Stephen King on US gun contols.

How about something more local then steve.
When would you say the USA established firearm regulations?
1776, 1783 or 1788?

[Sailor Steve]

Irrelevant, since you still haven't told me where you actually stand on the issue.

Irrelevant, since you still haven't told me where you actually stand on the issue.

It isn't irrelevant, plus I have told you several times where I stand on the issue.
You do understand the question and the nature of the question don't you.
Is that why you don't want to answer it?
Answering it would demonstrate that the most popular and most frequent arguement put out by one section of the debate is based on an entirely false line of reasoning.
From day 1 the US has had firearm regulations and has always had them ever since.
The only genuine arguement about regulation of firearms is simply their scope.

[Armistead]

Certainly guns have been regulated in some fashion since our conception of a nation by the Fed, state and local law. It was common in the wild west for cities to vote in no guns within town limits. However, we know that no amount of regulation will stop gun crime if a person chooses to do so.

If was interesting watching several of the Newtown parents testify before congress, some were pro gun, stating that more gun laws wouldn't stop such acts, others stating that the life of their children come before any other rights.

The big issue with these mass shootings seems to be how to we keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. There has been some talk of connecting guns to a drug data base, you apply, it can see what meds you're taking, any meds related to mental health would throw up a flag. The problem is Doctors hand out "stress meds" like candy, over 50% of Americans have been prescribed something that would cause a red flag. So then would come the process of getting medical approval, very costly and most Doctors don't want to be involved due to possible lawsuits and more insurance. Then the obvious issue, a person that wants to do a mass shooting can't get a gun legally, they'll just find one illegally.

[Sailor Steve]

"plus I have told you several times where I stand on the issue"

No, you haven't. You evaded the question forever, and then finally said it was in flux. When someone asks my opinion about an issue I tell them straightforwardly, without any games. You don't seem capable of doing anything straightforwardly.

I think I'm done with you now. I'd put you on ignore, but I still need to keep a close eye on your games. Goodbye.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I think I'm done with you now. I'd put you on ignore, but I still need to keep a close eye on your games. Goodbye.

Having a back in forth with Tribesman? I put that Trollmeister on my ignore list a very long time ago.

No, you haven't.

Yes I have.

I put that Trollmeister on my ignore list a very long time ago.

That is how you can call someone a guy with credentials when he is shown to be a crackpot.

[Sammi79]

I've got to say,

The subsim spelling nazis are clearly losing their touch. 200+ replies and not a single mention of the mistake in the title. It's just not good enough.

In fact it's so poor I've just had to do it for them.

And this used to be such a totalitarian forum. My oh my how things change...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

The subsim spelling nazis are clearly losing their touch. 200+ replies and not a single mention of the mistake in the title. It's just not good enough.

No spelling nazis here. I'm concerned with grammar and usage, not typos. Anybody can make a mistake. It's the ones who actually abuse the language that bother me.

In fact it's so poor I've just had to do it for them.

No, you're actually the only one.

And this used to be such a totalitarian forum. My oh my how things change...

Still is, but only where behavior is concerned.

[MH]

Then the obvious issue, a person that wants to do a mass shooting can't get a gun legally, they'll just find one illegally.

Maybe he will maybe not.
Finding gun illegally may involve risk and getting caught in the processes.
Some may succeed some may not.
There is also the issue which guns are suitable for self defence and which are for mass shooting.
You can say that explosives could be sold in walmart just because if someone wants to blow up empire state building he will anyway.

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

No spelling nazis here. I'm concerned with grammar and usage, not typos. Anybody can make a mistake. It's the ones who actually abuse the language that bother me.

And a very fine job you do, if I may say so Mr Steve.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

No, you're actually the only one.

Such flattery is sadly wasted on me. Having only noticed myself after several days, then self deprecating by pointing it out, hardly qualifies me for such an esteemed position I fear.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Still is, but only where behavior is concerned.

Really? That is encouraging, I never would have guessed. Thank you for assuaging my doubts and concerns.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by MH

Maybe he will maybe not.
Finding gun illegally may involve risk and getting caught in the processes.
Some may succeed some may not.

It ain't hard if you know where to go. I know a lady who's from South Africa, and as far as i know she can't go into a gunstore and buy a firearm. Yet she has a couple, that she says she got off "The black market". I don't know the details, and i don't want to know. All this lady wants, is the ability to defend herself.

There is also the issue which guns are suitable for self defence and which are for mass shooting.

I'm gonna call BS here, for one, your wordsmithing and trying to frame the argument to your liking, and for two this is a blatant attempt to label rifles based on Armalite Rifle No 15 (which happen to be one the best self defense rifle you could own) as weapons designed for mass shooting. Weapons designed for mass shooting have been banned and heavily regulated since 1934.

You can say that explosives could be sold in walmart just because if someone wants to blow up empire state building he will anyway.

You may as well be suggesting that we

[MH]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I'm gonna call BS here, for one, your wordsmithing and trying to frame the argument to your liking, and for two this is a blatant attempt to label rifles based on Armalite Rifle No 15 as weapons designed for mass shooting. Weapons designed for mass shooting have been banned and heavily regulated since 1934.

It is just a matter of definition that dates back to 1934.
As some one who owns modern assault rifle (with no auto) next to hand gunyou should know the difference in fire power and capability between that one and any other.

[August]

Interesting article:

NRA chief: Why we fight for gun rights

(CNN) -- After President Lyndon Johnson signed the Gun Control Act of 1968, many anti-gun politicians looked forward to the day when they could completely ban the sale and ownership of firearms and perhaps even confiscate those already in private hands.

After the draconian legislation imposed restrictions on "dealing" firearms, Sen. Ted Kennedy wrote to the NRA to demand our support for a national gun licensing and registration system. A few years later, a Nixon administration advisory commission proposed that all side arms be outlawed and confiscated in about a decade.

That didn't happen. Those hostile to firearms ownership and the Second Amendment thought they were on the verge of victory, but had in fact managed to wake up millions of Americans who hadn't previously believed that government would ever threaten their guns or their way of life. They were joined by others who were not necessarily gun owners but believed the Second Amendment and the rights it guaranteed a free people worth preserving.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/opinio...Most+Recent%29

[Cybermat47]

Bugger

http://www.news.com.au/world/two-sho...-1226566379028