Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
The key difference being that the gun is designed solely to kill and the Mercedes is designed to transport and can kill as a byproduct and probably isn't very effective at killing masses of people as we saw in Vegas.
Gun control laws are needed, either increasing liability or circumventing the second amendment.
Your reasoning is exactly why I said I hate to use this analogy: it's usually misused and abused by the second amendment crowd. In this case it's still accurate though: manufacturing weapons and manufacturing cars are both entirely legal enterprises, with controls and regulations.
And regarding the necessity of gun control laws, I agree with you, you don't have to convince me. However, our whole discussion began with your post about a possible class action lawsuit. Which is a different matter entirely, and one that has no legal basis as of right now. Gun manufacturers are not liable in this sense; they're not obliged to make sure that their weapons cannot kill people. If they actually made guns that were useless in killing people, their revenue streams would die up pretty quickly.
Cheers @InfiniteBoredom it makes sense I suppose.
Right and I was thinking about civil law as a way to combat the issue, obviously that would need to be put in place and Hillary had some plans for this I believe.
If you look at who it is that mostly spouts things about wanting guns to protect themselves from the government, well it is mostly right wingers. So in the context of this thread, a discussion about guns in the US, the fear of the government, well yeah it is the right wing we need to be concerned about.
I posted in the Vegas thread but probably better off in this thread.
This is even dumber than crying, "Cars kill people, we should ban cars!"
This is even dumber than crying, "Cars kill people, we should ban cars!"
its about enacting laws.
They should and will eventually be held liable.
Everything is about gaining power.
Then make laws that are for the benefit of the majority.
I'd agree but I think the only thing that would significantly reduce the amount of these incidents is reducing the amount of guns in the country and that's not going to happen. I know this sounds harsh but I've learned to just forget about these kinds of events because I don't think anything is going to happen. There will be another massacre like this within the next few years and again and again. Bill O' Reilly was mocked for saying that the massacre was the price of freedom but I think enough Americans see having access to guns as a basic human right that these massacres will be accepted by people. Within a week or two, the NRA will go back to its normal thing until the next time.
The other argument is "well banning drugs didn't stop cocaine and heroin from being used so why would banning guns?" I'm not sure which is more stupid.
Thanks Carolina red - great article!
I think one of the many issues with "gun control" is that too many have a kneejerk reaction to any mention of it. There also is a very wide definition of what gun control means to any person, how it is defined. Technically, there are gun laws in the US, so there is some measure of "gun control," it is far to much on the permissive side (understatement I know). But what happens is any mention of the words "gun control" and you automatically get some people reacting as if it means a 100% ban and the police raiding their homes to take their guns away or they see it all as a slippery slope towards a total ban. There does not seem to be a middle ground where we can discuss what gun control laws actually make sense.
We could come up with rules/laws that still enables hunting and enables hunters to own a reasonable number of fire arms (you might have a couple of different rifles if you hunted different types of game). We can also come up with rules about what type of gun you really need (ie a rocker launcher for hunting rabbits is overkill). We can come up with a reasonable number of guns anyone would need to own for any reason (even taking into account people who collect say Civil War era fire arms).
Given where we are in the US, nothing is going to change overnight, and with some reasonable steps, even things like people feeling the need to have a gun at home for protection will start to fall away.
We could come up with rules/laws that still enables hunting and enables hunters to own a reasonable number of fire arms (you might have a couple of different rifles if you hunted different types of game). We can also come up with rules about what type of gun you really need (ie a rocker launcher for hunting rabbits is overkill). We can come up with a reasonable number of guns anyone would need to own for any reason (even taking into account people who collect say Civil War era fire arms).
Given where we are in the US, nothing is going to change overnight, and with some reasonable steps, even things like people feeling the need to have a gun at home for protection will start to fall away.
Yes, I'm sure. You can buy a tank, but you can't buy ammunition to shoot out of its gun. The ammunition is explosive ordnance and is banned for purchase.
No problem!
My eleven year old son just said........
"There are so many shootings in America because you can buy a gun anywhere, we can't get them here in the UK can we daddy? which is a good thing right?"
From the mouths of babes........
"There are so many shootings in America because you can buy a gun anywhere, we can't get them here in the UK can we daddy? which is a good thing right?"
From the mouths of babes........
You indoctrinated him from the moment he was born, you filthy liberal... liberal!
From my research, it appears that that is not true.
This is from the NRA itself (https://web.archive.org/web/20110608211810/http://www.nraila.org/federalfirearms.htm#summary):
This is from the NFA:
So, destructive devices are Title II weapons and while they are subject to certain regulations, there is no blanket ban on their purchase on a federal level. Certain states prohibit them, that's true; but for example, North Carolina doesn't restrict Title II weapons while in South Carolina they are "permitted if registered in accordance with federal laws. State law makes possession, storage, and transfer illegal but then grants an exception for "any person authorized to possess these weapons by the United States Department of the Treasury; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; or any other federal agency empowered to grant this authorization", according to wikipedia. Yeah, I know, not the best source but I didn't have the mental fortitude to go looking for the actual state laws.
I don't know if is the same in US, but a guy here in Canada said that in a neutral scenario. You have no permits, threads on your head, etc...Just average guy. It is more difficult to own legally a bulletproof vest than a gun.
Is the same in US?
Just saying because the protect yourself rhetoric and so...
Is the same in US?
Just saying because the protect yourself rhetoric and so...
Below are the top 10 career recipients of N.R.A. funding – through donations or spending to benefit the candidate – among both current House and Senate members, along with their statements about the Las Vegas massacre. These representatives have a lot to say about it. All of these representatives are Republican. The highest ranked Democrat in the House is Sanford Bishop, who ranks 41st in career donations from the N.R.A. Among the top 100 House recipients, 95 are Republican. In the Senate, the top two Democrats are Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who rank 52nd and 53rd — behind every Republican but Dan Sullivan of Alaska.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
Last edited:
It's the convenience of guns.
The proponents of the current state of affairs are right in that criminals will always have access to guns, as will murderous nutjobs and the like but there's a huge segment of people that shouldn't have access to guns purely because if they have one then something could escalate into a shooting that wouldn't get anywhere near without the gun. Simply put, having a gun makes it easy to make a serious mistake even if you're not pre-disposed to that sort of thing.
Sadly those who do the whole 'it won't eliminate gun crime' argument fail to acknowledge this giant subset of the populace.
Strict gun control and a buyback like Australia did won't stop gun crime but it will reduce it massively. Surely reducing it massively is better than nothing?
I thought Charlottesville was ridiculous with absolute melts walking round like pretend military folk in camo fatigues and assault rifles but these idiots seem completely normal over there.
The proponents of the current state of affairs are right in that criminals will always have access to guns, as will murderous nutjobs and the like but there's a huge segment of people that shouldn't have access to guns purely because if they have one then something could escalate into a shooting that wouldn't get anywhere near without the gun. Simply put, having a gun makes it easy to make a serious mistake even if you're not pre-disposed to that sort of thing.
Sadly those who do the whole 'it won't eliminate gun crime' argument fail to acknowledge this giant subset of the populace.
Strict gun control and a buyback like Australia did won't stop gun crime but it will reduce it massively. Surely reducing it massively is better than nothing?
I thought Charlottesville was ridiculous with absolute melts walking round like pretend military folk in camo fatigues and assault rifles but these idiots seem completely normal over there.
Wait. You can easily buy a gun but it's not easy to buy a bullet proof vest? Are you shitting me?
At least in SC, it's legal to buy a bullet proof vest.
It's just illegal to wear said vest during the commission of a crime.
Phew
As @sammsky1 posted above, there's why the GOP believe in the 2nd amendment.
I was really expecting some white text with that oneOne day someone affected by something like this is just going to go on TV and yell into the camera, "Feck your prayers, fecking do something about it".
Then what?
Then what?
I remember seeing vests for sale on Sam’s club about 25 years ago but now is not legal in NJ
Edit; just checked and is legal, with same laws as a purchasing a gun.
You know a country is completely fecked up when about half the population wants to be able to own guns without too much restrictions, but doesn't want a shot gun victim to be guaranteed to be able to afford the health care costs to treat the injuries.
From the look of the pictures of this shooter he seems to have bought multiple versions of the same AR15 rifle - in any sane society surely that would be suspicious behaviour - smacking of creating a personal army or prepping for an event like this.
I can see if he bought lots of different rifles that could be someone "collecting" different guns from around the world etc or with different features that might still be dangerous. However if someone was able to gradually accumulate such an arsenal of weapons over time, with regular inspections / checks then this would at least reduce the chances of such an event.
It doesn't seem that America is ready for a mass confiscation like Australia, but surely there could be some baby steps to reduce the ability to create such an arsenal so quickly and with access to so much ammunition.
I can see if he bought lots of different rifles that could be someone "collecting" different guns from around the world etc or with different features that might still be dangerous. However if someone was able to gradually accumulate such an arsenal of weapons over time, with regular inspections / checks then this would at least reduce the chances of such an event.
It doesn't seem that America is ready for a mass confiscation like Australia, but surely there could be some baby steps to reduce the ability to create such an arsenal so quickly and with access to so much ammunition.
Not only is it not ready, there would be an actual civil war if mass confiscation was tried. Anyway, they can't even pass legislation to allow the CDC to study the affects of gun violence, because of the NRA, so there is no chance of any gun control legislation passing any time soon, unfortunately.
THanks for the answer of the vest.
Is funny..."is ilegal to wear one during a crime" . Hello? you are committing a crime already.
Anyway yeah, here in Brittish Columbia, is harder to get a vest than a gun...nuts
Is funny..."is ilegal to wear one during a crime" . Hello? you are committing a crime already.
Anyway yeah, here in Brittish Columbia, is harder to get a vest than a gun...nuts
He was following the "A well regulated Militia" part of the 2nd amendment...
A friend just pointed me to this thundercnut, Tomi Lahren, who made a video she put on Facebook and her 4,6m followers. And she is a pretty good example of the root problem in America.
At Hillary Clinton: "Wasted zero time before she made this into an anti-gun political talking point. And first of all, Hillary, you have no idea what you're talking about! How dare you! You're gonna blame this senseless shooting on the NRA and law-abiding gun owners? Really!? For what? To advance your own agenda and political aspirations? Do some soul-searching and learn about firearms before you open your mouth. The notion that a crazed heartless monster, willing and excited to slaughter thousands of innocent concert goers from the 32nd floor of a hotel would somehow be stopped by more gun-control???" And that's just a sample. She basically says that this man, and all the others, would still be able to kill 58 people and injure 100s if the US had gun control. The video has been seen by 13m and liked by 114.000. It's absolutely mental. They just flat-out refuse to see that more guns equals more deaths.
At Hillary Clinton: "Wasted zero time before she made this into an anti-gun political talking point. And first of all, Hillary, you have no idea what you're talking about! How dare you! You're gonna blame this senseless shooting on the NRA and law-abiding gun owners? Really!? For what? To advance your own agenda and political aspirations? Do some soul-searching and learn about firearms before you open your mouth. The notion that a crazed heartless monster, willing and excited to slaughter thousands of innocent concert goers from the 32nd floor of a hotel would somehow be stopped by more gun-control???" And that's just a sample. She basically says that this man, and all the others, would still be able to kill 58 people and injure 100s if the US had gun control. The video has been seen by 13m and liked by 114.000. It's absolutely mental. They just flat-out refuse to see that more guns equals more deaths.
John Oliver did a special on the NRA
I had no clue the NRA has such a small amount of members. It seems to be much easier to overthrow the NRA than I thought
I had no clue the NRA has such a small amount of members. It seems to be much easier to overthrow the NRA than I thought
The NRA finally speak....
"Banning guns will do nothing to prevent future attacks, this is a fact that has been proven time and again in countries around the world"
feck off you bullshitting cnuts.
feck off you bullshitting cnuts.
Unbelievable. FAKE NEWS!
Really grips my shit that people believe that kind of obvious crap.
Well guns aren't going to be banned so its pointless to speculate about it.