of solving culture and society. I mean, government can barely control its own budget, how on Earth would it go about controlling or changing culture, without just driving it underground, I mean we all know the Streisand effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) and how attempting to supress something can just lead to it going 'underground'. The Prohibition is another case that comes to mind.
So clearly, banning firearms is not going to work, I can say that hand on heart that it is my firm belief that banning things will not work. Not once have I proposed banning firearms in America because I know how absolutely impossible such a thing would be.

I can understand why this impassé has come about, I can see how both sides have just gotten more and more entrenched every single time this subject comes up to the point where some sides treat gun owners as a mass murderer waiting to happen, and the other side sees guns as being up there with Jesus, as Torplexed pointed out.
Does this mean that America should just give up on the problem? Stop trying to find a way to make all gun owners as safe and as responsible as the majority claim they are? To make sure that people who contemplate taking a gun into school and opening fire are detected and given the necessary mental health treatment before they can inflict harm on others? To make it harder for people to undertake these acts so that they either do not bother or are forced to use a more difficult weapon to kill others, be it a knife (using which they will be forced to approach their victims at close range, opening themselves up to potential disarmament) or a bomb (gathering and researching the materials for such gives a more than reasonable chance that you'll be noticed by someone).
Of course, you won't stop the really determined ones, those who would be cool and collected enough to fool anyone for years until they snap. You can't get them all, no matter how hard you try, but that doesn't mean that you should not try for the risk of failure.

Time will tell...sadly I think we'll be back here kicking this can around a few more times before this year is out.

[u crank]

Yeah, don't worry, I was. :D

But I really don't think that mainstream culture in general was as violent as it is now.

On a personal level perhaps not but then our awareness of it was limited in those pre-internet days. But in reality it was probably every bit as violent. Add to that a very different attitude about race, sexual orientation and views on gender equality and you've got a society that most younger people today couldn't contemplate. Talk about culture shock.

Perhaps as a society we have become so depressed after 9/11 that life carries less of the meaning that it once did?


Hmm...I really think that every generation could say that. Just from memory...In America, one President assassinated, one U.S. senator assassinated. The attempted assassination of a Presidential candidate. Two leaders of the Civil Rights movement assassinated. One hot war that killed 58,000 Americans and a million Vietnamese. Almost a nuclear war. American cities burning in race riots. Here in Canada we had politicians being kidnapped and murdered and you guys had that little thing going on in Northern Ireland. All that and the constant threat of nuclear annihilation. No wonder people were using drugs. :O:

This, of course, brings us back to the problem of solving culture and society.

So clearly, banning firearms is not going to work, I can say that hand on heart that it is my firm belief that banning things will not work. Not once have I proposed banning firearms in America because I know how absolutely impossible such a thing would be.


I would agree completely. The only possibility for change is one of attitude. In my lifetime I have seen some remarkable changes in attitude in regards to other social issues. I see it in my adult children. Their attitudes towards all contentious issues such as race, gay rights, gender equality, etc. make me cringe when I think about what some of my attitudes were when I was their age. So there is hope.

I have always refrained from joining the discussion about guns for the simple reason that I don't see any possible solution. I don't own a gun so I can't understand that side of the argument and I see no practical way of taking guns away from those who shouldn't have them.

I like where I live.:yep:

[Aktungbby]

The question in my mind is when does the 'rapture' start; I'm done with the tribulation. :hmph: http://www.truthnet.org/Endtimes/introduction/Rapturetribulation/rev6full.jpg

[Oberon]

I think it's Obamas fault, can't even bring about the end times properly.

[Betonov]

What's the fixation with end times with old people.
Fer cryin' out loud, some of us young folk want to live a few more decades.

[Torplexed]

What's the fixation with end times with old people.
Fer cryin' out loud, some of us young folk want to live a few more decades.

Probably ego. Facing the end of life some people can't imagine a world without them. So, it's gotta be the end for everybody, right? Go figure.

[Nippelspanner]

11-year-old Tennessee boy shoots 8-year-old girl over argument about puppy (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tennessee-boy-11-shoots-girl-8-argument-puppy-article-1.2385429)

"The boy took the shotgun out of a closet, where it was kept unlocked"

Since stricter gun laws are nonsense, according to most conservatives, the only solution would have been to arm the girl too, so she would have had a chance to defend herself... right?



... do I at least start to get it now? :hmmm:

[August]

11-year-old Tennessee boy shoots 8-year-old girl over argument about puppy (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tennessee-boy-11-shoots-girl-8-argument-puppy-article-1.2385429)

"The boy took the shotgun out of a closet, where it was kept unlocked"

Since stricter gun laws are nonsense, according to most conservatives, the only solution would have been to arm the girl too, so she would have had a chance to defend herself... right?



... do I at least start to get it now? :hmmm:

I guess you'd feel better if he stabbed her to death? :hmmm:

[Nippelspanner]

I guess you'd feel better if he stabbed her to death? :hmmm:
What? No? I would have preferred a car...

[Buddahaid]

The gun was not stored legally so the gun owner will face charges. See there is a law.

[August]

What? No? I would have preferred a car...

Point is this was not a case of kids playing around, this kid had it out for the victim and would just have found another way to do it.

Edit And what Buddahaid said...

[Nippelspanner]

Point is this was not a case of kids playing around, this kid had it out for the victim and would just have found another way to do it.
[citation needed]

[August]

[citation needed]


You did read more than the title of the article you linked right?

[Oberon]

The shotgun was in an unlocked cupboard.

:/\\!!

Presumably it was either kept loaded or the ammunition was kept in the same cupboard.
This is why such unrestricted gun ownership has a big downside, I know that people would come back with 'You'd be punishing good people for the actions of idiots' but with the amount of children who are caught in this situation either through school shootings or home based incidents/accidents like this surely there is a sacrifice worth making if it will save some lives.
I'm not saying, I state again and again, that guns should be banned, but I think that it should be as easy to get a gun as it is to get a driving license. That you should have to prove to someone that you are a responsible person and you know how to look after your firearm properly and keep it secured properly. This should be something that is monitored as car licenses are, and if you are found in breach of the promise that you made, then you should have your weapon confiscated.
In other words, I would take the weapons away from the father of the child who shot the girl, because if his boy was able to get his hands on the shotgun so easily then he doesn't secure it well enough, and now someones child has paid the price for it. All because of a puppy.

I think, honestly, that that's a step that should be taken, perhaps not the only step since better mental health care and an examination on how the media treats and glorifies spree killers are two things that definitely need addressing, but I think I've found my stance on US gun laws. By all means, keep the guns, but treat them with some respect....and yes, I know that everyone on here will say that they do, but it needs to be made into a more formal situation than just decent practice.

Oh, and don't give me the whole 'If the government knows who has what firearm then they'll be able to take it away when they come to put me in a FEMA death camp (TM)' nonsense because that belongs out there with the people who believe that Sandy Hook was a government operation to enable them to destroy the 2nd Amendment...oh, and 9/11 was an inside job, etc, etc, etc.

[Buddahaid]

You did read more than the title of the article you linked right?

I just read it and the DA, or whoever, has chose not to file charges against the gun owner. I'm wondering when the other shoe is going to fall. Maybe TN is different as regards to leaving loaded guns accessible to minors.

[Nippelspanner]

...surely there is a sacrifice worth making if it will save some lives.
Hello? Do you even read the thread?
August already informed us that the boy would have stabbed the girl to death if he would not have had a gun, even though the article says nothing in that regard, except "the boy caused trouble before because he teased the girl" uhh, yeah... definitely a psycho who's just waiting to kill her... cause children don't tease or bully and always get along.

It is funny, you get this silly knife or car argument (which is the cheapest strawman of all debates ever) only from radicals who, apparently, under no circumstances are willing to even adjust the restrictions, no matter how many kids die... because knifes... or cars... or moon rocks...

This happens pretty much everywhere... a kid gets his hand on a gun and boom, at least the life of one family is destroyed forever.
Thing is, it happens every few days(!) in the USA (yes yes, only because you are so many, I know...) and maybe every few months or even years in other western countries. I can't even remember the last time it happened here in Germany, or something like that was on thew news.

But please, forgive me... again I forgot that I must not speak about this matter, because I'm not American and it's "none of my business".

[August]

But please, forgive me... again I forgot that I must not speak about this matter, because I'm not American and it's "none of my business".

Somehow I doubt that you'll keep your promise. What's a German without the ability to self righteously nag everyone?

[Julhelm]

We have about 1.8 million firearms on a 9 million population here, yet these accidents where kids get their hands on guns have never happened here. But then again any gun owner is required to have a weapon safe to store the guns. The idea that leaving a loaded weapon in a drawer or under the pillow is considered acceptable because there might be a home invasion is frankly absurd.

[Betonov]

Before you get a gun licence here, the police comes to your house to examine your storage for the gun. If the locker does not meet the standards you are given the reason why it didn't pass and you can re-apply later. You can't get the licence until you prove the police only you can acces it, not the burglar, not children nor anyone that is not you.

[Skybird]

Its not so much about a loose cultural attitude towards firearms and weapons, but a loose cultural attitude towards violence.

Small but decisive difference.

[Nippelspanner]

Somehow I doubt that you'll keep your promise. What's a German without the ability to self righteously nag everyone?
Ah yes, being German - a foreigner I mean - is of course the issue again.
Also, I didn't promise anything, I merely apologized so you don't feel attacked right away, as usual, when some pesky europoors dare to speak on that matter.

Let's just ignore the topic as usual... we'll speak again in a week or two...

[Jimbuna]

:ping::ping::ping:

[MaDef]

Its not so much about a loose cultural attitude towards firearms and weapons, but a loose cultural attitude towards violence.

Small but decisive difference.I tend to agree, but most people have been taught to fear guns from an early age, and thats a big part of the problem. I grew up around guns, I was given a 22 marlin LR for my 5th birthday, I was taught that guns were tools used for a specific purpose nothing more, nothing less. Guns are not dangerous, It's the monkey on the trigger thats dangerous.

[August]

Ah yes, being German - a foreigner I mean - is of course the issue again.

Don't get all defensive, sheesh. You forget i've not only lived in your country for three years i'm also half German with hundreds of relatives still living over there so I know well what they're like.

Also, I didn't promise anything, I merely apologized so you don't feel attacked right away, as usual, when some pesky europoors dare to speak on that matter.

Right, let's pretend that your "apology" wasn't dripping with self righteous sarcasm. See you in a few weeks! :up:

[Nippelspanner]

:ping::ping::ping:
Hi Jim! :salute:

[Skybird]

I tend to agree, but most people have been taught to fear guns from an early age, and thats a big part of the problem. I grew up around guns, I was given a 22 marlin LR for my 5th birthday, I was taught that guns were tools used for a specific purpose nothing more, nothing less. Guns are not dangerous, It's the monkey on the trigger thats dangerous.
And when that monkey on the trigger has been grown in a cultural climate that has a high tolerance for violence, displaying it and almost celebrating it in its entertainment media all day long, and at the same time making it subject of sensationalist and endlessly repetitive news coverage that hammers home the message that life is dangerous and that you need to protect your self by - guess what: violence and its tools, then you end up where I said "loose cultural attitude towards violence".

People tend to be affected by the cultural climate they live in. One cannot really escape it, one way or the other you react to it. And the American cultural climate is not suspicious of being a non-violent one - quite the opposite.

Its one of the things that "Bowling for Columbine" - think of Michael Moore whatever you want, but that one movie (his first, I think) was a good one - got very much right in describing it. One must not even refer to social psychology to get causes and effects together on this issue. Plain reason and an open mind should already be enough, one would assume. Shootings like this happen in other countries, too.

But in no way one could compare the frequencies of occurrences.

And this can be explained.

[Torplexed]

A rather somber coincidence. Apparently in 1968, shortly before his own assassination, Robert Kennedy campaigning for president made an appearance in the same town where this latest mass shooting took place advocating for gun control.

http://koin.com/2015/10/05/robert-f-kennedy-pushed-gun-control-in-roseburg-in-68/

In the 47 year old video in which the senator is heckled, you hear so many of the same issues we remain deadlocked over today.

[MaDef]

And when that monkey on the trigger has been grown in a cultural climate that has a high tolerance for violence, displaying it and almost celebrating it in its entertainment media all day long, and at the same time making it subject of sensationalist and endlessly repetitive news coverage that hammers home the message that life is dangerous and that you need to protect your self by - guess what: violence and its tools, then you end up where I said "loose cultural attitude towards violence".

People tend to be affected by the cultural climate they live in. One cannot really escape it, one way or the other you react to it. And the American cultural climate is not suspicious of being a non-violent one - quite the opposite.

Its one of the things that "Bowling for Columbine" - think of Michael Moore whatever you want, but that one movie (his first, I think) was a good one - got very much right in describing it. One must not even refer to social psychology to get causes and effects together on this issue. Plain reason and an open mind should already be enough, one would assume. Shootings like this happen in other countries, too.

But in no way one could compare the frequencies of occurrences.

And this can be explained.
I think you and others like you are operating under the fallacy that the U.S is just like the one depicted in the old Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns. not to mention you are getting the "facts" from people and organizations that have agendas.

take a look at the numbers for 2013 without any commentary.

U.S population
316,000,000

total deaths (disease, accidents, murder, & old age, etc)
2,596,993

Total gun deaths
34,048

gun deaths from murder
12,253

gun deaths from accidents, suicides, and justifiable killings
21,795

1.3% of all deaths that year can be attributed to firearms.

that's not an epidemic, thats a statistic. When that number hits 5%, then you start looking at solutions to deal with the issue. If that number hits 10%, you then implement those aggreed upon solutions.

[Oberon]

that's not an epidemic, thats a statistic. When that number hits 5%, then you start looking at solutions to deal with the issue. If that number hits 10%, you then implement those aggreed upon solutions.

So, basically, unless more people die then it's not worth trying to make things safer. :hmmm:

[Rockstar]

So, basically, unless more people die then it's not worth trying to make things safer. :hmmm:

Ya its kinda like weapons technologies, car safety, food recalls, vaccines, childrens toys, etc etc. Unfortunetaly with gun control their is no science behind it which says implementing it will make anyone safer. Doing so will not in anyway make the crimminally insane sane. If they are motivated they will no doubt just seek an alternative method to carry out their intentions.

Because haters are gonna hate maybe we can start doing psych evals on the world population and put down the the trouble makers, humanly of course. Now THAT would make the world a much safer place, wouldn't it? Think of the children!

[August]

So, basically, unless more people die then it's not worth trying to make things safer. :hmmm:

There are over 20,000 gun control laws on the books already in this country so please don't imply that nothing has been tried. Especially when what the controllers want to try is universal background checks which would have done nothing to prevent any of the recent mass murderers and they refuse to even consider getting rid of the so called "gun free zones" that these nuts seem to prefer so much as their killing grounds.

Maybe we also get rid of our right to privacy and the requirement for the cops to obtain a search warrant as well? After all if the cops were to search the homes and bedrooms of everyone in the country they just might find evidence of someone planning one of these crimes. To you that'd be worth ditching our constitution for right?

[Nippelspanner]

If they are motivated they will no doubt just seek an alternative method to carry out their intentions.
The truth is, it takes not much to aim a gun at someone and pull the trigger, that is a fact.
Someone argued "duh he would have used a knife if there would not have been a gun!"
Let us assume that is true, even though there was no indication for that.

Ever used a knife on a human being, child or not?

It is close, messy, personal, takes time and a completely different level of determination to really, REALLY kill that person, while with a gun all you need is a split second of an impulse, that is enough.
The victim struggles, fights back, screams, you see the panic and fear in their eyes, you feel the blade going in, feel your victim dying, hear it gasping for air, moaning, maybe pleading for his/her life - and that is surely not easy to pull off, except in the state of complete rage or when the person is indeed a friggin psychopath.

That is why people use guns. It is easier, a lot easier... and that is the problem and why some stupid tree-hugging-libfags think it might be time for stricter restrictions and why it is a bad idea that guns are so easily accessible in most of the US at this time AND why in most functioning countries of this planet guns are being restricted more or less (besides the obvious FACT that they only want to be sure they can create the next dictatorship soon and enslave the population in their nazi-dentist-death-camps... because reasons.)

[VipertheSniper]

It's not so much TEH CRAZIES that are a problem, that's not to say I would like a certifiably insane person to have a gun. The problem is violent people.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/mass-shootings-are-not-about-mental-illness/

A rather depressing graphic:
https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/08/mass-shootings.png

The most obscene incidents of gun violence usually do not make the mainstream news at all. Why? Because their definition is incorrect. The mainstream news meaning of "Mass Shooting" should more accurately be described as "Mass Murder".

The old FBI definition of Mass Murder (not even the most recent one) is four or more people murdered in one event. It is only logical that a Mass Shooting is four or more people shot in one event.

Here at the Mass Shooting Tracker, we count the number of people shot rather than the number people killed because, "shooting" means "people shot".

For instance, in 2012 Travis Steed and others shot 18 people total. Miraculously, he only killed one. Under the incorrect definition of mass shooting, that event would not be considered a mass shooting! Arguing that 18 people shot during one event is not a mass shooting is absurd.

[Buddahaid]

FB I statistics for 2011 list 12,644 murdered with guns accounting for 8,583 and 4,081 other means.

[Tchocky]

Nice to see the public discourse on this issue remains blitheringly idiotic and mind-numbingly depressing

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/8/9480797/ben-carson-gunman-popeyes

[Oberon]

There are over 20,000 gun control laws on the books already in this country so please don't imply that nothing has been tried. Especially when what the controllers want to try is universal background checks which would have done nothing to prevent any of the recent mass murderers and they refuse to even consider getting rid of the so called "gun free zones" that these nuts seem to prefer so much as their killing grounds.

Maybe we also get rid of our right to privacy and the requirement for the cops to obtain a search warrant as well? After all if the cops were to search the homes and bedrooms of everyone in the country they just might find evidence of someone planning one of these crimes. To you that'd be worth ditching our constitution for right?

At not one point have I advocated the banning of firearms, ok? Heck, you can even get rid of gun free zones. The thing is, you say that there are 20,000 gun control laws on the books in the country, and yet if you do not have a criminal record, are aged 18 or above, you can go into a firearm store and apply for a firearm. In some states you have to watch a video and answer a test. Obviously it varies from state to state, like nearly all laws in the US, and if you go to a gun show or a private seller then you don't have to pass a background check.
Now how difficult would it be to make it universal that to buy a weapon from any place you have to have a firearms license, like a driving license, and to gain that firearms license you have to show to a registered official that you are capable of owning and operating a firearm safely. Once you have that license then you get your firearm and if you happen to violate the terms of that license then you get it taken away. Whether you get your firearm taken away as well can be debated but without a license you wouldn't be permitted to have it anyway, so it would probably be better that it was taken away.
Now what is so wrong with that? We already require such things for driving a car, driving a truck or bus or flying an aircraft...so why not for owning a gun?


Ya its kinda like weapons technologies, car safety, food recalls, vaccines, childrens toys, etc etc. Unfortunetaly with gun control their is no science behind it which says implementing it will make anyone safer. Doing so will not in anyway make the crimminally insane sane. If they are motivated they will no doubt just seek an alternative method to carry out their intentions.

Perhaps they will, you don't really know until you try. Perhaps it will work? After all, driving licenses were introduced in America after soaring fatalities in the newly introduced automobile provoked public outcry, and they have stayed since. Road vehicle fatality rates still remain high but this is a proportional increase as opposed to the high initial rate. In other words, more people drive cars therefore the likelihood of an accident increases.
Sure, it's not going to stop mass killings, it's not going to stop gang banger shootings...but it might reduce them, and surely that is worth a go?

Because haters are gonna hate maybe we can start doing psych evals on the world population and put down the the trouble makers, humanly of course. Now THAT would make the world a much safer place, wouldn't it? Think of the children!

Now you're just being silly. :O:

[Sailor Steve]

Now how difficult would it be to make it universal that to buy a weapon from any place you have to have a firearms license, like a driving license, and to gain that firearms license you have to show to a registered official that you are capable of owning and operating a firearm safely.
Actually, you don't have to have a drivers license to buy a car. You must have a drivers license to drive a car on a public road, which means getting it home might be a problem, but you don't have to have that license to buy or own the car. Of course the whole purpose of owning a car is to drive it on public roads, but that's another matter.

[Aktungbby]

Sure, it's not going to stop mass killings, it's not going to stop gang banger shootings...but it might reduce them, and surely that is worth a go?



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

:yeah:

[August]

Actually, you don't have to have a drivers license to buy a car. You must have a drivers license to drive a car on a public road, which means getting it home might be a problem, but you don't have to have that license to buy or own the car. Of course the whole purpose of owning a car is to drive it on public roads, but that's another matter.


Exactly, and if one violates the law it doesn't (usually) result in the vehicle being seized either.

[em2nought]

Yes, if we only better trained the wackos so they could handle firearms in a more precise manner.

What we need is a draft with reduced military pay. If the military lets you carry a gun and you don't leave with PTSD then you become a full citizen of this country, you get to vote, you can carry firearms.

If you object to being drafted you need not apply, you just don't get full citizenship, or the right to vote, or get to own firearms, and you get taxed at the highest bracket. :har:

[Oberon]

Actually, you don't have to have a drivers license to buy a car. You must have a drivers license to drive a car on a public road, which means getting it home might be a problem, but you don't have to have that license to buy or own the car. Of course the whole purpose of owning a car is to drive it on public roads, but that's another matter.

Fair point, fair point, but the principle still applies.

I mean, I can understand in a limited way the fear that a respectable, responsible gun owner would feel that his hobby and his defence is under threat, and I don't think that disarming American citizens is even a feasible prospect. In short, it just isn't going to happen, and once you accept that then you can think, well how can you make this thing safer? How can you make the irresponsible gun owners either more responsible or unable to put others lives at risk. This isn't about punishing responsible gun owners, but making sure that all gun owners are as responsible as the more responsible gun owner.
I think that if you do that, and take a good long look at how the mental healthcare system in America is running and how it can be improved and if necessary expanded, then I think that this will have a positive impact on America without causing any real harm to responsible gun owners.

[August]

Sure, it's not going to stop mass killings, it's not going to stop gang banger shootings...but it might reduce them, and surely that is worth a go?

Depends. Licensing free speech might easily reduce the amount of suicides related to bullying or maybe it would reduce the number of youngsters being recruited by Daesh. Is worth a go as well?

Of course if it doesn't work forget getting that freedom back because once it's gone it's gone for good.

[Dowly]

What we need is a draft with reduced military pay. If the military lets you carry a gun and you don't leave with PTSD then you become a full citizen of this country, you get to vote, you can carry firearms.

If you object to being drafted you need not apply, you just don't get full citizenship, or the right to vote, or get to own firearms, and you get taxed at the highest bracket. :har:
http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x462/Dowly/pspolzz2.jpg~original

[Oberon]

Exactly, and if one violates the law it doesn't (usually) result in the vehicle being seized either.

Again, a fair point, as I said it's something that would have to be looked at. Sometimes though the vehicle does get seized, if it's been involved in a criminal act, for example. But surely, if a man or a woman is irresponsible with a firearm after being educated and stating and showing to a trained professional that they can be responsible, then that person is a danger to themselves and the people around them?

[Rockstar]

In 2010, the rate of firearm homicide for blacks was 14.6 per 100,000, compared to 1.9 for whites, 2.7 for American Indians and Alaska Natives, and 1.0 for Asians and Pacific Islanders (figure 5). From 1993 to 2010, the rate of firearm homicides for blacks declined by 51%, down from 30.1 per 100,000 blacks, compared to a 48% decline for whites and a 43% decline for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Asian and Pacific Islanders declined 79% over the same period, from 4.6 to 1.0 per 100,000. Although blacks experienced a decline similar to whites and American Indians and Alaska Natives, the rate of firearm homicide for blacks was 5 to 6 times higher than every other racial group in 2010. As with other demographic groups, the majority of the decline occurred in the first part of the period and slowed from 2001 to 2010.

We must be doing something right. As was mentioned before homicide rates are dropping. But hysteria rates, well, those are dramatically on the rise.

Weird how one day we can all stand and cheer those who butcher each other in the name of freedom and democracy. But then get our panties in a wad argueing over this.

[Oberon]

Depends. Licensing free speech might easily reduce the amount of suicides related to bullying or maybe it would reduce the number of youngsters being recruited by Daesh. Is worth a go as well?

Of course if it doesn't work forget getting that freedom back because once it's gone it's gone for good.

And how would you license free speech?

[Oberon]

We must be doing something right. As was mentioned before homicide rates are dropping. But hysteria rates, well, those are dramatically on the rise.

Weird how one day we can all stand and cheer those who butcher each other in the name of freedom and democracy. But then get our panties in a wad argueing over this.

Aye, well like I said, if terrorists from a foreign country killed as many Americans as other Americans with guns do per year then you can bet that someone would have been invaded by now. :doh:

[Skybird]

I think you and others like you are operating under the fallacy that the U.S is just like the one depicted in the old Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns. not to mention you are getting the "facts" from people and organizations that have agendas.

take a look at the numbers for 2013 without any commentary.

U.S population
316,000,000

total deaths (disease, accidents, murder, & old age, etc)
2,596,993

Total gun deaths
34,048

gun deaths from murder
12,253

gun deaths from accidents, suicides, and justifiable killings
21,795

1.3% of all deaths that year can be attributed to firearms.

that's not an epidemic, thats a statistic. When that number hits 5%, then you start looking at solutions to deal with the issue. If that number hits 10%, you then implement those aggreed upon solutions.
Some more statistics, a bit dated, around 10 years old, German Wikipedia, basing on Small Arms Survey 2004:

Number of killing incidents per 100,000 population:
USA 3.45 - Canada 0.55 - GER - 0.19

Number of legal firearms owned per killing incident with a firearm:
GER 194K - CAN 48K - USA 28K

Number of legally owned firearms (in brackets: total population in 2014)
USA 281 bn (318 bn)- CAN - 7.9 bn (35 bn) - GER 5.5 bn (80 bn)

Factors for the above ("how many people own one firearm")
USA 1.1 - CAN 4.4 - GER 14.6

Number of homicides with firearms, per 100K firearms
USA 4.2 - CAN 2.2 - GER 0.6

Granted, there are places with much higher numbers of horror. All of them belong to third world countries, failed states, Russia and Latin America. Does one really want to excuse one's own falure by comparing oneself to third world standards?


Shootings like this happen in other countries, too.
But in no way one could compare the frequencies of occurrences.

Of course I had the civilized, the first world on mind when writing that.

[Rockstar]

Aye, well like I said, if terrorists from a foreign country killed as many Americans as other Americans with guns do per year then you can bet that someone would have been invaded by now. :doh:

Nobody but us has a right to shoot ourselves in the the foot, nobody! :D

Hey Im all for using technolgy to track background checks, requiring a firearms course and issuing an ID of sorts to the potential buyer. Im also for sellers to have immediate access to verify such an ID and the latest updates. Unfortunetaly some around here either see that as the devils work or the slippery slope to tyranny.

We already have a lot of laws on the books and requirements for background checks in place and in some states required firearms training. But theres more to this problem than filing the proper paper work and safety training.

No offense intended here but take a look at the stats and one people group/race shines above the rest when it comes to the use of firearms and homicide. Id bet the common factor there is poverty, welfare, lack of family, drugs, gangs, segregation the list goes on. Fix that and numbers would drop like a rock.

[Buddahaid]

Some more statistics, a bit dated, around 10 years old, German Wikipedia, basing on Small Arms Survey 2004:

Number of killing incidents per 100,000 population:
USA 3.45 - Canada 0.55 - GER - 0.19

Number of legal firearms owned per killing incident with a firearm:
GER 194K - CAN 48K - USA 28K

Number of legally owned firearms (in brackets: total population in 2014)
USA 281 bn (318 bn)- CAN - 7.9 bn (35 bn) - GER 5.5 bn (80 bn)

Factors for the above ("how many people own one firearm")
USA 1.1 - CAN 4.4 - GER 14.6

Number of homicides with firearms, per 100K firearms
USA 4.2 - CAN 2.2 - GER 0.6

Granted, there are places with much higher numbers of horror. All of them belong to third world countries, failed states, Russia and Latin America. Does one really want to excuse one's own falure by comparing oneself to third world standards?


Of course I had the civilized, the first world on mind when writing that.

Those figures don't add up to the FBI's statistics. 8583 gun murders for 315m people is 0.367 deaths per 100,000 people. That would mean that accidental are 10 times the murder rate.

[Skybird]

Those figures don't add up to the FBI's statistics. 8583 gun murders for 315m people is 0.367 deaths per 100,000 people. That would mean that accidental are 10 times the murder rate.

Sources:

Die Angaben in dieser Tabelle beziehen sich auf verschiedene Basisjahre. Während die Schusswaffenstatistiken aus den Jahren 2002–2003 stammen, gelten die Daten über die Tötungsdelikte mit Schusswaffe für das letzterhältliche Jahr, normalerweise 1998–2001, außer im Fall von Jamaika, wo 1995 zugrunde liegt. Bolivien und Paraguay wurden mangels spezifischer Angaben zu Tötungsdelikten mit Schusswaffe ausgeschlossen. Die Zahlen für Waffen/Tötungsdelikte mit Schusswaffe und Tötungsdelikte mit Schusswaffe/100'000 Waffen wurden gerundet, um falsche Präzision zu vermeiden. Quellen: aus den Tabellen 2.1 und 2.2 der Small Arms Survey 2004 zusammengestellt. Daten über Tötungsdelikte mit Schusswaffe von Chetty (2000); CRIME; UN (1998). Angaben über zivile Lagerbestände für die anderen Länder von Cross et al. (2003), GPC (2002) und Small Arms Survey (2002).The article is on the abuse of firearms, and is in German language only, no use to set it up in full here. I took the numbers from one of its tables.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffenmissbrauch

Average mean values like mentioned here, ignore immense local differences within especially big countries (like the US). The article says that crime rate with firearms in 2006 has been comparable to Germany in for example New Hampshire and South Dakota, while Alabama, California and Texas had 25 times as high rates as in Germany. Differences also are between rural areas, and metropoles.

[August]

And how would you license free speech?

The same way you license a gun owner. They fill out an application at the police department, buy a seat in an expensive speech safety class, pay a hefty fee (you know to prevent poor people from exercising their speech rights), a background check is conducted to see if they have engaged in hate speech or bullying in the past, then finally attend an interview with the local chief of police who can decide to deny the application without having to give a reason for the denial.

Simple really.

[Buddahaid]

Sources:
The article is on the abuse of firearms, and is in German language only, no use to set it up in full here. I took the numbers from one of its tables.


I think murder is the better statistic when discussing gun violence.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

[Skybird]

I think murder is the better statistic when discussing gun violence.

Me not, since every murder is a crime, but not every crime is a murder.

[Buddahaid]

Well abuse covers a large array of possibilities, not intent. Your Dr. using meds off label is drug abuse for instance.

One could argue that every death from traffic accidents was caused by someone abusing their vehicle. That makes 1 person out of 9000 killed by vehicular violence as compared to 1 out of say 12,000 for gun violence with 1 out of 35,000 killed on purpose. Figures rounded for clarity.

[em2nought]

Let's face it, it's the democrats that want us to give up guns, because democrat supporters can't handle guns http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/174003/gun-violence-not-republican-problem-its-democratic-daniel-greenfield (http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/174003/gun-violence-not-republican-problem-its-democratic-daniel-greenfield)

Good luck getting the guns from those folks that you've created, and until you do don't even think about my firearms. :arrgh!:

[Oberon]

Nobody but us has a right to shoot ourselves in the the foot, nobody! :D

Hey Im all for using technolgy to track background checks, requiring a firearms course and issuing an ID of sorts to the potential buyer. Im also for sellers to have immediate access to verify such an ID and the latest updates. Unfortunetaly some around here either see that as the devils work or the slippery slope to tyranny.

I can understand in a way where they're coming from, I mean the last thing anyone who is terrified of the government wants to do is give information to the government. However I think that you've got to put a bit of value on the human life and so such a sacrifice is worth it.

We already have a lot of laws on the books and requirements for background checks in place and in some states required firearms training. But theres more to this problem than filing the proper paper work and safety training.

Indeed, I've done a bit of research into what it takes to get a firearm in the US and the current system is a good start but it does need more consistency across the US so that each state has the same requirements in regards to training and responsible ownership.

No offense intended here but take a look at the stats and one people group/race shines above the rest when it comes to the use of firearms and homicide. Id bet the common factor there is poverty, welfare, lack of family, drugs, gangs, segregation the list goes on. Fix that and numbers would drop like a rock.

Ha, now that is the truth, and oddly enough I believe me and Neal got into a conversation about this back during the Ferguson days. Fixing poverty, destroying the gangs, and improving society would go a helluva long way to help reduce crime in general, not just gun crime. However in all the years that we've existed as a society I don't think anyone has managed to come up with an idea to fix such a thing that doesn't involve upsetting a lot of people. :hmmm: It's not a very easy thing to solve, that's for certain, and I don't think I could even begin to fix it in a manner which would be acceptable to the American people.
Probably better to start with mental health care and universal firearm safety and responsible ownership first, in theory that should help shave some of the numbers, and would probably quiet all but the most fanatical of anti-gun groups whilst not depriving responsible gun owners of their right to own a firearm. Once that is fixed, then work towards fixing poverty...however the heck that can be done. :doh:

[Oberon]

The same way you license a gun owner. They fill out an application at the police department, buy a seat in an expensive speech safety class, pay a hefty fee (you know to prevent poor people from exercising their speech rights), a background check is conducted to see if they have engaged in hate speech or bullying in the past, then finally attend an interview with the local chief of police who can decide to deny the application without having to give a reason for the denial.

Simple really.

Quick question though, if I walk up to you in the street and shout 'BANG' will it punch a 7mm hole in your chest?

[Nippelspanner]

Right, let's pretend that your "apology" wasn't dripping with self righteous sarcasm. See you in a few weeks! :up:

Long time no see August, how is life treating you?
Meanwhile...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gunfire-rings-out-on-arizona-college-campus/

[August]

Quick question though, if I walk up to you in the street and shout 'BANG' will it punch a 7mm hole in your chest?

I dunno maybe if you have a weak heart? (insert shrug smiley)

On the other hand if I repeatedly tell you to commit suicide will you do it?

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/texts_show_michelle_carter_enc.htm

[Oberon]

I dunno maybe if you have a weak heart? (insert shrug smiley)

On the other hand if I repeatedly tell you to commit suicide will you do it?

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/texts_show_michelle_carter_enc.htm

http://i.imgur.com/d7WY4NC.gif

I wouldn't, because I've had a brain that's been telling me to do that for over a decade and I haven't yet. But I see your point.

The thing is, what I've put forward isn't so much a scheme to gain money from gun owners, I mean for what it's worth the licence could be free, the point is to instill into gun owners a code of safe handling and responsibility.
August, you own a gun, right? More than one probably. You keep it in a safe place where only you can access it, right? You wouldn't dream of brandishing it around amongst other people like it's a toy, right? The old saying that you don't point it at anything you don't want to shoot, right?
Now, taking the most recent incident in this thread as an example, that child, whether his mind was sound or not, should not have been able to access that shotgun. That was a failing of his father, and one that mentally he will have to live with for the rest of his life, but if his father had, by law, been forced to lock the gun away safely so that his young son could not have accessed it, then the child would not have been able to use it...perhaps he would have used a knife, perhaps he would have used his fists, but he would not have used a gun.
Think, I mean this is in favour of gun enthusiasts too, if we can cut down on incidents like this happening then we can reduce the number of people calling for the repealing of the 2nd Amendment, because the rate in which such tragic incidents occur will be reduced. It might, just might, allow for some more serious conversation about the 2nd Amendment and any modifications it may need for the modern era, but that is something for another time.

I trust that you are a responsible gun owner, August, just as I trust that Rockstar is...so what is the harm in making sure that all gun owners are as responsible as you two?

While we're here, why don't we put down in this thread what we consider a responsible gun owner would have and do? Here's some thoughts of mine, feel free to add your own.

1) Keep the weapon unloaded when not in use, or in the case of a pistol, make sure that the chamber is empty.
2) If the weapon is holstered ensure that the safety is on and/or the tong in place ensuring the weapon does not fall out of the holster.
3) Weapons should be kept in a proper holster as opposed to something like a handbag.
4) Weapons should be well maintained and inspected frequently, likewise magazines (last thing you need is a busted spring).
5) Trigger discipline is paramount, do not put your finger on the trigger unless you are ready to shoot
6) Fire discipline is paramount, do not point your weapon at anything you do not wish to shoot at, if in doubt point it at the floor.
7) Weapons should be stored in a secure location accessible only by the weapon owner.

That's a start, what else should there be?

[Betonov]

On the other hand if I repeatedly tell you to commit suicide will you do it?



No, but I'd commit a murder in self defence.
Could repeated convincing to kill yourself be counted as assault :hmmm:

[U505995]

At not one point have I advocated the banning of firearms, ok? Heck, you can even get rid of gun free zones. The thing is, you say that there are 20,000 gun control laws on the books in the country, and yet if you do not have a criminal record, are aged 18 or above, you can go into a firearm store and apply for a firearm. In some states you have to watch a video and answer a test. Obviously it varies from state to state, like nearly all laws in the US, and if you go to a gun show or a private seller then you don't have to pass a background check.
Now how difficult would it be to make it universal that to buy a weapon from any place you have to have a firearms license, like a driving license, and to gain that firearms license you have to show to a registered official that you are capable of owning and operating a firearm safely. Once you have that license then you get your firearm and if you happen to violate the terms of that license then you get it taken away. Whether you get your firearm taken away as well can be debated but without a license you wouldn't be permitted to have it anyway, so it would probably be better that it was taken away.
Now what is so wrong with that? We already require such things for driving a car, driving a truck or bus or flying an aircraft...so why not for owning a gun?




Perhaps they will, you don't really know until you try. Perhaps it will work? After all, driving licenses were introduced in America after soaring fatalities in the newly introduced automobile provoked public outcry, and they have stayed since. Road vehicle fatality rates still remain high but this is a proportional increase as opposed to the high initial rate. In other words, more people drive cars therefore the likelihood of an accident increases.
Sure, it's not going to stop mass killings, it's not going to stop gang banger shootings...but it might reduce them, and surely that is worth a go?



Now you're just being silly. :O:

I think I can agree with this as long as no other types of firearms are further restricted. I think that there should be a bill where anybody born on or after a certain year will have to go through a background check and a firearm safety class and can be affirmed that they are responsible enough to use a firearm.

[MaDef]

So, basically, unless more people die then it's not worth trying to make things safer. :hmmm:I think Ben Franklin said it best:
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

I'm not willing to give up my liberty, because people I don't even know refuse to take the necessary steps to provide for their own security and expect the government to do it for them.

[Tchocky]

And when others not giving up their liberty is a direct reduction of your security?

[August]

And when others not giving up their liberty is a direct reduction of your security?

That argument can be used to take away all rights. Old Ben's point still stands.

[Tchocky]

That argument can be used to take away all rights. Old Ben's point still stands.

Of course.


That's what I'm asking - where is the line to be drawn?

[Oberon]

I guess that depends on the priority you place on the liberty to own firearms versus the value of the life of an American citizen. I certainly don't consider myself to have any less liberty than a US citizen, despite my nations stance on firearms. I can understand the advantage it would give for house and personal defence against criminal activity, but equally in regards to burgulary, there are other methods in which you can protect your house from them without resorting to guns.
And when it comes to personal defence against tyrannical governments...I think in this day and age that argument holds little to no water really, and I've laid out the reason why time and again so I won't go over it.

So really at the end of the day, it boils down to how much you want the gun versus how much you value human life. :hmmm:

[Tchocky]

That's the issue Oberon - you don't see yourself as having any less liberty than a US citizen. I completely agree.

However.

If I had my way and severely restricted firearm ownership there, an awful lot of people would have lost a liberty and yet remain with exactly the same amount left.

This isn't making quite as much sense as I thought it would.

Might be a very roundabout way of getting to "different strokes", but replace "strokes" with "bolt cycles" and suddenly it's a little less homespun.

I'm going to the pub.

[Tchocky]

Evidently not before another gun incident on a campus - http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-respond-shooting-near-texas-southern-university-n441826?cid=sm_tw&hootPostID=e27eaf7e7f84dfe6e337c604475146ca

Argh.

[Oberon]

That's the issue Oberon - you don't see yourself as having any less liberty than a US citizen. I completely agree.

However.

If I had my way and severely restricted firearm ownership there, an awful lot of people would have lost a liberty and yet remain with exactly the same amount left.

This isn't making quite as much sense as I thought it would.

Might be a very roundabout way of getting to "different strokes", but replace "strokes" with "bolt cycles" and suddenly it's a little less homespun.

I'm going to the pub.

No, I do understand what you mean, I mean I've never had that liberty to begin with, so I do not know the difference of not having it.
I suppose that is the problem on any law which removes a certain object from peoples lives, it's the taking away of something, something which means a lot to some people.
I think, honestly, that taking away firearms from the American public as a whole would never work, there's a history of the gun within America that's as old as the nation itself, the two are very deeply intertwined. You could go as far as to say that America was built by Colt and Smith & Wesson (and Winchester, of course). I don't think there are many other countries who have that deep an engrained weapon...except perhaps Japan and the Katana. So trying to remove that from America just is not going to work. However, I think that serious thought should be given into making the people who own firearms as well informed about their care and attention as possible in order to prevent unfortunate incidents.
Those who use firearms illegally, you're going to struggle to deal with that because there's a good underground market for firearms, but regulation could possibly help give further in-roads into dealing with it.
For example, a policeman patrolling a street in a random American city spots a stereotypical gang-banger style youth walking along with a Browning tucked into his sagging pants, he stops the car, gets out with his pistol pointed at the gangbanger (and his camera switched on) and asks him to show him his firearms license. The gangbanger will either do so or state that he doesn't have one/the dog ate it/it's at home (etc) in which case the police officer would have the ability to confiscate the pistol because it was improperly holstered and carried without a presentable license. If that gangbanger wants his gun back then he's got to show his license, and even then he will get a citation and/or his gun rights confiscated (for a permanent or temporary amount of time) for improper holstering of a firearm. Chances are though that he'll just forget it and go get another pistol, and then there's the chance that the cop will pick him up with that pistol and we go through the process again. The cops will get quite a collection of pistols and they could probably give them back to the company that manufactured them for re-selling as required, or get them melted down and profit from the scrap value. Either which way, for a short amount of time, the gang-banger loses his firearm. Alternatively he draws on the officer and the officer and the other officer patrolling with him take him down. Either which way the problem is fixed, either permanently or temporary.

[August]

For example, a policeman patrolling a street in a random American city spots a stereotypical gang-banger style youth walking along with a Browning tucked into his sagging pants, he stops the car, gets out with his pistol pointed at the gangbanger (and his camera switched on) and asks him to show him his firearms license. The gangbanger will either do so or state that he doesn't have one/the dog ate it/it's at home (etc) in which case the police officer would have the ability to confiscate the pistol because it was improperly holstered and carried without a presentable license. If that gangbanger wants his gun back then he's got to show his license, and even then he will get a citation and/or his gun rights confiscated (for a permanent or temporary amount of time) for improper holstering of a firearm. Chances are though that he'll just forget it and go get another pistol, and then there's the chance that the cop will pick him up with that pistol and we go through the process again. The cops will get quite a collection of pistols and they could probably give them back to the company that manufactured them for re-selling as required, or get them melted down and profit from the scrap value. Either which way, for a short amount of time, the gang-banger loses his firearm. Alternatively he draws on the officer and the officer and the other officer patrolling with him take him down. Either which way the problem is fixed, either permanently or temporary.

I don't know if you realize it but that would be a significant lowering of the standards as they are now. This is how that scenario would go presently in almost every big city in the country:

Cop sees gang banger with a pistol in his waist band. Cop calls for backup (and maybe SWAT too). When backup arrives they accost the gang banger with guns drawn commanding him to drop to the ground and spread eagle. Any hesitation on the gang bangers part and the cops open fire killing or incapacitating him (and probably several bystanders too) in a hail of 9mm bullets.

If the banger instantly complies or lives through the barrage of gunfire they charge him with carrying an illegal weapon (and resisting arrest), the gun is confiscated and eventually either melted down along with a bunch of others in a big media event or "appropriated" by the cops. The gang banger is then imprisoned until his court date on the above charges and he gets either a lengthy jail sentence or he rats on somebody else and gets the charges dismissed or significantly lowered.

If the gang banger does actually have a license (highly unlikely since getting gun permits in the city is almost impossible for the non politically connected) the cops are quickly cleared of wrongdoing (perhaps aided by the convenient discovery of a little pot or coke on him) then his family or him (once he gets out of the hospital) sues the city for a bucket full of money.

Either way he ain't getting the gun back without spending an awful lot of money for lawyers and even then it'll take months if not years for anything to happen.

[Oberon]

I don't know if you realize it but that would be a significant lowering of the standards as they are now. This is how that scenario would go presently in almost every big city in the country:

Cop sees gang banger with a pistol in his waist band. Cop calls for backup (and maybe SWAT too). When backup arrives they accost the gang banger with guns drawn commanding him to drop to the ground and spread eagle. Any hesitation on the gang bangers part and the cops open fire killing or incapacitating him (and probably several bystanders too) in a hail of 9mm bullets.

If the banger instantly complies or lives through the barrage of gunfire they charge him with carrying an illegal weapon (and resisting arrest), the gun is confiscated and eventually either melted down along with a bunch of others in a big media event or "appropriated" by the cops. The gang banger is then imprisoned until his court date on the above charges and he gets either a lengthy jail sentence or he rats on somebody else and gets the charges dismissed or significantly lowered.

If the gang banger does actually have a license (highly unlikely since getting gun permits in the city is almost impossible for the non politically connected) the cops are quickly cleared of wrongdoing (perhaps aided by the convenient discovery of a little pot or coke on him) then his family or him (once he gets out of the hospital) sues the city for a bucket full of money.

Either way he ain't getting the gun back without spending an awful lot of money for lawyers and even then it'll take months if not years for anything to happen.

Oh, well in that case it's not that dissimilar in regards to license requirements only he would get improper holstering of a firearm charge on top of the illegal firearm charge.
So, with the gang-bangers relatively covered already, then this will just make sure that regular gun owners practice common gun sense. I mean you can even tailor it to a sliding scale of offences, put points on the license perhaps if you want to make it more like a driving license. It's open for negotiation, but the basic goal of it should be to make every legal gun owner in America practice gun ownership in a responsible manner.
If a responsible gun owner happens to want to take his gun out and shoot up a school, then that's not a problem we can solve at the gun end of things except through the wholesale ban route which is impractical for America. So to tackle that problem one needs to take the mental health care and protection route to try and spot these people early and put them somewhere safe. What we can try and stop is the incidents where little Timmy accidentally gets ahold of his Dads pistol and shoots the neighbours kid, or some teenager gets his Moms assault rifle, shoots her with it and goes on a rampage at the nearby school.

[Buddahaid]

Well here in California, or at least in my county, you need to get a handgun safety certificate which entails taking a multiple choice test and demonstrating you know how to load and unload the gun safely. The test is pretty simple to pass because all you need to do is choose whatever answer is the safest one, but if you don't have the certificate, you can't take the gun out of the store and this is provided you pass the background check and waiting period.

Now does that stop anybody from getting a gun through a private sale? No, nor through any other means outside of a retail gun store with an FFL, or other FFL holder. This is where the existing laws break down. But, if I buy a gun through the internet, the seller must have an FFL and the gun must be shipped to someone with an FFL so they can fulfill the legal requirements of the sale.

[MaDef]

And when others not giving up their liberty is a direct reduction of your security?Won't happen, I own firearms, I can and will shoot back.

[MaDef]

Of course.


That's what I'm asking - where is the line to be drawn?Good rule of thumb, your rights end where mine begin, and vice-versa. Think about that one before you comment.

[Oberon]

Won't happen, I own firearms, I can and will shoot back.

Did you support the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11?

[Onkel Neal]

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/v/t1.0-9/10257404_863899323627007_8556582611443417490_n.jpg ?oh=ae9d9256a605cdc1098a5ab0cfda62a3&oe=569D45D2

[MaDef]

Did you support the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11?I did, however thats a different kettle of fish for another thread.

[Oberon]

I did, however thats a different kettle of fish for another thread.

So if foreign nationals kill 3000 Americans then that is a cause to act, but if Americans kill multiple times that number in the same year then there's nothing to be done about it. Am I right?

[Oberon]

http://associatesmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/judgedredd_i-am-the-law.jpg

[MaDef]

So if foreign nationals kill 3000 Americans then that is a cause to act, but if Americans kill multiple times that number in the same year then there's nothing to be done about it. Am I right?Well yeah, The right to bear arms (own a gun) is one of the core principles of our constitution. If the gun control crowd wants to limit gun ownership for U.S citizens, then they need to look at amending the constitution.

What exactly is your point? You're trying to get me to compare the response to an act of war by foreigners against a sovereign nation to my response of asinine individuals doing egregious shootings with guns. Thats like comparing hurricanes to earthquakes, both are natural disasters, but preparation for, and response to each are different.

you get a thumbs down for the logical fallacy in your question.

[Oberon]

Well yeah, The right to bear arms (own a gun) is one of the core principles of our constitution. If the gun control crowd wants to limit gun ownership for U.S citizens, then they need to look at amending the constitution.

What exactly is your point? You're trying to get me to compare the response to an act of war by foreigners against a sovereign nation to my response of asinine individuals doing egregious shootings with guns. Thats like comparing hurricanes to earthquakes, both are natural disasters, but preparation for, and response to each are different.

you get a thumbs down for the logical fallacy in your question.

I just find it hard to accept a school shooting as 'one of those things', like it's a fact of life. We don't accept terror attacks as a part of life but as an act of war, so why should we accept crazed shootings as part of life?
When a plane crashes, people don't just shrug and say "Well, it happens." there's an investigation and if something in the design of the aircraft is found to be faulty then it's fixed. When a Hurricane strikes or an earthquake hits, people find ways to improve the survivability of infrastructure in that region, they don't just shrug and say "Well, what can you do, it's nature."
How many lives has the seat belt saved since its invention? The air bag? Crumple zones? If we had the same attitude towards vehicle safety as seems to prevail towards firearms then none of those would have been created because a certain number of deaths in vehicle accidents would have been acceptable.
We constantly try to make life safer, if not for us then for our children...sure, sometimes people go too far with it, but other times they do things which do save lives and improve the quality of life for others.

[Buddahaid]

Even though I've used it, the comparison between auto safety and gun safety isn't very good. First of all autos are not meant to kill so safety upgrades are less invasive and passive for the most part. I think you'll only see a gun level of revolt when we are told we can only use driverless cars.

Things like that for guns can work but only for new guns, or newer guns, and while cars have an average age of only ten years, guns don't really wear out nearly as fast and can stay on the road for decades. The newest gun I own is already 70 years old and the oldest is 107 years old for instance.

[Oberon]

Even though I've used it, the comparison between auto safety and gun safety isn't very good. First of all autos are not meant to kill so safety upgrades are less invasive and passive for the most part. I think you'll only see a gun level of revolt when we are told we can only use driverless cars.

Things like that for guns can work but only for new guns, or newer guns, and while cars have an average age of only ten years, guns don't really wear out nearly as fast and can stay on the road for decades. The newest gun I own is already 70 years old and the oldest is 107 years old for instance.

This is true, but it's not so much the act of making a firearm safer but the motivation that I'm comparing in this situation. I mean there are some third party things you can use, trigger locks and the like but otherwise it does limit you to newer firearms with the special fingerprint locks and such. So, rather than make the weapons safer, which is a good move for future weapons but won't help older ones, the focus should be making the users safer. If you can't improve the gun, improve the fleshy thing holding it in other words. :haha: But just sitting back and saying that there's nothing that can be done is ethically and morally wrong in my opinion anyway.

[Buddahaid]

This is true, but it's not so much the act of making a firearm safer but the motivation that I'm comparing in this situation. I mean there are some third party things you can use, trigger locks and the like but otherwise it does limit you to newer firearms with the special fingerprint locks and such. So, rather than make the weapons safer, which is a good move for future weapons but won't help older ones, the focus should be making the users safer. If you can't improve the gun, improve the fleshy thing holding it in other words. :haha: But just sitting back and saying that there's nothing that can be done is ethically and morally wrong in my opinion anyway.

Tough one to make people change their behavior and the ones that need to the most are likely the last to comply. For example, why do people still not use seat belts. They're easy to use and new cars are annoying if you don't, but some just won't wear them anyway.

[Oberon]

Tough one to make people change their behavior and the ones that need to the most are likely the last to comply. For example, why do people still not use seat belts. They're easy to use and new cars are annoying if you don't, but some just won't wear them anyway.

True that, it certainly won't be easy, but I think that the growing pressure for action with each new killing may create a force in which this sort of option might be the lesser of the two evils.

[Schroeder]

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/v/t1.0-9/10257404_863899323627007_8556582611443417490_n.jpg ?oh=ae9d9256a605cdc1098a5ab0cfda62a3&oe=569D45D2
In the UK you don't. Regular police there doesn't carry guns, just the armed response teams.;)

(hell, I wanted to stay out of this thread....:/\\!!)

[Oberon]

In the UK you don't. Regular police there doesn't carry guns, just the armed response teams.;)

(hell, I wanted to stay out of this thread....:/\\!!)

https://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/tumblr_mbhkbxr0Zl1qdb4cxo1_r1_500.gif

Besides, to use the logic already displayed on this topic, guns don't stop burglaries, because the US still has burglaries despite having the 2nd Amendment therefore there's no point in having a gun. :O:

[Nippelspanner]

Besides, to use the logic already displayed on this topic, guns don't stop burglaries, because the US still has burglaries despite having the 2nd Amendment therefore there's no point in having a gun. :O:
I think you've just opened Pandora's box and doomed all of us, you doomed us to hell!

[Dowly]

http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x462/Dowly/gun.gif~original
:woot:

[Betonov]

Good, now we can merge the gun and presidential threads

[Oberon]

I think you've just opened Pandora's box and doomed all of us, you doomed us to hell!

http://i.eprci.net/div-zero-house-1

[Betonov]

There was a bank robbery in Ljubljana today.
No injuries, no shots fired, no dead.
The robbers will be aprehended in a few days and this whole mess will be over with a death toll zero.

I shudder to think if some ''well armed citizens'' would have decided to be heroes.

[Oberon]

http://i.imgur.com/QP5fqST.gif

[August]

Intensely interesting article on how mass murderers feed off one another.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence

In the day of Eric Harris, we could try to console ourselves with the thought that there was nothing we could do, that no law or intervention or restrictions on guns could make a difference in the face of someone so evil. But the riot has now engulfed the boys who were once content to play with chemistry sets in the basement. The problem is not that there is an endless supply of deeply disturbed young men who are willing to contemplate horrific acts. It’s worse. It’s that young men no longer need to be deeply disturbed to contemplate horrific acts

[Rockstar]

http://um.smash.com/2014/07/listen.jpg

[Oberon]

Intensely interesting article on how mass murderers feed off one another.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence

Indeed, a very good article there August. Well linked.
A couple of things I've brought away whilst reading it, firstly it comes down to a slight surprise at how young the shooters mentioned in the report were and how they were able to access the firearms needed. Bomb making materials are one thing, sadly it's fairly easy to put together a rudimentary explosive device using easily available equipment, although it's a bit harder to rig together the detonator, I guess that's why suicide bombers are easier because with a lot of the explosives they're pretty unstable so you just need to give it a good kick or punch and boom.
But yes, I would be interested to see in how many of these cases the kids legally brought the firearms they used in the shooting, or were going to use, and how often it is that they steal their parents weaponry. This, in my eyes at least, puts a greater emphasis on a need to have some kind of control over who gets access to a firearm, and that those who do have access treat it with the respect it deserves.
The threshold effect, how a school shooting lowers the threshold required for others to go through with their attacks is another interesting, if not rather disturbing, concept and I think there's definitely an element of truth in it which is only fed by treating such events as a routine event of life in America...whilst equally it might not give them the blaze of glory that they desire if their act is preceded with 'another day, another shooting' but it makes the act seem regular, like a minor crime rather than an mass-murder.
Of course, it's hard to level that condemnation, that anger towards an individual without spreading their image and name across the airwaves, and in the age of the internet, even if the major news networks decided not to publish his photo or details, it would be up on Wikipedia and many, many other websites almost immediately.
Ah, Aspergers, that's become something of an epidemic of young children these days, and that of course leads many adults to claim that such a thing doesn't exist, like ADHD or ADD, and that these kids just need some good old fashioned discipline. Of course, that discipline almost inevitably backfires on the parent and the kid becomes problematic down the road. But, as this article has pointed out quite well, you can do everything right in raising a child and still have them shoot up a school.
That kid that the article revolves around, is an incredibly smart kid, and I think would have a good future in the chemical industry, and I hope that his stay in therapy helps him focus his mind to more constructive endeavours that are as interesting to him as the skewed psychology of the more famous American school shooters.

So, where does that leave us? The article has pointed out that there are some shooters who you will never see coming. Some display very obvious warning signs that are often, sadly, overlooked, but some don't...and they are perhaps buoyed and encouraged by the lowering of the threshold that takes place whenever there is a successful school shooting.
So, the key there is to break the chain, stop the school shootings or at the very least reduce the rapid rate in which they are occurring and that will help raise the threshold rate again. Of course, this is going to take a long time to achieve and on its own it won't be as successful as it would be as part of a concerted effort to reduce non-gang related gun crime.

Obviously better mental health care is one part, a better focus on watching for the warning signs. We already do it for Islamic radicalisation, although it's not the most effective of systems as you can actually create the very thing you're trying to avoid by mislabelling someone, i.e. if you treat someone as an extremist they may decide to become one.
Making gun owners more responsible and it harder for non-gun owners to steal or have access to a persons firearm, that will help a little bit too.

I think the biggest problem that people have is that there is no one size fits all solution to this, and heaven knows people love the magic bullet...pardon the poorly chosen pun, and because of this a lot of people think that there shouldn't even be an effort to try and stop this, because there is no one thing that can be done to stop it, or other people will claim that there is but it's a step too far for America to undertake, and quite likely would result in an extremely negative backlash and/or insurrection/civil war. So, small steady steps, one after each other, and you're not looking for shooting numbers to plummet straight away, they might not even budge for months...but you keep on the pressure, keep on chipping away at the problem and eventually the numbers will slowly start to fall.
But standing back, crossed arms, and refusing to do anything is, as this article has noted, only helping to create a new normality and that will just help breed whole new generations of psychopaths.

[Buddahaid]

http://um.smash.com/2014/07/listen.jpg

That, my friend, is a two-way street. :hmm2:

[Rockstar]

I went back country camping at Assateague Island. Happened across and camped with people I never met before, not one armed citizen in sight.

Only thing we talked about was spectacular views, hiking, and argued from time to time about favorite ways to maintain a 600 plus calorie diet on the trail and the best ultra lite gear to keep weight down.

Not one word about guns or gun control.

You all need to get a life.

[Buddahaid]

I went back country camping at Assateague Island. Happened across and camped with people I never met before, not one armed citizen in sight.

Only thing we talked about was spectacular views, hiking, and argued from time to time about favorite ways to maintain a 600 plus calorie diet on the trail and the best ultra lite gear to keep weight down.

Not one word about guns or gun control.

You all need to get a life.

I have a life and have camped all my adult life. Rarely has firearms been a subject of camp BS. BB guns are another matter but I have a good excuse. :shucks:

[Aktungbby]

BB guns are another matter but I have a good excuse. :shucks:

INDEED!:haha: leave your excuse at the tent flap!:O: (USS IOWA BB-61's turrett)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Iowa_16_inch_Gun-EN.svg/1250px-Iowa_16_inch_Gun-EN.svg.png

[Oberon]

As a Brit, let me speak with experience that it is essential that proper BB gun safety procedures are put in place and followed, just ask the crew of HMS Vanguard!

[Aktungbby]

As a Brit, let me speak with experience that it is essential that proper BB gun safety procedures are put in place and followed, just ask the crew of HMS Vanguard!

INDEED! BB-61's 16's on a bad day: (photos enlarge) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/USS_Iowa_BB61_Iowa_Explosion_1989.jpg/300px-USS_Iowa_BB61_Iowa_Explosion_1989.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Iowa_BB61_Iowa_Explosion_1989.jpg)probabl y from a three inch overram of the powder bags: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/USS_Iowa_%28BB-61%29_ramming_powder_bags.jpg/170px-USS_Iowa_%28BB-61%29_ramming_powder_bags.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Iowa_(BB-61)_ramming_powder_bags.jpg)<practice vs theory>https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/16inchload.jpg/300px-16inchload.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:16inchload.jpg)"...determined that the five powder bags in Turret Two's center gun had been rammed 24 inches (61 cm) into the gun, farther than the 21 inches (53 cm) that the Navy had estimated... concluded that this overram, combined with the 2,800 pounds-force per square inch (19 MPa) of pressure produced by the rammer, likely compressed the powder bags to the point that they had ignited."

[August]

I went back country camping at Assateague Island. Happened across and camped with people I never met before, not one armed citizen in sight.

Only thing we talked about was spectacular views, hiking, and argued from time to time about favorite ways to maintain a 600 plus calorie diet on the trail and the best ultra lite gear to keep weight down.

Not one word about guns or gun control.

You all need to get a life.

http://um.smash.com/2014/07/listen.jpg

[Betonov]

Must be the green color of the forests.
Green is a soothing color.

[Rockstar]

Just pointing out that there are beautiful things to behold, new people too meet, wildlife to see. No internet, no hysteria, no guns. Though a coyote may steal your food, and you could get kicked by a horse or struck by lightening.

I dont watch much TV, events like shootings, murder, mayhem, hysteria are normally not even a blip on my RADAR screen. Oh, I eventually catch wind of things and I come here to read about it and see those few who as if on cue have nothing better to do than squawk about who or what to blame and impress upon everyone their world vision for a perfect utopian society. Those are the ones Im afraid of.

[MaDef]

I just find it hard to accept a school shooting as 'one of those things', like it's a fact of life. We don't accept terror attacks as a part of life but as an act of war, so why should we accept crazed shootings as part of life?
When a plane crashes, people don't just shrug and say "Well, it happens." there's an investigation and if something in the design of the aircraft is found to be faulty then it's fixed. When a Hurricane strikes or an earthquake hits, people find ways to improve the survivability of infrastructure in that region, they don't just shrug and say "Well, what can you do, it's nature."
How many lives has the seat belt saved since its invention? The air bag? Crumple zones? If we had the same attitude towards vehicle safety as seems to prevail towards firearms then none of those would have been created because a certain number of deaths in vehicle accidents would have been acceptable.
We constantly try to make life safer, if not for us then for our children...sure, sometimes people go too far with it, but other times they do things which do save lives and improve the quality of life for others.Your first sentence pretty much nails it. We here in the U.S. have the right to own guns, most of us understand that with those rights come responsibilities. we also know that there will be a few that will abuse those rights, which is why there are prisons for those abusers.

[Schroeder]

which is why there are prisons for those abusers.
And cemeteries for their victims.....

(man, I wanted to stay out of this....:/\\!!:/\\!!:/\\!!)

[Nippelspanner]

And cemeteries for their victims.....

(man, I wanted to stay out of this....:/\\!!:/\\!!:/\\!!)

:haha:

[Oberon]

most of us understand that with those rights come responsibilities. we also know that there will be a few that will abuse those rights, which is why there are prisons for those abusers.

So dead and wounded children are acceptable? They're just collateral damage? Is that it?

[August]

So dead and wounded children are acceptable? They're just collateral damage? Is that it?

Are the much higher numbers associated with vehicle accidents acceptable? Are they just collateral damage? Is that it?

[VipertheSniper]

Are the much higher numbers associated with vehicle accidents acceptable? Are they just collateral damage? Is that it?

But they are accidents and, in most cases, not deliberate acts of violence.

Edited to add: I'm not saying they are acceptable, but you're comparing apples to oranges.

[August]

But they are accidents and, in most cases, not deliberate acts of violence.

Edited to add: I'm not saying they are acceptable, but you're comparing apples to oranges.

They can be any kind of fruit you want. The only thing I am comparing is the body counts. 1000 dead children in vehicle accidents seem to be far more acceptable than 10 in gun homicides.

[Betonov]

How many children are killed when someone deliberately drives a car into a school.

[Rockstar]

So dead and wounded children are acceptable? They're just collateral damage? Is that it?

Of course its not acceptable what kind of question is that?

Though it did seem to me it was perfectly acceptable to many hootin and a hollerin for the terrorists ... err I mean rebels, during Arab Spring. Encouraging war, famine, displacment in the name of freedom and democracy, oh ya that was without a doubt totally acceptable.

Now the frenzy over a murderer and the tools he used to commit such a henious act has everyone blasting away at each other. Touting statistics and how much more enlightened they are over the other knowing exactely what the other should be doing about it. How noble, go ahead pat yourselves on the back for caring. But how many of us have ignored their own neighbor, the one right next door to you, who is in need? Hell, how many even know your neighbors real name?

IMO the best each one of us can do is live our lives in peace and set a good example for others to follow. Realize nobody can answer the actions of others nor prevent them from doing what seems right in their eyes.

But I tell ya when people start thinking they know whats best for me on account of the actions of others worries me a heck of a lot more than gettin shot by a handgun.

[Oberon]

Are the much higher numbers associated with vehicle accidents acceptable? Are they just collateral damage? Is that it?

No, which is why you've had the invention of driving licenses, vehicle crumple zones, speed limits, speed cameras, air bags, seat belts and breathalysers, to name a few.

[Oberon]

Of course its not acceptable what kind of question is that?

Though it did seem to me it was perfectly acceptable to many hootin and a hollerin for the terrorists ... err I mean rebels, during Arab Spring. Encouraging war, famine, displacment in the name of freedom and democracy, oh ya that was without a doubt totally acceptable.

What has that got to do with dead American children? :hmmm:


Now the frenzy over a murderer and the tools he used to commit such a henious act has everyone blasting away at each other. Touting statistics and how much more enlightened they are over the other knowing exactely what the other should be doing about it. How noble, go ahead pat yourselves on the back for caring. But how many of us have ignored their own neighbor, the one right next door to you, who is in need? Hell, how many even know your neighbors real name?

I've known every neighbour we've lived next door to, for better or for worse. The thing is, there is clearly a problem and identifying the cause is far from simple. We've named a few in this thread, and sure there are plenty more problems in society as a whole...but should we, as society, work towards fixing these problems rather than just ignoring them and hoping they'll go away?

IMO the best each one of us can do is live our lives in peace and set a good example for others to follow. Realize nobody can answer the actions of others nor prevent them from doing what seems right in their eyes.

Not all people are as inflexible as that, some are malluable, able to be molded into different beliefs based upon those around them. Peer pressure, society, any number of things can change a person and not always for the better. I mean once upon a time under-aged sex was a perfectly permissable activity, and now it's strongly frowned upon, and illegal. The norms of society change, and they change when people want them to change. There is a growing movement in America that wants the norm of regular school shootings to change, and whilst at the moment it is pushing against a large wall of inertia, do you really think that so long as the shootings continue that the movement will just go away? The way I see it is that it would be better to seek a compromise now than to continue to stonewall it until someone does take the nuclear option and tries to ban firearms which will lead to the sort of mess that takes a country a long time to recover from.

But I tell ya when people start thinking they know whats best for me on account of the actions of others worries me a heck of a lot more than gettin shot by a handgun.

That's fair enough, I can respect that, no one wants to live in a nanny state, but chances are that the things that I've put forward are things that you do anyway if you're a sensible and respectable gun owner, so at the end of the day it wouldn't have any effect on you. Unless one day you decide that you want to give a toddler a loaded handgun to play with or something stupid.

[August]

No, which is why you've had the invention of driving licenses, vehicle crumple zones, speed limits, speed cameras, air bags, seat belts and breathalysers, to name a few.

None of which have made these children safer from traffic accidents than many other causes including accidental fatalities involving guns (Latest stats I could find was 650 vs 102 in 2011). On the other hand we have over 20,000 gun laws on the nations law books including laws against shooting children.

So to get back to your original question.

So dead and wounded children are acceptable? They're just collateral damage? Is that it?

Well? Are six hundred and fifty dead children acceptable? Just the price we should pay for our love of rapid personal transit?

[Oberon]

None of which have made these children safer from traffic accidents than many other causes including accidental fatalities involving guns (Latest stats I could find was 650 vs 102 in 2011). On the other hand we have over 20,000 gun laws on the nations law books including laws against shooting children.

Actually, I would argue that they have all made children safer than they would have been had they not been introduced. Furthermore the continued improvement of car safety measures mean that lives will continue to be saved in the future. Observe this graph:

http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/ap/traffic%20fatalities--1708752851_v2.grid-6x2.jpg

Let's look at that timeline and take some events from it, from Wikipedia:

In 1968, the precursor agency to the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's first Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards took effect. These required shoulder belts for left and right front-seat vehicle occupants, side marker lights, collapsible steering columns, and other safety features. 1969 saw the addition of head restraints for front outboard passengers, addressing the problem of whiplash in rear-end collisions. These safety requirements did not apply to vehicles classified as "commercial," such as light-duty pickup trucks. Thus manufacturers did not always include such hardware in these vehicles, even though many did passenger-car duty.

In 1979 NHTSA began crash-testing popular cars and publishing the results, to inform consumers and encourage manufacturers to improve the safety of their vehicles. Initially, the US NCAP (New Car Assessment Program) crash tests examined compliance with the occupant-protection provisions of FMVSS 208. Over the subsequent years, this NHTSA program was gradually expanded in scope. In 1997, the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) was established to test new vehicles' safety performance and publish the results for vehicle shoppers' information.[43] The NHTSA crash tests are presently operated and published as the U.S. branch of the international NCAP programme.

In 1984 New York State passed the first US law requiring seat belt use in passenger cars. Seat belt laws have since been adopted by all 50 states, except for New Hampshire.[45] and NHTSA estimates increased seat belt use as a result save 10,000 per year in the USA.[

Now you can see that around those times, fatalities in automative incidents decline, they then will balance out again a little bit, but generally speaking the trend is downward. I have no doubt that it will spike up again, I believe that the current number is around 40,000 but it's not particularly likely that it will reach the heights of the 1960/70s.

So to get back to your original question.

Well? Are six hundred and fifty dead children acceptable? Just the price we should pay for our love of rapid personal transit?

Absolutely not, and that is why we continue to make cars safer, as we continue to make aircraft safer and trains safer, and every single thing else safer. The goal is to create a society where you are unable to harm someone else, but to allow individuals to place themselves in perilous situations for personal enjoyment if they wish...so long as it is not at the expense of someone else.
So let's put this way, if we are still striving, to this day to make our world safer, then what is the harm in continuing to make gun ownership safer with the introduction of licenses and mandatory training courses? You don't just get in a car and drive away, or just pick up the flight stick of an aircraft and head out, you need to get training, you need to prove that you can operate the vehicle without endangering yourself or others. Why should this not be law for firearms? Why should it not be law that you have to prove that you can operate your firearm safely and keep it safely, away from those who are not licensed to operate it?
Surely this is a better option than attempting to ban firearms outright and plunging the US into anarchy because of it.

[August]

So let's put this way, if we are still striving, to this day to make our world safer, then what is the harm in continuing to make gun ownership safer with the introduction of licenses and mandatory training courses? You don't just get in a car and drive away, or just pick up the flight stick of an aircraft and head out, you need to get training, you need to prove that you can operate the vehicle without endangering yourself or others. Why should this not be law for firearms? Why should it not be law that you have to prove that you can operate your firearm safely and keep it safely, away from those who are not licensed to operate it?
Surely this is a better option than attempting to ban firearms outright and plunging the US into anarchy because of it.

You're basing your argument on a false premise. I don't know about your country but over here one does not need a license, registration or training to own and operate any motor vehicle from motorcycle to tank. One only needs a license to drive on public roadways.

What you're proposing for firearms goes a step further with all that entails. How do you intend to verify that my firearms are kept what you deem safely? You going to send armed men into my home to demand that I show them the contents of my gun safe? And even if it were somehow legal to violate my right to privacy just how will they be able to tell if that's all of them and I don't have a few more stashed away where I can get to them quickly?

Finally let me offer a graphic of my own. As you can see traffic safety isn't the only thing enjoying a 50 year low.

http://thepublicintellectual.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Homicides-1900-2010-2.jpg

[Oberon]

You're basing your argument on a false premise. I don't know about your country but over here one does not need a license, registration or training to own and operate any motor vehicle from motorcycle to tank. One only needs a license to drive on public roadways.
Very well. But the other points still stand in regards to aircraft and trains.

What you're proposing for firearms goes a step further with all that entails. How do you intend to verify that my firearms are kept what you deem safely? You going to send armed men into my home to demand that I show them the contents of my gun safe? And even if it were somehow legal to violate my right to privacy just how will they be able to tell if that's all of them and I don't have a few more stashed away where I can get to them quickly?

No need to send armed men, one gentleman with a clipboard would do the job, a bit like when some animal shelters won't let people take a dog home until they've seen that the home is an acceptable environment for the animal. Obviously you have the right to refuse the gentleman entry, but then you wouldn't get your licence.
Sure, if you want to keep some stashed away under the floorboards or whatever, that's your prerogative, but if a child finds it and shoots someone with it, you're accountable for negligent firearm ownership.

Finally let me offer a graphic of my own. As you can see traffic safety isn't the only thing enjoying a 50 year low.

http://thepublicintellectual.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Homicides-1900-2010-2.jpg

Excellent news, but what's the harm in trying to get that even lower? :hmmm: Again, are we looking at acceptable casualties here?

Seriously though, anti-gun people are just going to use every new school shooting as a tool to beat gun owners over the head with, they will use them as a reason to ban guns completely. They're already doing it, but as more children die the call gets louder. Has there been such a vocal movement against firearms in the US in the past fifty years? I'm not aware of it. Has there been such a rapid and continual rate of school shootings in the US in the past fifty years as there has been since Columbine? Not that I'm aware of. So the drum beat is getting faster, things are coming to a head and honestly I think that some sort of license system is probably the best compromise that can be reached. Otherwise you're going to get things like another assault weapons ban, or more magazine reductions, things that will effect you more than a simple license check.
But, I guess compromise has never been a strong point in the States, so I shouldn't expect much. It does seem to be viewed in the same tone as 'surrender', so I expect that this issue will just continue on until someone does something rash and upsets the whole apple cart.

[Buddahaid]

I for one don't think the anti gun crowd will settle for anything less than an outright ban. Giving an inch will just be another feather in their caps to rally around.

[Oberon]

Valid point, let's face it, there are extremists on both sides, the trouble is finding a solution that makes either side feel like they've achieved something.

Ok, I speak enough of comprise so I should practice some of it. Let's take the whole gun-safe check off the table for a moment. How would the pro-gun members stop or attempt to stop incidents when someone who is not supposed to have access to a firearm be it either because they are too young or have not passed the checks, from gaining access to a firearm through the insecure storage of a firearm by another, be it their parents or a friend?
An example of this being the incident discussed in this thread a few pages ago where an underage boy used his fathers shotgun to shoot a little girl.
Inaction really isn't a morally acceptable option, so how should it be addressed or at the very least attempted to be addressed.

[Buddahaid]

Most similar incidents I've read about the gun owners are charged which is why I thought this fellow would also be charged. Since he's not being charged it must be local law difference or there is more to the circumstances than has been reported.

[Buddahaid]

A quick search and it's 14 states that hold parents liable and one state that requires guns to be locked up.

[August]

Valid point, let's face it, there are extremists on both sides, the trouble is finding a solution that makes either side feel like they've achieved something.

You totally miss the point. Regardless of what compromise is reached it will only move the goal posts to a new starting point and it won't be long before we are asked to compromise yet again and again and again. It's been that way for decades and the anti's are not going to stop because they think they have achieved something.

Ok, I speak enough of comprise so I should practice some of it. Let's take the whole gun-safe check off the table for a moment.That's not a compromise, that's just delaying your next demand a little just like the anti's do. If it's going to be off the table then it should be off the table.

How would the pro-gun members stop or attempt to stop incidents when someone who is not supposed to have access to a firearm be it either because they are too young or have not passed the checks, from gaining access to a firearm through the insecure storage of a firearm by another, be it their parents or a friend?There are laws that address this already just like there are laws that address traffic safety which are just as patchwork built and unevenly applied yet we don't see you in here week after week demanding that we stop all vehicle accidents which are at least 6 times as deadly.

An example of this being the incident discussed in this thread a few pages ago where an underage boy used his fathers shotgun to shoot a little girl.
Inaction really isn't a morally acceptable option, so how should it be addressed or at the very least attempted to be addressed.Requiring guns to be locked up in all situations (which is how I guarantee such a law would be written) pretty much eliminates their use for self defense. How do you intend to balance that need with this Utopian desire for total safety? Again you talk about morally acceptable solutions but you ignore far greater dangers to children which is why I suspect your sincerity here. If 100 dead kids a year triggers such continuous moral outrage then I would expect that 650 dead kids would cause at least six times the anger but you seem perfectly willing to accept that much higher body count because "something" has been tried. Well things have been tried with guns too, 20,000 tries and nothing has worked yet so at what point do we reach the concern level you display toward vehicle deaths?

[Oberon]

You totally miss the point. Regardless of what compromise is reached it will only move the goal posts to a new starting point and it won't be long before we are asked to compromise yet again and again and again. It's been that way for decades and the anti's are not going to stop because they think they have achieved something.

Not one step back! :har: The line must be drawn here, here and no further! :haha: Seriously though, I'm not entirely certain that the moral ground favours such rigid defence, but I guess that is how things are in America and is probably why nothing has gotten done in the States for the past five to six years and why the government seems to be one argument away from another shutdown.

That's not a compromise, that's just delaying your next demand a little just like the anti's do. If it's going to be off the table then it should be off the table.

It's off the table because I want to know if anyone has something better to put on it.

There are laws that address this already just like there are laws that address traffic safety which are just as patchwork built and unevenly applied yet we don't see you in here week after week demanding that we stop all vehicle accidents which are at least 6 times as deadly.

So is this about the subject at hand, or is it about my attempt to find a situation which will please all parties? The way I look at it is that people will attempt to make vehicles safer, and yet any new gun laws to make guns safer are the beginning of the end of the world for America. When Toyota cars were found to have sticking accelerators leading to accidents, did Toyota shrug and say that there was nothing that could be done about it. Nope, they recalled them and fixed it.
Besides, the next level of car technology might well dramatically reduce vehicle accidents, driverless cars. The Google car has only crashed twice in the time it has been in testing and both times a human was controlling it. When the computer controls it, it has dramatically greater reflexes and situational awareness than a human. It will be interesting when such technology becomes widespread to see how much traffic fatalities reduce.

Requiring guns to be locked up in all situations (which is how I guarantee such a law would be written) pretty much eliminates their use for self defense.

The Gunny disagrees:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXnMyKYkPZY

http://www.amazon.com/Gunvault-MVB500-Microvault-Biometric-Pistol/dp/B001UAMZD4

Subsidize the reduction of price of these safes and there's your home defence in a nutshell. A kid can't get hold of it, nor can a burgular.
Outside of the house, a decent holster will suffice.
It's not that difficult really.

How do you intend to balance that need with this Utopian desire for total safety? Again you talk about morally acceptable solutions but you ignore far greater dangers to children which is why I suspect your sincerity here.

Well, to be fair, this thread is entitled "Gun Control thread (merged many)" not "Vehicle safety thread (merged hardly any)" or "Drug abuse thread (merged zero)". So logic dictates that I would talk about morally acceptable solutions in regards to firearms...in a firearms thread. :dead:

If 100 dead kids a year triggers such continuous moral outrage then I would expect that 650 dead kids would cause at least six times the anger but you seem perfectly willing to accept that much higher body count because "something" has been tried.

Indeed, although to say that I accept it is perhaps a misnomer. I am no happier about it than I am about a dead kid being shot by a firearm, stabbed by a knife, drowned, electrocuted, eaten by bears, bombed by the USAF or blown up by Daesh. A dead child is a dead child.
If there was a greater drive in the US to improve gun safety rather than this stonewall defence to try and stop any further drives to improve gun safety because it might stop people from enjoying their bits of metal as freely as they do, then we might not be having this conversation.

Well things have been tried with guns too, 20,000 tries and nothing has worked yet so at what point do we reach the concern level you display toward vehicle deaths?

Well, has anyone tried enforcing proper gun storage and safety? Has anyone tried enforcing the average gun owner to have the same sort of training and safety conscious attitude to a firearm as they should? Have people tried improving access to mental health (another part of my proposal that people seem to have forgotten in favour of zeroing in on the gun part of it)?


Most similar incidents I've read about the gun owners are charged which is why I thought this fellow would also be charged. Since he's not being charged it must be local law difference or there is more to the circumstances than has been reported.

A quick search and it's 14 states that hold parents liable and one state that requires guns to be locked up.

What state requires guns to be locked up? And what do you think would be the effect on these incidents if such laws were made nationwide as opposed to not even a quarter of the nation?

[Dowly]

What state requires guns to be locked up?
Massachusetts :O:

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131L

[Oberon]

Massachusetts :O:

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131L

Danke.
I wonder how this has affected incidents in which the under-aged members of a family are able to access their parents firearms for misdemeanours?
Since the 1990s I can only find four school shootings in Massachusetts...but honestly since in more than a few cases the perpatrators of these shootings are legal gun owners the safe gun law wouldn't have prevented it.
That's where better mental health care and attention comes in, but that's a very difficult subject to sort out.

Now, coming back to these 20,000 gun laws...how many of them are individual state laws which are duplicated across states? It's one of the things that has confused me a lot about America how every difficult state has a different law regarding different things, there's very little consistency across state boundaries. Could these 20,000 laws not be streamlined down a little into a few dozen which are nationwide laws rather than individual state laws?

I mean the sort of thing that says:

1) You can't own certain types of weaponry (Surface to Air missiles, nuclear weapons, anti-tank missiles, chemical bombs, that kind of thing)
2) You must register the weapons you do own and provide evidence that you can safely care for them in a manner in which ensures that anyone who is not authorised to operate the firearm cannot access it.
3) You must purchase the firearm in question from a registered firearms dealer.


Anything else that anyone can think of? :hmmm:

[Buddahaid]

You don't need to register your firearms, nor would I even if required to. The state already knows I've bought two through gun stores and have passed the background checks for both. My other guns are inherited or privately purchased used ones and my business only.

I know what you're looking for but I still believe any reasonable new laws would be easily circumvented and just so much TP in the end.

I read a letter to the editor today and someone's great solution was to require gun owners to belong to a well regulated militia. Fine, I'll start one up then.

[Oberon]

You don't need to register your firearms, nor would I even if required to. The state already knows I've bought two through gun stores and have passed the background checks for both. My other guns are inherited or privately purchased used ones and my business only.

I know what you're looking for but I still believe any reasonable new laws would be easily circumvented and just so much TP in the end.

I read a letter to the editor today and someone's great solution was to require gun owners to belong to a well regulated militia. Fine, I'll start one up then.

Hmmm, valid point, registration would probably just be another added layer of bureaucracy. It is a difficult balance to get a system that's streamlined enough to work but expansive enough to avoid loopholes.
A question though, why is there so much secrecy when in regards to what the government knows what you own in regards to firearms. Generally speaking when someone breaks into your home they're not from the government and if the government wanted to act against its populace we are in a position now where a simple firearm will not protect you against a tyrannical government. Especially not one as well equipped and technologically advanced as the United States. So really the firearms primary objective in modern America is personal safety and protection, against both other Americans and in the very unlikely event that the US is ever invaded.
Ha, the well organised militia, well I guess that's one solution...although to be honest if you replaced that with gun club then that's something, I mean your average gun club is going to teach you proper gun use, maintenance and safety. Plus in an invasion scenario they can double up as militias. :hmmm:

[Buddahaid]

In this country the police need a search warrant to enter your home unless there is a clear crime in progress. If they knock on your door to tell you to keep the party noise down, ask to be invited in and you let them, you've just concented to a search and you could be arrested for something a guest has you didn't even know about. Many and likely most LEO's are good people but some have big chips on their shoulders and are looking for trouble.

[Rockstar]

Hey, I got an idea. Lets outlaw Catholicism to stop Priests buggering little boys. Why shouldnt we? Unless of course you think the number of children abused is acceptable.

[Buddahaid]

Hey, I got an idea. Lets outlaw Catholicism to stop Priests buggering little boys. Why shouldnt we? Unless of course you think the number of children abused is acceptable.

One could but maybe a better goal would be to prevent the fifty or so children from starving to death each year in the US. That problem at least has analogies in trying to control the few that are out of control.

My previous point about home searches was to draw attention to just who would be doing the checking and what powers would they inherit by coming into your home as observers. In other words, where does anyone's privacy end?

[August]

Not one step back! :har: The line must be drawn here, here and no further! :haha: Seriously though, I'm not entirely certain that the moral ground favours such rigid defence, but I guess that is how things are in America and is probably why nothing has gotten done in the States for the past five to six years and why the government seems to be one argument away from another shutdown.

Again you distort what myself and others have told you. Legal gun owners have been stepping back for decades and suddenly to you we're being unreasonable because we don't want to continue stepping back forever until the RKBA is completely gone.

When Toyota cars were found to have sticking accelerators leading to accidents, did Toyota shrug and say that there was nothing that could be done about it. Nope, they recalled them and fixed it.

I guarantee you that if Glock or Ruger found a sticky trigger they would recall and fix it without a law forcing them to do it.

Besides, the next level of car technology might well dramatically reduce vehicle accidents, driverless cars. The Google car has only crashed twice in the time it has been in testing and both times a human was controlling it. When the computer controls it, it has dramatically greater reflexes and situational awareness than a human. It will be interesting when such technology becomes widespread to see how much traffic fatalities reduce.

Heh wouldn't another name for a driverless firearm be "body guard"? :)

Subsidize the reduction of price of these safes

Good luck with that, they won't even subsidize $5 trigger locks let alone a $200 handgun safe. FWIW a safe with similar unlocking mechanism that is big enough for a shotgun would have been a thousand bucks or more. I guess if they can't take the right away maybe they can just price it out of reach of all but the elite rich would be the idea.

Well, to be fair, this thread is entitled "Gun Control thread (merged many)" not "Vehicle safety thread (merged hardly any)" or "Drug abuse thread (merged zero)". So logic dictates that I would talk about morally acceptable solutions in regards to firearms...in a firearms thread. :dead:

You're right although I don't see you post in those type of threads with even close to the frequency and urgency that you do in this one Based on that it seems like you care a lot more about the 100 than the 650. I'm sure that's not how you really feel but the way I see it it does put your comments about acceptable collateral damage into a certain ironic perspective.

If there was a greater drive in the US to improve gun safety rather than this stonewall defence to try and stop any further drives to improve gun safety because it might stop people from enjoying their bits of metal as freely as they do, then we might not be having this conversation.

Really man this isn't about gun safety it's about control over the people. If it were actually about safety then the anti's would abandon their efforts to close this fictitious gun show loop hole and start looking at ways to protect their so called gun free zones and to actually find ways to discourage these monsters from acting in the first place.

Get serious about those things and you might find gun rights supporters more willing to compromise but as long as they continue to try and fix something that would not have prevented these well publicized mass killings but conveniently does include a universal registration scheme which has been long perceived to be the final step before confiscation it's awful hard to trust their motives.

Well, has anyone tried enforcing proper gun storage and safety? Has anyone tried enforcing the average gun owner to have the same sort of training and safety conscious attitude to a firearm as they should?

You get that training when you apply for a concealed carry permit or when you apply for a hunting license. Activities that take you out in public, just like automobiles by the way. But enforcing it though? Your little unarmed council worker is not going to be able walk though the Hood demanding to see everyone's gun safe. This would get ugly quickly.

FWIW you used to get that kind of training in public schools too but the anti's eventually scuppered that idea.

http://timelifeblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/09_113218108.jpg?h=372&w=563

Have people tried improving access to mental health?

Those efforts usually get blocked by the patient privacy advocate lobby. And I guess with good reason seeing how the administration has already tried to take away the gun rights of millions of veterans and seniors for the flimsiest of reasons with no regard for actual risk.

[Betonov]

Hey, I got an idea. Lets outlaw Catholicism to stop Priests buggering little boys. Why shouldnt we? Unless of course you think the number of children abused is acceptable.

That would be an excellent idea and it's a shame it didn't happen 20 years ago before I was forced trough all that confirmation crap.

[Frömmler Vogel]

That would be an excellent idea and it's a shame it didn't happen 20 years ago .
This

[August]

Hey, I got an idea. Lets outlaw Catholicism to stop Priests buggering little boys. Why shouldnt we? Unless of course you think the number of children abused is acceptable.

It wouldn't be the first time my religion was outlawed. What's next you want to start feeding us to the lions too?

[Oberon]

In this country the police need a search warrant to enter your home unless there is a clear crime in progress. If they knock on your door to tell you to keep the party noise down, ask to be invited in and you let them, you've just concented to a search and you could be arrested for something a guest has you didn't even know about. Many and likely most LEO's are good people but some have big chips on their shoulders and are looking for trouble.

That's a fair point, and well put. Thank you for pointing it out in a reasonable manner to me. :yep: What if the person who checked on the gun safes was not a LEO though, and had no powers to arrest or detain anyone but just report on the condition of your gun storage? Would that make it any better?


Again you distort what myself and others have told you. Legal gun owners have been stepping back for decades and suddenly to you we're being unreasonable because we don't want to continue stepping back forever until the RKBA is completely gone.

I just fail to see what the problem of every American being a responsible gun owner by law is. Isn't that what the NRA wants? Every American who owns a gun to be a responsible gun owner?

I guarantee you that if Glock or Ruger found a sticky trigger they would recall and fix it without a law forcing them to do it.

Fair point

Heh wouldn't another name for a driverless firearm be "body guard"? :)

:haha:

Good luck with that, they won't even subsidize $5 trigger locks let alone a $200 handgun safe. FWIW a safe with similar unlocking mechanism that is big enough for a shotgun would have been a thousand bucks or more. I guess if they can't take the right away maybe they can just price it out of reach of all but the elite rich would be the idea.

That's a capitalistic problem though, the noose which we've made for ourselves in that things to make life safer are priced so that only the rich can be safe. Some way of subsidising to force the prices down might help, perhaps the NRA could have some say in this, I mean how much does the NRA receive each year? What about firearms manufacturers? That's a market that's got to be a good earner, surely they could put a bit aside to subsidise either cheaper guns safes and/or research into safer storage systems.

You're right although I don't see you post in those type of threads with even close to the frequency and urgency that you do in this one Based on that it seems like you care a lot more about the 100 than the 650. I'm sure that's not how you really feel but the way I see it it does put your comments about acceptable collateral damage into a certain ironic perspective.

It's the way in which people shrug their shoulders when a school gets shot up that frustrates me, as though no-one really wants to try and stop it any more because of the fear that in trying to do so the 2nd Amendment will be infringed in some way.

Really man this isn't about gun safety it's about control over the people. If it were actually about safety then the anti's would abandon their efforts to close this fictitious gun show loop hole and start looking at ways to protect their so called gun free zones and to actually find ways to discourage these monsters from acting in the first place.


I guess you could build ten foot walls around schools, iron gates with metal detectors on them at the start, armed guards at the front, razor wire on the top of the wall. That's about the only way you could stop someone with a gun walking into a school unmolested. You could arm teachers, I guess, but then what is to stop one of them going postal?

Get serious about those things and you might find gun rights supporters more willing to compromise but as long as they continue to try and fix something that would not have prevented these well publicized mass killings but conveniently does include a universal registration scheme which has been long perceived to be the final step before confiscation it's awful hard to trust their motives.

The thing is, I don't think that anyone could actually be serious about confiscation in the American government because they know that it would lead to a civil war, it's about the only thing that would lead to a civil war and state succession is if someone tried to repeal the 2nd Amendment. It's suicide and anyone who knows America knows this.
I'm all for fixing and preventing school shootings in every and any way possible, although I'd rather it be done without turning schools into prison complexes, but I guess if that's what it takes then that's what it takes.

You get that training when you apply for a concealed carry permit or when you apply for a hunting license. Activities that take you out in public, just like automobiles by the way. But enforcing it though? Your little unarmed council worker is not going to be able walk though the Hood demanding to see everyone's gun safe. This would get ugly quickly.

Well, yeah, the Hood is going to take a little more tactical approach to it, armed LEOs and that, but those kinds of areas are probably used to armed LEOs paying them regular visits anyway.
The training for concealed carry and hunting licenses are good, and I mean I think that's the kind of training that should come with any gun for any reason. I mean showing someone you can shoot straight should be the minimal task for even thinking about owning a gun. I sure as hell wouldn't want to own a weapon until I knew that I could handle it without hurting myself or anyone around me who I didn't intend to hurt.

FWIW you used to get that kind of training in public schools too but the anti's eventually scuppered that idea.

http://timelifeblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/09_113218108.jpg?h=372&w=563

Pity...it should be at least considered as an optional school activity.
It is tricky though because of how some kids are in this day and age, once upon a time you could teach firearms as part of building discipline and skills...but now you're just as likely to get a kid shoot his teacher with it. :/\\!! That comes down to something we did agree on earlier on how society and culture has changed and not necessarily for the better.
Trouble is, it's very difficult to change society, it tends to happen spontaneously.

Those efforts usually get blocked by the patient privacy advocate lobby. And I guess with good reason seeing how the administration has already tried to take away the gun rights of millions of veterans and seniors for the flimsiest of reasons with no regard for actual risk.

I don't mean so much linking firearm access to mental health, although obviously that should be a factor, but more improving access to mental health care in general, so if a parent has a concern about their child they have the ability to get treatment for them quickly. Of course, that in itself is a problematic situation because you have to balance out effective treatments versus medication. Last thing you want to do is raise an army of zombie children, but equally you want to prevent them from going postal. I mean, we can identify a number of factors which can lead to someone going postal, but it's getting to those people before they do.
Can such people be reformed? Some can, I think, but others may need to spend the rest of their lives removed from society.
Does this include veterans? Some, perhaps, but certainly not all. I mean out of all of society you're probably only looking at a maximum of 30% of people with metal health problems, out of which probably only 4% need permanently keeping away from others.

I mentioned earlier three things that I think need looking at in America, one and only one of them was access to firearms, the other two was mental health care and accidental media glorification. Of course, with the first point you run into the 2nd Amendment, and the third point you run into the 1st Amendment, so it's not an easy thing to look at.

Surely though, both pro and anti gun people can agree that the number of school and college shootings in America needs to be reduced? I mean, surely that's one thing we can agree on, even if we can't agree on the how or why, we can agree on the what.

This

At the very least they should not be allowed to hide the sadistic bastards, if a priest is fingered for sacramenting a boy, let him feel the law.

Honestly, I don't care in what form harm comes to a child, it should all be stopped. Rape, Murder, Physical and Mental abuse, Indoctrination, Car accidents, UFO abduction, whatever. Children deserve the chance to live their lives without adult issues and problems infringing on it and ruining it. If a kid wants to dress up as a princess, let them, if they want to learn how to fire a gun, let them, if they want to learn about different religions, let them, let them be whatever they want, within reason, and that reason being that it doesn't harm another child. If a child wants to own a gun, give them a nerf gun, not a rifle. If a child wants to molest or hurt another child, then that needs to be stopped, and the reason why investigated.

Yeah, I get that it's not a black and white world, heck I've been saying that about many things for many years, but I think that if we have the possibility of improving things, especially if it improves things for our children, then we really should try.

[August]

That's a fair point, and well put. Thank you for pointing it out in a reasonable manner to me. :yep: What if the person who checked on the gun safes was not a LEO though, and had no powers to arrest or detain anyone but just report on the condition of your gun storage? Would that make it any better?

It just wouldn't work like that. You know how we always tend to overdo things. Somebody would get a hair across their butt and we'd have armed standoffs and SWAT raids all around the country. Remember people here guard their privacy rights as jealously as any other.

Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-2)against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What would be the probable cause that a gun owner is committing a crime that would justify these intrusive searches?

You could arm teachers, I guess, but then what is to stop one of them going postal?

So what's to stop them now? A sign on the wall saying it's a gun free zone? A zero tolerance policy? I seriously doubt that a teacher or other school employee who has gone postal is going to care at all about that stuff other than to be reassured they won't be hindered by somebody shooting back.

I have to go get some work done now but i'll respond to the rest of your post later. As you Brits say cheers!

[Betonov]

It wouldn't be the first time my religion was outlawed. What's next you want to start feeding us to the lions too?

I remember when my religion was banned.
We used to worship nature, harmony in life, peace after it.
Then christianity came.

[Oberon]

It just wouldn't work like that. You know how we always tend to overdo things. Somebody would get a hair across their butt and we'd have armed standoffs and SWAT raids all around the country. Remember people here guard their privacy rights as jealously as any other.

Fourth Amendment:


What would be the probable cause that a gun owner is committing a crime that would justify these intrusive searches?

Ah, 4th Amendment...I was not aware of the particulars of that one. Hmmm, that does make things complicated. But you chaps understand the goal I'm driving for, would there be other ways of going at it, in regards to getting all gun owners to house their guns in a manner in which their children can't get to them? :hmmm:

So what's to stop them now? A sign on the wall saying it's a gun free zone? A zero tolerance policy? I seriously doubt that a teacher or other school employee who has gone postal is going to care at all about that stuff other than to be reassured they won't be hindered by somebody shooting back.

Well, don't they have metal detectors that people, including staff, have to go through on the way into school? :hmmm: Would that not pick up any hidden firearms? Although I think there's only one detector at the front door, isn't there? So the average shooter usually goes in through another entrance.
That could be something to look at. Likewise windows perhaps need to be upgraded to bulletproof or resistant glass to stop outside shooters shooting in. :hmmm:

I have to go get some work done now but i'll respond to the rest of your post later. As you Brits say cheers!

No probs. :up:

[Oberon]

Could you imagine PETAs outrage if we started feeding Christians to lions again? Wouldn't be worth the hassle. :nope:

[Dowly]

August & Oberon, I admire your endurance on this subject and very much enjoy reading this thread. Both make very goods points. :up:

[Schroeder]

Both make very goods points. :up:
But you are too drunk to understand them.:O:


:D

[Dowly]

But you are too drunk to understand them.:O:


:D
I'm drunk, but what has that go-..


What was the topic again?

[Aktungbby]

I remember when my religion was banned.
We used to worship nature, harmony in life, peace after it.
Then christianity came.
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/horror/dancing-devil-smiley-emoticon.gif (http://www.sherv.net/dancing.devil-emoticon-3838.html) http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?pictureid=7048&albumid=815&dl=1381536131&thumb=1 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/album.php?albumid=815) :arrgh!: Precisely why I joined Subsim!
Well, don't they have metal detectors that people, including staff, have to go through on the way into school? :hmmm: Would that not pick up any hidden firearms? Although I think there's only one detector at the front door, isn't there? So the average shooter usually goes in through another entrance.
That could be something to look at. Likewise windows perhaps need to be upgraded to bulletproof or resistant glass to stop outside shooters shooting in. :hmmm:
Anything fixed in-position is defensive and may be circumvented by an attacker. The secret is to think of it and assume your proactive opponent is already waaay ahead of you; knowing the 'chinks' in your own armor, and making suitable accommodation thereof, is the best remedy.

[Betonov]

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/horror/dancing-devil-smiley-emoticon.gif (http://www.sherv.net/dancing.devil-emoticon-3838.html) http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?pictureid=7048&albumid=815&dl=1381536131&thumb=1 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/album.php?albumid=815) :arrgh!: Precisely why I joined Subsim!


Satan has nothing to do with Slavic paganism :O:
We have Chernobog

[Aktungbby]

We have Chernobog

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/disneyvillains/images/6/6f/Chernabog.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140607021908 (http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/disneyvillains/images/6/6f/Chernabog.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140607021908) Well he's more interesting than Belobog!

[Rockstar]

It wouldn't be the first time my religion was outlawed. What's next you want to start feeding us to the lions too?


Oops sorry, that was an asinine arguement, silly me.

Btw, back in the day I managed to qualify 1st string on the rifle team in high school. We shot the Mossberg M44 U.S. Military trainer. We were pretty damn good too, learned firearm and range safety, respect for our instructors, and the rifle, shot paper targets at 25 yards

Now days kids practice shooting people while watching realtime over the top graphic video games cussing each other out over chat while mommy is away. And people now think the solution is more government, licensing and mental health care. Kee-rist on crutch :/\\!!

[Oberon]

So, what, we ban video games? :hmmm:

[August]

I just fail to see what the problem of every American being a responsible gun owner by law is. Isn't that what the NRA wants? Every American who owns a gun to be a responsible gun owner?

We can't we be responsible gun owners without another useless law trying to mandate it? The overwhelming majority of firearms owners certainly are responsible and we're the only ones who would pay any heed to such a law. Not to beat the car analogy to beyond the grave but in my research on firearms fatality rates I saw a stat that says around half of the child deaths in vehicle accidents were related to them being improperly or completely unrestrained in spite of laws to the contrary. So if someone is so irresponsible as to allow a child to get their hands on a firearm what makes you think that they would care how the state says they should store them?

That's a capitalistic problem though, the noose which we've made for ourselves in that things to make life safer are priced so that only the rich can be safe. Some way of subsidising to force the prices down might help, perhaps the NRA could have some say in this, I mean how much does the NRA receive each year? What about firearms manufacturers? That's a market that's got to be a good earner, surely they could put a bit aside to subsidise either cheaper guns safes and/or research into safer storage systems. That's a typical socialist answer. Pick one group of people to pay for the sins of another group. Why should I subsidize every jerk who acts irresponsibly? The NRA conducts far more gun safety classes than any other organization including the government yet that's not enough they must pay for it too? As I mentioned above what makes you think passing law 20,001 is going to make anyone act more responsibly and use those safes instead of pawning them for another crack rock?

It's the way in which people shrug their shoulders when a school gets shot up that frustrates me, as though no-one really wants to try and stop it any more because of the fear that in trying to do so the 2nd Amendment will be infringed in some way. What is causing these incidents is a flaw in our society, not the presence of an inanimate object that existed in peoples hands long before they started happening. What you interpret as a lack of caring about the incident is really the expression of frustration that once again any other possible cause is immediately ignored in the controllers zeal to once again move the bar a step closer to their goal of banning gun ownership.


Well, yeah, the Hood is going to take a little more tactical approach to it, armed LEOs and that, but those kinds of areas are probably used to armed LEOs paying them regular visits anyway. That'd be real poplar with the Black Lives Matter folks but it's not just the Hood. There are plenty of others who wouldn't put up with it either.
I can't think of a better trigger for that civil war you mentioned

Pity...it should be at least considered as an optional school activity.
It is tricky though because of how some kids are in this day and age, once upon a time you could teach firearms as part of building discipline and skills...but now you're just as likely to get a kid shoot his teacher with it. :/\\!! That comes down to something we did agree on earlier on how society and culture has changed and not necessarily for the better.
Trouble is, it's very difficult to change society, it tends to happen spontaneously.Tricky is an understatement when even biting a pop tart into the shape of a gun earns a kid a suspension. That's a sign of some serious paranoia over firearms that predates these incidents and I believe actually contributes to them.

Surely though, both pro and anti gun people can agree that the number of school and college shootings in America needs to be reduced? I mean, surely that's one thing we can agree on, even if we can't agree on the how or why, we can agree on the what. I know that's certainly what gun owners want, we'd much rather go back to arguing among ourselves over the merits of 9mm vs .45acp in letters to the National Rifleman (the NRA monthly), but I'm starting to wonder about the other side, the purely political organizations like the Bloombergs and the Bradys. They need these incidents to keep their gun control cause alive because without them they get ignored. It's why their public support never lasts very long after these incidents. People realize how their solutions never actually target the problem itself (universal background checks are a prime example of this) and their momentum withers. They even pre-plan their responses to the next incident from what i've read, spending far more on lobbying and media efforts than the NRA could ever hope to match which is not nearly as rich as has been portrayed by the anti-gun media.

Yeah, I get that it's not a black and white world, heck I've been saying that about many things for many years, but I think that if we have the possibility of improving things, especially if it improves things for our children, then we really should try.Well just remember that things have already improved enormously in a comparatively short period of time for our species. While I agree we should always seek to improve more, not being able to achieve perfection does not mean that we haven't been really trying to get to (and keep) this point. It's not so far away from either of our countries that childrens lot in life is far far worse.

[Oberon]

We can't we be responsible gun owners without another useless law trying to mandate it? The overwhelming majority of firearms owners certainly are responsible and we're the only ones who would pay any heed to such a law. Not to beat the car analogy to beyond the grave but in my research on firearms fatality rates I saw a stat that says around half of the child deaths in vehicle accidents were related to them being improperly or completely unrestrained in spite of laws to the contrary. So if someone is so irresponsible as to allow a child to get their hands on a firearm what makes you think that they would care how the state says they should store them?

Agreed, but there are careless accidents and the like that a law might help stop. I mean it's the difference between advising that you wear a seatbelt and making it law to wear a seatbelt. If you are concerned that there might be a law based penalty to your actions then it makes you more focused to do them. Yeah, it's a bit stick rather than carrot, but like you already say, most of the people already do this, so it'll be second nature to them, and it will punish the idiots who don't, preferably before the child gets the gun and shoots someone.

That's a typical socialist answer. Pick one group of people to pay for the sins of another group. Why should I subsidize every jerk who acts irresponsibly? The NRA conducts far more gun safety classes than any other organization including the government yet that's not enough they must pay for it too? As I mentioned above what makes you think passing law 20,001 is going to make anyone act more responsibly and use those safes instead of pawning them for another crack rock?

Eh, I'm a socialist so I give a socialist answer. I must admit I've always struggled to understand the mindset of "I'm alright Jack, let the others hang" that seems to be prevalent in many American responses to situations. It's strange because Americans can be the most caring and giving people in one moment, and the most selfish in the next, I guess it runs with most countries but it seems to be more noticable in responses from Americans. At least it has been on here, perhaps a wider viewpoint is needed sometime, to see if it's just a GT thing. :haha:
But, again, it's surely in the best interest of the NRA to do everything and anything it can to avoid and stop mass-shootings? Therefore, if it is proven that such a scheme would work then it should be looked at by them, IMHO anyway.

What is causing these incidents is a flaw in our society, not the presence of an inanimate object that existed in peoples hands long before they started happening. What you interpret as a lack of caring about the incident is really the expression of frustration that once again any other possible cause is immediately ignored in the controllers zeal to once again move the bar a step closer to their goal of banning gun ownership.

I wouldn't go as far as to take the inanimate object out of the equation completely, because it's far far easier to kill a scattered group of people with a gun than it is to use any other weapon except perhaps high explosives. A knife requires you to get in close, likewise anything like a bat or sword, a bow and arrow requires arm strength and has a relatively low rate of fire except for in the hands of a specialist, and even then unless you hit specific areas, an arrow will do less damage to the human body than most bullets, a car requires a run up to the target and is only really good in wide open spaces, you can't really get a car down a school corridor...well, unless you use a Peel P50 but you'd probably just cause a few broken toes with that. With a gun though, especially with the more recent weapons which have reduced recoil as much as possible (I think of the AA12 assault shotgun, I mean that thing is a beast, good rate of fire, minimal recoil, and very reliable) it's a case of point towards the target and fire, it's so simple that a child can and will operate it in an effective manner with very little training.
In a way, the gun is the ultimate killing device, probably the one of the most lethal devices mankind has ever created, and one of the most simplest in basic function to operate. I mean I could shoot a gun, quite easily, but I doubt I would hit anything with it at range, but close range how could I miss? When you add automatic burst fire to that, with multiple bullets within a fraction of a second and anything in front of you is going to have a bad time of it.

Of course, I'm not going to say that it's completely down to the firearm, that would be nonsense. Until our attack drones gain sentience and turn the firearms on us, it's all just inanimate objects, and yes I agree absolutely that the fleshy bit holding the inanimate object is at least 70-80% of the problem, but it would be wrong to dismiss the firearms role in it completely.

That'd be real poplar with the Black Lives Matter folks but it's not just the Hood. There are plenty of others who wouldn't put up with it either.
I can't think of a better trigger for that civil war you mentioned

Eyeah...that's a fair point. Still, on the upside, at least the firearms will be safely stored during the civil war! :yep: :dead:

Tricky is an understatement when even biting a pop tart into the shape of a gun earns a kid a suspension. That's a sign of some serious paranoia over firearms that predates these incidents and I believe actually contributes to them.

I think both sides have gotten so entrenched and so paranoid about the possible actions of the other that anything is going to be viewed as a direct attack.
I guess that's another part of the frustration, like a lot of things in the US at the moment, there's absolute deadlock with no way forward, and people will suffer because of it.

I know that's certainly what gun owners want, we'd much rather go back to arguing among ourselves over the merits of 9mm vs .45acp in letters to the National Rifleman (the NRA monthly), but I'm starting to wonder about the other side, the purely political organizations like the Bloombergs and the Bradys. They need these incidents to keep their gun control cause alive because without them they get ignored. It's why their public support never lasts very long after these incidents. People realize how their solutions never actually target the problem itself (universal background checks are a prime example of this) and their momentum withers. They even pre-plan their responses to the next incident from what i've read, spending far more on lobbying and media efforts than the NRA could ever hope to match which is not nearly as rich as has been portrayed by the anti-gun media.

I dunno, I think they would probably say the same about your side. That whenever there's a shooting, the fear of a law being passed to ban or restrict firearms means that there's a mass purchasing of ammunition and firearms. I wouldn't be surprised if the pro-gun forums also pre-plan their responses to the next event because let's face it, we both know that there's going to be a next event, and in the age of 24 hour rolling news media, whoever gets their actions out there in the right window of time (not too soon to be seen as capitalising on the tragedy but not so late that the other guy gets their word in first) gets their fans approval. Because, at this late point in the day, the NRA aren't speaking to anti-gun people any clearer than anti-gun people are speaking to pro-gun people, they just speak to their own crowds and try to rope in whatever people in the middle ground that they can. I don't suppose though that there's many left in the middle ground which probably resembles Verdun by now. :haha:

Well just remember that things have already improved enormously in a comparatively short period of time for our species. While I agree we should always seek to improve more, not being able to achieve perfection does not mean that we haven't been really trying to get to (and keep) this point. It's not so far away from either of our countries that childrens lot in life is far far worse.

That's true, that's very true. I think that even if we cannot achieve perfection, we should always strive to get as close to it as we possibly can. In a way it's what humanity as a whole has been doing since we discovered fire, always trying to make life better, safer, and easier for ourselves. Of course, as a socialist, I think that we should focus on spreading that better life to as many people as we can, so that every child can enjoy a standard of life equal to our own, but as a realist I also realise that that is something that isn't going to happen tomorrow. :03:

This has been a good talk, August, and I'm glad that you realise that despite my occasional acerbic language (for which I do apologise) that I'm not trying to attack the pro-gun position, nor am I a staunch believer of the anti-gun crowd. I can see the valid points raised by both sides and I think that to abolish the 2nd Amendment would be a massively foolhardy endeavour and cause a national divide not seen since 1861.
The American viewpoint is at times strange to me, as a Brit and a European, just as I suspect that the European viewpoint is confusing to an American at times. I'd like to think we agree on more things than we disagree, but of course in a place like this, a forum, most of the time we discuss things on which we disagree. Heaven knows, my viewpoint can be strange to some Europeans at times...one only has to look at the migrant thread to see that. :03:
Still, guns or no guns, America is still an awesome place with awesome stuff, so keep being awesome America.

[Oberon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34644333

Welp, time to ban dogs.

Or at the very least, don't call them Trigger. :har:

[Nippelspanner]

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE... dogs(?!) do... :hmmm:

[Buddahaid]

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE... dogs(?!) do... :hmmm:

The sad part is we just kill each other regardless of the means.

[August]

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE... dogs(?!) do... :hmmm:

Dogs being living creatures vs a gun being an inanimate object that cannot operate by itself you are correct.

[Betonov]

Leave dogs out of it.

Frying pans kill people.

[August]

Leave dogs out of it.

Frying pans kill people.

No they don't.

[Betonov]

I just wasted 15min of my life googling up freak accidents with frying pans and the only thing I found is that teflon may poison pet birds.

Avalanches kill people

[August]

I just wasted 15min of my life googling up freak accidents with frying pans and the only thing I found is that teflon may poison pet birds.

Avalanches kill people

They shoot avalanches you know! :)

http://img5.onthesnow.com/image/gg/93/93688.jpg

[Betonov]

I'm from the Alps remember :O:
It's an established doctrine that you can wipe out a company of men by a well placed mortar hit on a mountain to triger an avalanche.
Terrible way to go. A bullet is fast, but an avalanche will burry you in just enough snow to slowly compress your chest so you can only take small shallow breaths and you start loosing oxygen internaly even before that small pocket of air runs out of O2.

And that's why I don't ski

And they shoot avalanches for controlled triger. Before enough snow accumulates to make a nasty avalanche they close of the area and fire a mortar round into the mountain to star a more harmless localised avalanche.

[August]

And that's why I don't ski

I don't believe that has ever been a problem at any of the New England ski slopes. Our mountains are just too small!

[Betonov]

Neither in Slovenia to be honest.
All ski resrts are either up a hill near urban areas or on plateus, rarely 1500m above sea level, while Swiss or French resorts are frequently above 2000m and get more snow. Not to mention now we get the same amount of snow per season what we got per month 20 years ago.

Avalanches are the hikers danger here, not so much skier

[Jimbuna]

President Obama has given an emotional speech about tightening controls on gun purchases in the US.
He said he was using his presidential powers because Congress had failed to act.
The plans include wider background checks on buyers of firearms, in a series of measures to attempt to address gun violence.
At one point, the president appeared overwhelmed, as he listed some of the mass shootings that had taken place in America.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35236992

I suspect this may become his legacy. I'm not an American citizen but I really don't perceive this as an attack on the constitutional right to bear arms.

[Oberon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35236992

I suspect this may become his legacy. I'm not an American citizen but I really don't perceive this as an attack on the constitutional right to bear arms.

(You might want to scoot this over to - http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203106&page=106)

[Sailor Steve]

(You might want to scoot this over to -
The thread that is currently talking about avalanches. :O:

[Jimbuna]

The thread that is currently talking about avalanches. :O:

:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

[Oberon]

The thread that is currently talking about avalanches. :O:

Well, better the avalanche that Jim just started take place there then, surely? :O:

[Jimbuna]

Copied over to suggested thread.

[Oberon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35236992

I suspect this may become his legacy. I'm not an American citizen but I really don't perceive this as an attack on the constitutional right to bear arms.

It's certainly going to create a legacy, along with the ACA. How long that legacy will last if a Republican president comes into office is questionable but with the way things are going at the moment that doesn't look incredibly likely unless something drastic changes in the next year.

It's certainly a softer approach than he could have taken, but I think if he had have gone down a harder route then he would have had a lot of trouble. As it is, I expect this decision will be challenged in every court available.

[Jimbuna]

On the Democratic side, Hillary has already stated she would not overwrite anything should she become the next POTUS but the opposite has been said by Trump and another Republican candidate (the name of whom currently escapes me).

EDIT: Senator Ted Cruz

[Oberon]

On the Democratic side, Hillary has already stated she would not overwrite anything should she become the next POTUS but the opposite has been said by Trump and another Republican candidate (the name of whom currently escapes me).

EDIT: Senator Ted Cruz

Speaking of Cruz:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CX-kGKPUwAA328R.png:large

This was his fundraising campaign back in October. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/16/ted-cruz-fundraising-pitch-obama-wants-your-guns/)

[mapuc]

As I have stated before this is an all American domestic issue and should be solved by them self

I only hope for the innocent there will come some law or laws which both side can agree on.

Markus

[Rockstar]

As I have stated before this is an all American domestic issue and should be solved by them self

I only hope for the innocent there will come some law or laws which both side can agree on.

Markus

not likely to happen anytime soon as election season is right around the corner. Common sense is dead. Fear and polarizing party politics rule the day.

[GT182]

Let's hope Hillary the Liar doesn't get elected. If she does, it will be a continuation of the crap Obama has pulled on us. And both of them should be in prison for what happened in Benghazi.

[Buddahaid]

Seriously, every politician should be in prison. They've all pulled crap to be where they are and none of them have clean hands. :hmmm:

[em2nought]

Let's hope Hillary the Liar doesn't get elected. If she does, it will be a continuation of the crap Obama has pulled on us. And both of them should be in prison for what happened in Benghazi.

Maybe Hillary's daughter should be the next Libyan ambassador. :hmmm:

[Nippelspanner]

Let's hope Hillary the Liar doesn't get elected. If she does, it will be a continuation of the crap Obama has pulled on us. And both of them should be in prison for what happened in Benghazi.
If you don't want a liar to be elected... you want no one to be elected.
You can't possibly imply that Hillary is any different then the others?

[U505995]

Let's hope Hillary the Liar doesn't get elected. If she does, it will be a continuation of the crap Obama has pulled on us. And both of them should be in prison for what happened in Benghazi.
I also hope that Hillary doesn't make it to the oval office, but in all likelihood there is a pretty good chance. I don't think there will be another republican president in a very long time unfortunately.:shifty: My problem with gun control is that the far left wants to go too far and totally ban semi automatic rifles and handguns and the far right wants to do too little when it comes to restrictions. If we look at the class three weapons license which allows a person to own fully automatic firearms in the US. It requires a person to pay 1,000 dollars, get fingerprinted by the fbi, and have the sheriff of the township stop by your house to be sure you have a safe secure place to store such weapons. There has not been a single incidence where a person with a class 3 has used their firearms for ill intent. If we enacted something similar but not as extreme for AR type weapons and semi auto handguns I believe it could significantly reduce the amount of incidences. For example if someone wants a handgun or an AR they would go through a training course, background check, a possible evaluation, then that person would get his or her license to purchase and possess that type of firearm. But once again this would be too little for the democrats and too much draconian government tyranny for the republicans.

[MaDef]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35236992

I suspect this may become his legacy. I'm not an American citizen but I really don't perceive this as an attack on the constitutional right to bear arms.Firstly, the second amendment is pretty clear for those of us who can read, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". Secondly, President Obama overstepped his authority. Under our constitution, the executive branch does not make law, the legislative branch does.

As an anecdote, having lived in different states where gun laws were either lax or restrictive, I find I feel safer (to the point I don't feel the need to always carry a gun) in states with less restrictive ownership/carry laws.

[August]

On the Democratic side, Hillary has already stated she would not overwrite anything should she become the next POTUS but the opposite has been said by Trump and another Republican candidate (the name of whom currently escapes me).

EDIT: Senator Ted Cruz

What do you mean by overwrite Jim? Do you mean roll back Obamas executive actions?

[Jimbuna]

What do you mean by overwrite Jim? Do you mean roll back Obamas executive actions?

Yes Sir :yep:

[Betonov]

Correct me if I asked this before, whats' the gun policy on us tourists in the US ??
Let's say I visit a friend and we go hunting. Am I allowed to carry a rifle (borowed or rented) ??

[August]

Correct me if I asked this before, whats' the gun policy on us tourists in the US ??
Let's say I visit a friend and we go hunting. Am I allowed to carry a rifle (borowed or rented) ??

Depends on the state. Each one is different in that regard. Which state would you be talking about?

[August]

Yes Sir :yep:

Ah, yeah she'll not only leave Obamas actions in place she would significantly add to them if she can.

[Betonov]

Depends on the state. Each one is different in that regard. Which state would you be talking about?

I'll know when I'll decide to go. It's only theoretical for now.

[August]

I'll know when I'll decide to go. It's only theoretical for now.

I see, well in general the further south or west that you go it'll be less regulated (except the Peoples Republic of California). Once you decide i'll be happy to look up the non resident regulations for that state on the NRAs website for you.

[Betonov]

I see, well in general the further south or west that you go it'll be less regulated (except the Peoples Republic of California). Once you decide i'll be happy to look up the non resident regulations for that state on the NRAs website for you.

Ahh, thanks. Much abliged.
By the rate I make money right now I should be able to afford a State visit (pun intended) somewhere around 2040 :doh:

[August]

Ahh, thanks. Much abliged.
By the rate I make money right now I should be able to afford a State visit (pun intended) somewhere around 2040 :doh:

I'll be 91 years old by then! :o

[mapuc]

About ½ hour ago I read a thread/statement made by George Takei(Sulu)posted yesterday around midnight

A person named Dylan Walter Posted a very interesting comments(About 15.000 has liked his comment)

I will as a respect for this person not copy his comment.

Markus

[Platapus]

There has not been a single incidence where a person with a class 3 has used their firearms for ill intent. ...


I hate to be "that guy". Well actually I love being that guy. :D

1. On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, (32), used his legally possessed fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber sub-machine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman.

Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison.

He got 15 years to life plus 3 years for using a gun in crime. Parole was denied in January 2011 and he still lives at Grafton Correctional

2. Dr. Shou Chao Ho killed Dr. Carmelito Olaes on 14 September 1992 and pleaded guilty to it. Sentenced 15 years to life by judge Judy Cross and 3 years for using a firearm in a crime plus he also had charges for harassing hospital staff with firearms.

He is still in Warren Correctional first parole hearing is in september of 2016.

While a very small number, unfortunately we can not say that no legally owned class 3 machine gun has ever been used in a crime.

[Oberon]

About ½ hour ago I read a thread/statement made by George Takei(Sulu)posted yesterday around midnight

A person named Dylan Walter Posted a very interesting comments(About 15.000 has liked his comment)

I will as a respect for this person not copy his comment.

Markus

He makes a fair point, but even fair points will be lost amidst the rhetoric of this subject.

[Nippelspanner]

About ½ hour ago I read a thread/statement made by George Takei(Sulu)posted yesterday around midnight

A person named Dylan Walter Posted a very interesting comments(About 15.000 has liked his comment)

I will as a respect for this person not copy his comment.

Markus
https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Jackie-Chan-WTF.jpg

[Rockstar]

Maybe you could post the gist of it for those of us who do not have Facebook.

[mapuc]

Maybe you could post the gist of it for those of us who do not have Facebook.

You are right

a comment on Takei's wall is public.

Here is what this Dylan wrote

For those who think President Obama is over reaching in his authority, or he is acting like a king with his "Executive Orders", please remember that he is charged with the enforcement of federal law--how this enforcement is to be done is left to him by both Congress and The Court, so long as it is within the rule of law. If Congress finds what he is doing to be unlawful or outside his authority, they can pass new laws--better written laws to guide the President in how they intended him to enforce the law in the first place.

The mantra from the gun lobby for the past 20 years or so has been: "We don't need more gun laws, we need enforcement of the laws we have now." Well, today, President Obama did just that; he used existing laws to close loopholes and enforce federal regulations. He is operating in the exact manner in which the Constitution mandates he do. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, but I think, like our President does, if we can save even one life or prevent even one shooting, we are doing the right thing.

I was so proud of the President this morning. I can only hope that others will follow his example.

Markus

[Nippelspanner]

^
Thank you.

[Rockstar]

Thanks Markus

http://i.giphy.com/nZQ5gBbkgE6GY.gif

[Mr Quatro]

The man that Markus quoted said; I was so proud of the President this morning. I can only hope that others will follow his example.

President Obama did close a loophole in the right to own guns that is for sure, but I can't be proud of him and it has nothing to do with his being black.

Doesn't closing this loophole of sellers conventions come close to gun registration?

Sure sounds like it due to after this law goes into effect every gun owner that purchases a gun from that time on will be known :yep:

even if all of his gun purchases before this law were made at a legal gun show.

Just a matter of time before you know what happens :o

I see a lot of money changing hands already based on what the GOP and the democratict front runners are saying.

[Sailor Steve]

...and it has nothing to do with his being black.
So why mention it? No one else here has. Is this a problem?

[Nippelspanner]

So why mention it? No one else here has. Is this a problem?
Yep, this. :haha:

[Tchocky]

The spectre of a government "coming to get your guns" is one of those recurring tropes in this debate that is fanciful garbage designed to increase campaign donations and/or firearm sales.

As for the similar apocalyptic predictions of mass registration, I don't see the issue.

I have to register my car, motorbike, even my laptop. It's not beyond the realms of logic that a gun should be registered.

[Sailor Steve]

It's not beyond the realms of logic that a gun should be registered.
Is it beyond the realms of logic that a knife should be registered? A baseball bat?

Cars are registered because they are a prime source of taxation. You have to be licensed to drive a car on public roads, but not if you only drive it on your own property.

Does your laptop have to be registered with the government, or just with the manufacturer?

[Betonov]

I have to register my car, motorbike, even my laptop. It's not beyond the realms of logic that a gun should be registered.

Laptop ??

[Buddahaid]

Laptop ??

Really?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0lu5klQpk9Y/UeOu9Cl3nII/AAAAAAAAA5c/W4-Is_oF4NY/s640/ASUS+N550JV-DB72T+15.6-Inch+Laptop+PC+Review.jpg

[Betonov]

Really?


I know what a laptop is :O:

I don't get why he has to register a laptop

[Cybermat47]

I know what a laptop is :O:

I don't get why he has to register a laptop

Well, it's because... because...

I don't get it.

[Jimbuna]

Registration is usually required by some companies to activate your warranty.

[MaDef]

The spectre of a government "coming to get your guns" is one of those recurring tropes in this debate that is fanciful garbage designed to increase campaign donations and/or firearm sales. you aren't familiar with the New York Safe act, or the new California "Gun Violence Restraining Order Law". While the government isn't implementing these policies wholesale across the country, at the state level, their doing there Damnedest to confiscate guns.

[Tchocky]

Laptop ??


With the company for tech support etc. Yeah I probably should have kept the list at two

you aren't familiar with the New York Safe act, or the new California "Gun Violence Restraining Order Law".

I am actually. I remember the NY law being passed. The only confiscation provisions are in case of failure to register, a disqualifying mental health diagnosis, or continued violations of the law.
California has had confiscation provisions struck down by appeals courts, and the only confiscation provision on the books is limited to 21 days and only to "high-risk" individuals.

While the government isn't implementing these policies wholesale across the country, at the state level, their doing there Damnedest to confiscate guns.

No. No they are not. Only 4 states have seizure laws, and they are similar to the one in California I just described.

You're exaggerating.

[Betonov]

With the company for tech support etc. Yeah I probably should have kept the list at two
.

Problem is I understood it as a compolsury registration like a car or motorcycle. State level.
Registration with the company for tech support and warranty is quite understandable.

[Rockstar]

After reading the news at whitehouse.gov regarding the executive action taken by our president. I really think its nothing more other than to simply generate a bunch of political hay and bureaucracy.

There are 30,000 gun related deaths each year. Of those 61% are suicides so this just may prevent the suicidal from using a gun and jump off a building instead, but thats about it.

[MaDef]

@Tchocky, I'm not going to argue semantics over this. But I will leave you with this thought. At the present time it's easier/quicker to buy a weapon on the black market than it is to buy one legally. so these "feel good" laws that get passed are, in the short term, a waste of time/money/effort, but in the long term, whittles away more of my constitutional rights.

[Mr Quatro]

So why mention it? No one else here has. Is this a problem?

Moderators shouldn't laugh at people ... why did you bring it up?

[Tchocky]

@Tchocky, I'm not going to argue semantics over this.

Neither am I. Correcting a blatantly incorrect statement isn't "semantics".
You said the government are doing their damnedest to confiscate weapons. That's. Not. True.

Semantics is the difference between a magazine and a clip when talking about laws.

But I will leave you with this thought. At the present time it's easier/quicker to buy a weapon on the black market than it is to buy one legally.What? This makes no sense.

Quicker maybe. But there are problems with this line of thinking.

Easier, hell no.

-If you're in a state with a waiting period and if you know the right people.
-If you have a connection you trust.
-If the criminal has the weapon you want at the price you want.
-If you are comfortable committing a crime to get your firearm.
-If you're sure that the seller isn't participating in a sting operation.

This doesn't work out to "quicker/easier". For example, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona and Alaska all have no waiting period before you get your gun.

And that's just the "A" states. I could go on.


so these "feel good" laws that get passed are, in the short term, a waste of time/money/effort, but in the long term, whittles away more of my constitutional rights.Huh? An extra 200 background checking staff, which merely adds weight to the laws already on the books, is a "feel-good" move? And how do they erode your rights under the 2nd Amendment?

I don't see how background checks for gun sellers does this either.

Or the extra half a billion for mental health services relating to gun violence.

Or the research into "smart gun" technology.

I agree in a sense that small-scale efforts like this are not going to make a huge difference, but that is more reflective of political reality than anything else.

This is all that can be done right now.

[Nippelspanner]

<snip>
Great post! :salute:

[Sailor Steve]

Moderators shouldn't laugh at people ... why did you bring it up?
I'm not laughing, and I wasn't asking as a moderator. I was just curious. You brought it up, for no reason that I can see. Again, if his race and color have no bearing on anything, why mention it at all?

[Onkel Neal]

A case in court to hold the manufacturer accountable in the Sandy Hook massacre.

Wheeler and Barden are part of a potentially precedent-setting lawsuit seeking accountability from gun-maker Remington.


"Our families deserve that day in court," said Joshua Koskoff, an attorney representing nine victims' families and a teacher who survived. "We believe they should be accountable to their fair share of responsibility."

The case has the potential to make history if it goes to trial. A 2005 federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, grants gun manufacturers immunity from any lawsuit related to injuries that result from criminal misuse of their product -- in this case the AR-15 rifle.

"It's always been a big uphill battle for plaintiffs to sue the gun industry," said Georgia State University law professor Timothy Lytton. "It was even before the immunity (legislation), and it's an even bigger one now."

One exception to the immunity legislation is what's called "negligent entrustment."

"Say a gun retailer handed a gun to a visibly intoxicated person, then they're not subject to the immunity," said Lytton, who studies gun industry litigation.

You might ask: Since Remington did not come into direct contact with the shooter -- that happened at a gun retailer -- how would that apply? The lawsuit argues that the way in which the company sells and markets a military-style weapon to the civilian market is a form of negligent entrustment.

"Remington took a weapon that was made to the specs of the U.S. military for the purpose of killing enemy soldiers in combat -- and that weapon in the military is cared for with tremendous amount of diligence, in terms of training, storage, who gets the weapon, and who can use it," Koskoff, the attorney for the families, said. "They took that same weapon and started peddling it to the civilian market for the purposes of making a lot of money."

And it is completely legal. I can see holding a manufactuer accountable if they broke the law or took reckless action....but this is like saying a drunk driver who killed someone--quick, what make car was he driving, let's sue them.

At some point this could end up in the SC....

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/health/sandy-hook-families-gun-lawsuit/index.html

[August]

A case in court to hold the manufacturer accountable in the Sandy Hook massacre.



And it is completely legal. I can see holding a manufactuer accountable if they broke the law or took reckless action....but this is like saying a drunk driver who killed someone--quick, what make car was he driving, let's sue them.

At some point this could end up in the SC....

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/health/sandy-hook-families-gun-lawsuit/index.html

Maybe they're hoping that the insurer will see a settlement as the cheaper option which would allow the anti's to declare victory. Only nine of the 26 families have signed onto this which should say something to it's overreach.

The larger purpose here however is not to win the lawsuit but rather to impose gun control by bankrupting gun dealers and manufacturers out of business with waves of lawsuits. Even frivolous lawsuits costs money to defend against, money which some, including most small time dealers, can't afford. The only thing that stopping most of them is the PLCAA and that's definitely on their radar to repeal.

Until then I hope that once this attempt fails Remington and the other defendants counter sue the pants off of them for legal costs.

[Oberon]

Even I consider this daft. Sure, it wouldn't hurt gun manufacturers to create safer, tamper-free guns, but you can't sue someone for it.
Heck, it's not as if the weapon didn't do its job, it did it very well, can't blame them for that. In fact, to be honest, the only blame to be put around here is squarely at the shooters feet. His mother had the firearms, yes, and he was able to access them, but he was 20 years old and she had no reason to think that he'd do something crazy, despite his psychological issues, which to be honest, many other people have had and have not shot up a school.
It's really only in hindsight that red flags start appearing, sadly.

[Skybird]

:dead:

If the authorities would know what I can do with a simple kitchen knife or a provisional baton, a Kubotan or a Tonfa , following this case's logic I would need to have a SWAT team jumping on me in no time.

[Commander Wallace]

A case in court to hold the manufacturer accountable in the Sandy Hook massacre.



And it is completely legal. I can see holding a manufactuer accountable if they broke the law or took reckless action....but this is like saying a drunk driver who killed someone--quick, what make car was he driving, let's sue them.

At some point this could end up in the SC....

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/health/sandy-hook-families-gun-lawsuit/index.html


I try not to even think of Sandy Hook considering how absolutely horrible and unimaginable things were. No matter what happened to the shooter, the parents were essentially given a life sentence of remembering their lost child that was senselessly taken away. We all feel terrible of what happened.

Nothing is going to bring those lost children back. Legal actions such as this are essentially to assign blame. I'm sure the gun manufacturer had no idea this was going to take place. As long as the gun manufacturer legally manufactured and sold the weapons through legally authorized stores and outlets, they are blameless.

Everyone including Oberon and August made good points as well. It could be these lawyers want to make a name for themselves in that they slayed the " dragon " There has to be a common sense way to keep weapons out of the hands of those who shouldn't possess them. This isn't the way. I hope the case is dismissed.

As you said Neal, vehicles of every kind kill a greater number of people every year in auto crashes. Should they be banned as well ?

[U505995]

I'm a pro-gun guy but I found this cartoon that made me laugh.
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/ec/ec1e96eafa5db7d16b073539d67ce774d6c99b644cf2f76d88 23f508f9ca3d4a.jpg
No Obama was never going to take er guns, but all they people were going crazy over it.

[Platapus]

I try not to even think of Sandy Hook considering how absolutely horrible and unimaginable things were. No matter what happened to the shooter, the parents were essentially given a life sentence of remembering their lost child that was senselessly taken away. We all feel terrible of what happened....
As you said Neal, vehicles of every kind kill a greater number of people every year in auto crashes. Should they be banned as well ?

I would opine that more children are "taken away" because of alcohol related events than by guns. But I don't see anyone pushing for more alcohol.

Some claim that the "only purpose" of a gun is to kill. Ok, accepting that argument I would counter that the "only purpose" of alcohol is to impair judgement and get people drunk.

Which is the greater threat to society?

Well the answer is what ever you don't personally enjoy doing. :hmmm:

[Onkel Neal]

I would opine that more children are "taken away" because of alcohol related events than by guns. But I don't see anyone pushing for more alcohol.

Some claim that the "only purpose" of a gun is to kill. Ok, accepting that argument I would counter that the "only purpose" of alcohol is to impair judgement and get people drunk.

Which is the greater threat to society?

Well the answer is what ever you don't personally enjoy doing. :hmmm:

Well said.

[Platapus]

The easiest right to infringe is a right you don't personally use.

As an atheist, I would not mind if the First Amendment right to freedom of religion were to be repealed. Might solve some problems.

However, as an American, I will fight to maintain the citizen's right to freedom of religion as I recognize that my personal feelings/opinions/beliefs should not dictate what others are allowed to do. I also recognize that despite some extremists, religion is positive influence on our society.

I wish the anti-gun people would have the same thought process.

In any case if safety and "think of the children" is truly the motivation, guns are low on the list of stuff that needs fixin' in this country.

So, sure, put the risks to our citizens in order of most occurrences and start working on fixing that list. When we fix the other stuff, then perhaps we can start talking about guns.

But when guns are moved to the top of the list, logic is simply not the primary motivator. Emotions and politics are.

A right should not be infringed based on emotions or politics. :nope:

[Commander Wallace]

I would opine that more children are "taken away" because of alcohol related events than by guns. But I don't see anyone pushing for more alcohol.

Some claim that the "only purpose" of a gun is to kill. Ok, accepting that argument I would counter that the "only purpose" of alcohol is to impair judgement and get people drunk.

Which is the greater threat to society?

Well the answer is what ever you don't personally enjoy doing. :hmmm:


I'm not sure if I would agree alcohol takes more kids lives but without statistical numbers.... Maybe from drunk drivers I'm thinking. However, your point is well made that there are more important things to fix and as we both said, you can't ban cars and alcohol although they did try to ban alcohol once.

As usual, you present a thought provoking post and thread.

[Nippelspanner]

I would opine that more children are "taken away" because of alcohol related events than by guns. But I don't see anyone pushing for more alcohol.

Some claim that the "only purpose" of a gun is to kill. Ok, accepting that argument I would counter that the "only purpose" of alcohol is to impair judgement and get people drunk.

Which is the greater threat to society?

Well the answer is what ever you don't personally enjoy doing. :hmmm:
I wonder, why do people always bring a completely different problem into the debate?
This is the gun control thread. Not the alcohol abuse thread.
While I get your point, I don't think it is sensible to go along with it.

Debate the topic, don't create straw-men like that, or "cars" (the usual excuse).
(And no, I am still not anti-gun.)

[HunterICX]

Which is the greater threat to society?

Drunks with Guns

[u crank]

Drunks with Guns

Drunks with guns driving cars.

[Catfish]

I am a bit undecided, when it comes to guns and g. control.

Freedom and all, ok.
I have used guns, but i do not need it. I can admire a good piece of craftmanship, be it a Coventry climax engine or a historic rifle. I do not like modern gun stuff though.

But in Europe, in a city.. what for. I f i lived in Canada, in a blockhouse, 300 miles away from the next village, i'd of course need it. But i would also need the skill to skin, pluck, and preserve food.


Having it for a balance towards some dictatorial government, and the armed forces? I guess not.
But then german military would probably not be able to get one helicopter in the air, when it was needed :O:

[Schroeder]

But in Europe, in a city.. what for.

That all depends on whether you feel safe or not. Since new year's eve a lot of people don't feel safe anymore and don't trust the police to be able to handle the job so they arm themselves. Pepper spray and blank guns that can fire pepper or CS gas are sold out almost everywhere and sometimes sold for horrendous prices on auction sites. There has also been a rush on blank gun permits in a lot of cities.

(for all non Germans you actually need a concealed carry permit to carry a blank gun in Germany...:doh:)

I have been carrying a blank gun with pepper and CS for years just as a precaution (I once had to witness my mother being attacked by a dog and since then I feel a bit naked without any type of defensive weapon). I've never needed it so far but to me it's like the seat belt in a car. You only have to need it once to make it worth to put on every time you drive.


It's probably the same with real guns. If you don't feel safe in your environment and don't trust the police to be quick / strong enough to help you in an emergency you probably want to take your safety into your own hands.

[Betonov]

Problem with a gun is that it's good for a single mugger.
But when they come after you in a pack, you shoot one, the rest jump you an dnow you have surrounding you a pack with a gun looking to avenge their fallen comrade.

[Schroeder]

Problem with a gun is that it's good for a single mugger.
But when they come after you in a pack, you shoot one, the rest jump you an dnow you have surrounding you a pack with a gun looking to avenge their fallen comrade.
Very unlikely IMHO as no one wants to be the second guy to buy it (if we're talking about real guns). Most guns can shoot more than once. ;)

[Betonov]

Very unlikely IMHO as no one wants to be the second guy to buy it (if we're talking about real guns). Most guns can shoot more than once. ;)

And most guns only hit what you aim at, ergo the people not behind you.

[Schroeder]

And most guns only hit what you aim at, ergo the people not behind you.
Maybe people on the Balkans are braver than the average thug here but over here people usually start running when they hear a shot...

[Betonov]

Maybe people on the Balkans are braver than the average thug here but over here people usually start running when they hear a shot...

They have tactic.
You're surrounded before you even know what's going on.
Pull a gun ad two of them land on your back while you still have three in front.

[Oberon]

The average automatic pistol has quite a high rate of fire, you could probably fire three or four shots before anyone from behind got you, it wouldn't be that accurate but if you were close range then accuracy becomes less of an issue.
Of course, the favourite gang-banger weapon in the states is Israeli and that's the Uzi, and that thing will put out a stupid number of bullets in quick succession with a fairly small recoil.
Of course, that won't do much against the people behind you. :hmmm: