Bollocks. Rather go down with honour than be a pansy shooting bullets at warriors without guns. Me too dude x
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
Bollocks. Rather go down with honour than be a pansy shooting bullets at warriors without guns. Me too dude x
Well quite fecking clearly not.
None of these mass shootings have been carried out with automatic weapons.
Although they're still to do a thing about bump stocks.
I don't know of a single shooting that involved fully automatic weapons.
It seems that you have some vocabulary confused.
fecking pedantic bollocks, semi or full fecking automatic, Jesus fecking Christ, are you kidding arguing over being able to another 5.6 people a minute or whatever?
Is an ar15 not automatic enough, not quick enough to kill? That you're going to argue the toss over it?
Is an ar15 not automatic enough, not quick enough to kill? That you're going to argue the toss over it?
It's not "pedantic bollocks" it's a massive difference in firearm and in the law.
This is why the rest of the world thinks yanks are nuts.
Because we know the meaning of words...?
Yeah that's why.
Not a total ban. That makes no sense. Hunting rifles/shotguns are allowed in most countries.
Handguns & assault rifles are not allowed in a lot.
Ireland is a good example. As is Japan & Oz, afaik.
Top man.
Introduce actual gun licences. Want to hunt? Get a hunting license. Sport shooting? Join a club and get a sport shooting license. Buying a gun? Submit paperwork to police, and after they've gone over it, you get a signed copy back that you can then take to a gun store and use to buy the gun(s) you applied for. Require safe storage from the first gun, require gun to be stored without bolt or firing pin, and ammo to be stored separately. Introduce a national firearms registry, which can be used by law enforcement to make unannounced visits at the homes of registered owners to make sure their guns are stored properly. Get rid of carry laws, castle doctrines and any other ridiculous law that allows or enables a gun to be used for self-defense.
Also, better mental healthcare.
Also, better mental healthcare.
You will get the standard ignorant response "no, no, no it's my legal right to own a gun for what lever reason I wish". It will take more than sensible suggestions to win this argument.
What if we get the civil courts involved to help change. The victim of gun crime or their imidiate family member (mother/father//brother/sister/husband/wife/son/daughter) can sue the address that the gun was registered to. If the owner of that property gets sued and looses they can sue the the gun dealer that sold the gun who can then sue the gun manufacturer who made the gun and can then sue congress who allowed the killing to happen by not legislating. The end goal would be someone suing God for letting this happen, maybe then we could have an enlightening in this country about guns and the 2nd amendment.
"There is, in fact, little research into gun violence at all—especially compared to other causes of death in the United States.
The modern origins of the impasse can be traced to 1996, when Congress passed an amendment to a spending bill that forbade the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from using money to “advocate or promote gun control.”
The National Rifle Association had pushed for the amendment, after public-health researchers produced a spate of studies suggesting that, for example, having a gun in the house increased risk of homicide and suicide. It deemed the research politically motivated. Gun-rights advocates zeroed in on statements like that of Mark Rosenberg, then the director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. In response to the early ’90s crime wave, Rosenberg had said in 1994, “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes ... It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol—cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly—and banned.
The actual amendment sponsored by Jay Dickey, a congressman from Arkansas, did not explicitly forbid research into gun-related deaths, just advocacy. But the Congress also lowered the CDC’s budget by the exact amount it spent on such research. Message received. It’s had a chilling effect on the entire field for decades.”"
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/02/gun-violence-public-health/553430/
"The National Rifle Association “says gun laws don’t work—but we know they do locally. We have increasing evidence that laws making purchasers and sellers more accountable reduce the supply of guns easily diverted into the underground market. These laws have a protective effect...
There is also evidence that when laws such as the FSA are repealed, a range of dangerous effects occur. In 2014, Crifasi and Webster published a study showing that the 2007 repeal of Missouri’s law requiring anyone purchasing handguns to have a Permit to Purchase (PTP) license, acquired at their local sheriff’s office, was associated with a 23 percent increase in annual firearm homicide rates, a 16 percent increase in annual murder rates and a 16.3 percent increase in annual firearm suicide rates. “Every single evaluation we looked at in Missouri showed harmful effects after the repeal,” says Crifasi. “This was the first time I’d been involved in a project that so clearly illustrated that when you have good policies you can save lives...
Credible messengers are crucial to challenging the narrative created by the NRA, says Crifasi. For example, she says, “The NRA has created the narrative that gun violence is an urban problem, that since ‘bad guys’ have guns, ‘good guys’ need guns.” But the truth is that two-thirds of all gun deaths are suicides—a fact that Crifasi says shocks every audience she addresses. Guns are the most lethal method of attempting suicide, and those at greatest risk of suicide by gun are older white males—the very people the NRA encourages to have guns in the home. And while the NRA remains resistant to any policy requiring permits or registry, research shows the requirement to get a permit has a “delaying effect” that can reduce the incidence of suicide by gun, says Crifasi. “The NRA doesn’t want these statistics to be known because it doesn’t fit their story of ‘bad guys with guns...’”
Fighting against the hyperbole and misinformation is “like going up against a brick wall sometimes,” she says. And since funding for policy research is extremely limited in the U.S. (see “Gun Shy”), it can often feel like a David and Goliath battle: a small group of academics taking on one of the most powerful industries in the nation. As Webster says, “The gun industry in America is uniquely powerful.”
https://magazine.jhsph.edu/2017/fal...ins-moderate-gun-owner-gun-policy-researcher/
The modern origins of the impasse can be traced to 1996, when Congress passed an amendment to a spending bill that forbade the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from using money to “advocate or promote gun control.”
The National Rifle Association had pushed for the amendment, after public-health researchers produced a spate of studies suggesting that, for example, having a gun in the house increased risk of homicide and suicide. It deemed the research politically motivated. Gun-rights advocates zeroed in on statements like that of Mark Rosenberg, then the director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. In response to the early ’90s crime wave, Rosenberg had said in 1994, “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes ... It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol—cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly—and banned.
The actual amendment sponsored by Jay Dickey, a congressman from Arkansas, did not explicitly forbid research into gun-related deaths, just advocacy. But the Congress also lowered the CDC’s budget by the exact amount it spent on such research. Message received. It’s had a chilling effect on the entire field for decades.”"
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/02/gun-violence-public-health/553430/
"The National Rifle Association “says gun laws don’t work—but we know they do locally. We have increasing evidence that laws making purchasers and sellers more accountable reduce the supply of guns easily diverted into the underground market. These laws have a protective effect...
There is also evidence that when laws such as the FSA are repealed, a range of dangerous effects occur. In 2014, Crifasi and Webster published a study showing that the 2007 repeal of Missouri’s law requiring anyone purchasing handguns to have a Permit to Purchase (PTP) license, acquired at their local sheriff’s office, was associated with a 23 percent increase in annual firearm homicide rates, a 16 percent increase in annual murder rates and a 16.3 percent increase in annual firearm suicide rates. “Every single evaluation we looked at in Missouri showed harmful effects after the repeal,” says Crifasi. “This was the first time I’d been involved in a project that so clearly illustrated that when you have good policies you can save lives...
Credible messengers are crucial to challenging the narrative created by the NRA, says Crifasi. For example, she says, “The NRA has created the narrative that gun violence is an urban problem, that since ‘bad guys’ have guns, ‘good guys’ need guns.” But the truth is that two-thirds of all gun deaths are suicides—a fact that Crifasi says shocks every audience she addresses. Guns are the most lethal method of attempting suicide, and those at greatest risk of suicide by gun are older white males—the very people the NRA encourages to have guns in the home. And while the NRA remains resistant to any policy requiring permits or registry, research shows the requirement to get a permit has a “delaying effect” that can reduce the incidence of suicide by gun, says Crifasi. “The NRA doesn’t want these statistics to be known because it doesn’t fit their story of ‘bad guys with guns...’”
Fighting against the hyperbole and misinformation is “like going up against a brick wall sometimes,” she says. And since funding for policy research is extremely limited in the U.S. (see “Gun Shy”), it can often feel like a David and Goliath battle: a small group of academics taking on one of the most powerful industries in the nation. As Webster says, “The gun industry in America is uniquely powerful.”
https://magazine.jhsph.edu/2017/fal...ins-moderate-gun-owner-gun-policy-researcher/
Last edited:
Once again, deflection and obfuscation from those on the right.
Ted Cruz, Thursday afternoon: "The reaction of Democrats to any tragedy is to try to politicize it. So they immediately start calling that we've got to take away the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens."
Jim Jordan, Thursday: "It seems like whenever we have one of these tragedies take place there's always folks who want to infringe on fundamental liberties that we as Americans enjoy."
Anyone who takes the time to educate themself on judicial proceedings as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment will understand that no court is even close to removing the right of the people to possess firearms. Quite the contrary, rulings such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) actually bolster the 2nd Amendment's strength. I repeat, no one is taking away your 2nd Amendment rights, no one is infringing upon your fundamental liberties, no one is even close. It's obvious Ted Cruz. Aren't you a legal scholar? Did you forget about incorporation via the 14th Amendment?
This is an argument not about the constitutionality of possessing a firearm, but rather the limits that a reasonable government should be able to impose to protect it's citizenry. I hear all this fuss about noble citizens using their legal weapons to overcome an armed criminal - this rarely happens. To insist that everyone needs to carry a weapon to ensure public safety is asinine. If insane people are to blame, then wouldn't some members of this completely armed populace also be lunatics? Then he/she could just kill 5 people instead of 100, right? Absurd. To defeat this we need to start somewhere: limit munitions sales, limit purchases of weapons that serve no purpose in modern society (assault rifles, automatic weapons, things that are absent in other counties except for the miitary).
The Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act (1994) was a great start, as was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994-2004). Mass shooting deaths per year have increased since the ban expired. The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009 was never brought to a vote. If someone here isn't familiar with the loophole, it pretty much allows any private individual (your neighbor Joe, or that crazy guy who knows your Aunt Betty) to sell a gun without running any background check. No registration or record of sale needs to be made. The gun is yours 60 seconds after you approach the seller at a gunshow.
What further sickens me is that elected leaders such as Ted Cruz hide behind this "now isn't the time to talk about gun violence" nonsense. After Sandy Hook, was it time? Or after Vegas? How about now? If they actually accept to have a discussion in Congress or on a televised debate the GOP would have a major problem. This is why reasonable people need to get out and vote for candidates that are not tainted by NRA money. Enough is enough. Keep the pressure on and force them to have a debate. Reason will always prevail.
Ted Cruz, Thursday afternoon: "The reaction of Democrats to any tragedy is to try to politicize it. So they immediately start calling that we've got to take away the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens."
Jim Jordan, Thursday: "It seems like whenever we have one of these tragedies take place there's always folks who want to infringe on fundamental liberties that we as Americans enjoy."
Anyone who takes the time to educate themself on judicial proceedings as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment will understand that no court is even close to removing the right of the people to possess firearms. Quite the contrary, rulings such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) actually bolster the 2nd Amendment's strength. I repeat, no one is taking away your 2nd Amendment rights, no one is infringing upon your fundamental liberties, no one is even close. It's obvious Ted Cruz. Aren't you a legal scholar? Did you forget about incorporation via the 14th Amendment?
This is an argument not about the constitutionality of possessing a firearm, but rather the limits that a reasonable government should be able to impose to protect it's citizenry. I hear all this fuss about noble citizens using their legal weapons to overcome an armed criminal - this rarely happens. To insist that everyone needs to carry a weapon to ensure public safety is asinine. If insane people are to blame, then wouldn't some members of this completely armed populace also be lunatics? Then he/she could just kill 5 people instead of 100, right? Absurd. To defeat this we need to start somewhere: limit munitions sales, limit purchases of weapons that serve no purpose in modern society (assault rifles, automatic weapons, things that are absent in other counties except for the miitary).
The Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act (1994) was a great start, as was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994-2004). Mass shooting deaths per year have increased since the ban expired. The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009 was never brought to a vote. If someone here isn't familiar with the loophole, it pretty much allows any private individual (your neighbor Joe, or that crazy guy who knows your Aunt Betty) to sell a gun without running any background check. No registration or record of sale needs to be made. The gun is yours 60 seconds after you approach the seller at a gunshow.
What further sickens me is that elected leaders such as Ted Cruz hide behind this "now isn't the time to talk about gun violence" nonsense. After Sandy Hook, was it time? Or after Vegas? How about now? If they actually accept to have a discussion in Congress or on a televised debate the GOP would have a major problem. This is why reasonable people need to get out and vote for candidates that are not tainted by NRA money. Enough is enough. Keep the pressure on and force them to have a debate. Reason will always prevail.
This may be just crazy enough to work. Lol.
The 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act makes it just about impossible to legally blame manufacturers for crimes committed using their weapons. Predictably, the NRA was very supportive of this legislation.
They all have the blood on their hands, and should be constantly reminded of that.
If only they stopped fetishising that particular amendment, and turned their attentions instead to their country's declaration of independence and its enshrining of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - something that guns are robbing children (and other innocent citizens besides) of every year, thanks to the callous inaction of scum like Cruz.
This was already attempted. The gun companies won.
Feck, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Agreeing with Morgan makes me feel dirty but he's right on this one. Slapping that hateful bitch down too. I think they deserve each other tbh.
Ok, question here for my American cousins, how would you feel about a "smart grip"? You get your gun in the same way, but you register your fingerprint to the grip so that only you can fire the weapon? The fingerprint doesn't go on to a government register, simply the memory of the grip in a similar way to iPhone fingerprint lock.
We have voice activated plugs so I can turn my kettle on from another room, I am able to turn the heating on or off using my phone, and we use fingerprints on iPhones so why has this technology not been either created or implemented?
Would ensuring that your gun can only be fired by you be infringing on your Second Amendment rights at all?
We have voice activated plugs so I can turn my kettle on from another room, I am able to turn the heating on or off using my phone, and we use fingerprints on iPhones so why has this technology not been either created or implemented?
Would ensuring that your gun can only be fired by you be infringing on your Second Amendment rights at all?
And what problem is this really solving?
It would have problems for using your weapon for self defense. My fingerprint readers on my phone and laptop are very unreliable. Plus they would need batteries and some people leave a self defense weapon in a safe untouched for years. Plus everyone holds a gun slightly different and grips sometimes change overtime.
Bottom line not a viable solution to anything really.
It would stop the 228 unintentional shootings so far this year in the US. It would stop a person's young child finding the gun, thinking it's a toy and accidentally killing themselves. It would stop an underage child from taking their parents's gun(s) and shooting up a school.
Sensible gun ownership stops those things.
Adding an electronic component to nearly 300 million mechanical devices is a daft idea. For starters how the hell could that be possible with the thousands of variations in grips and triggers. Guns have very simple mechanics and people switch out triggers mechanisms on a regular basis. Guns are also used in cold wet environments so the electronics would need to be very well made. The recoil on a gun is also very violent so the electronics would degrade pretty quickly.
Just not a viable solution.
So because it might not work in every possible situation it's not even worth considering?
What about the average gun owner who simply buys it and stores it at home. Surely the average gun owner doesn't worry about modifying trigger mechanisms or replacing grips, surely many millions simply buy a gun and store it in the hope of not having to use it.
In terms of implementing it, technological advances in consumer products are unveiled all the time, it would be very simple to advertise and sell. "No longer worry about intruders using your weapon on you and your family, the new iGrip (or whatever) secures the gun to YOUR fingerprint..."
Surely something like this would affect a significant number of weapons.
Something like this would never take hold among gun advocates for a few reasons:
These Rambo-esque nut jobs don't want anyone messing with there guns, hell, they don't want anyone knowing that the guns even exist. That's why there is no federal gun registry, and when President Obama mentioned one those on the right went ballistic. They would never submit, voluntarily or by law, to modify their firearms.
Secondly, there's too much that could go wrong with this fingerprint reader. What if it doesn't read the owner's fingerprint while an intruder breaks in? Computers, iPads and phones routinely do strange things. Not to mention, these same paranoid gun owners would be hesitant to have their fingerprints recorded by any device for fears that big brother could access that information. It sounds silly, but these people really are off their rockers.
I commend the efforts of those on this forum to find a solution to this problem, but this stubbornness as it relates to gun ownership is something lodged deep in the psyche of many Americans. I'm saddened that frequent mass shootings still don't compell those in power to find a solution.
Basically no it is not worth considering. We have dozens of cheap finer-print operated gun safes and boxes now.
If someone bought one simply for home defense what happens when the finger print reader fails at the crucial moment. The company making the weapon would face a very large law suit. A lot of inexperienced gun owners and women use revolvers, you could manually drop the hammer with a revolver.
Just want to leave this here as it debunks the prevalent myth about "defensive gun use".
"Despite having nearly no academic support in public health literature, this myth is the single largest motivation behind gun ownership. It traces its origin to a two-decade-old series of surveys that, despite being thoroughly repudiated at the time, persists in influencing personal safety decisions and public policy throughout the United States.
"In 1992, Gary Kleck and Marc Getz, criminologists at Florida State University, conducted a random digit-dial survey to establish the annual number of defensive gun uses in the United States. They surveyed 5,000 individuals, asking them if they had used a firearm in self-defense in the past year and, if so, for what reason and to what effect. Sixty-six incidences of defensive gun use were reported from the sample. The researchers then extrapolated their findings to the entire U.S. population, resulting in an estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year...
"In 1997, David Hemenway, a professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, offered the first of many decisive rebukes of Kleck and Getz’s methodology, citing several overarching biases in their study...
"First, there is the social desirability bias. Respondents will falsely claim that their gun has been used for its intended purpose—to ward off a criminal—in order to validate their initial purchase. A respondent may also exaggerate facts to appear heroic to the interviewer...
"Second, there’s the problem of gun owners responding strategically. Given that there are around 3 million members of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the United States, ostensibly all aware of the debate surrounding defensive gun use, Hemenway suggested that some gun advocates will lie to help bias (Onenil: personally I think its more like almost all than some) estimates upwards by either blatantly fabricating incidents or embellishing situations that should not actually qualify as defensive gun use...
"Third is the risk of false positives from “telescoping,” where respondents may recall an actual self-defense use that is outside the question’s time frame...
"For example, guns were allegedly used in self-defense in 845,000 burglaries, according to Kleck and Getz. However, from reliable victimization surveys, we know that there were fewer than 1.3 million burglaries where someone was in the home at the time of the crime, and only 33 percent of these had occupants who weren’t sleeping. From surveys on firearm ownership, we also know that 42 percent of U.S. households owned firearms at the time of the survey. Even if burglars only rob houses of gun owners, and those gun owners use their weapons in self-defense every single time they are awake, the 845,000 statistic cited in Kleck and Gertz’s paper is simply mathematically impossible...
"
The first scientific attempt was a study in Arizona, which examined newspaper, police reports and court records for defensive gun uses in the Phoenix area over a 100 day period. At the time Arizona had the 6th highest gun death rate, an above average number of households with firearms and a permissive “shall issue” concealed carry law meaning that defensive gun use should be higher than the national average.
Extrapolating Kleck-Gertz survey results to the Phoenix area would predict 98 defensive killings or injuries and 236 defensive firings during the study period. Instead, the study found a total of 3 defensive gun uses where the gun was fired, including one instance in which a feud between two families exploded into a brawl and several of the participants began firing. These results were much more in line with (but still substantially less than) extrapolated NCVS data, which predicted 8 defensive killings or injuries and 19 firings over the same time frame."
https://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-defensive-gun-use-myth/
"Despite having nearly no academic support in public health literature, this myth is the single largest motivation behind gun ownership. It traces its origin to a two-decade-old series of surveys that, despite being thoroughly repudiated at the time, persists in influencing personal safety decisions and public policy throughout the United States.
"In 1992, Gary Kleck and Marc Getz, criminologists at Florida State University, conducted a random digit-dial survey to establish the annual number of defensive gun uses in the United States. They surveyed 5,000 individuals, asking them if they had used a firearm in self-defense in the past year and, if so, for what reason and to what effect. Sixty-six incidences of defensive gun use were reported from the sample. The researchers then extrapolated their findings to the entire U.S. population, resulting in an estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year...
"In 1997, David Hemenway, a professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, offered the first of many decisive rebukes of Kleck and Getz’s methodology, citing several overarching biases in their study...
"First, there is the social desirability bias. Respondents will falsely claim that their gun has been used for its intended purpose—to ward off a criminal—in order to validate their initial purchase. A respondent may also exaggerate facts to appear heroic to the interviewer...
"Second, there’s the problem of gun owners responding strategically. Given that there are around 3 million members of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the United States, ostensibly all aware of the debate surrounding defensive gun use, Hemenway suggested that some gun advocates will lie to help bias (Onenil: personally I think its more like almost all than some) estimates upwards by either blatantly fabricating incidents or embellishing situations that should not actually qualify as defensive gun use...
"Third is the risk of false positives from “telescoping,” where respondents may recall an actual self-defense use that is outside the question’s time frame...
"For example, guns were allegedly used in self-defense in 845,000 burglaries, according to Kleck and Getz. However, from reliable victimization surveys, we know that there were fewer than 1.3 million burglaries where someone was in the home at the time of the crime, and only 33 percent of these had occupants who weren’t sleeping. From surveys on firearm ownership, we also know that 42 percent of U.S. households owned firearms at the time of the survey. Even if burglars only rob houses of gun owners, and those gun owners use their weapons in self-defense every single time they are awake, the 845,000 statistic cited in Kleck and Gertz’s paper is simply mathematically impossible...
"
The first scientific attempt was a study in Arizona, which examined newspaper, police reports and court records for defensive gun uses in the Phoenix area over a 100 day period. At the time Arizona had the 6th highest gun death rate, an above average number of households with firearms and a permissive “shall issue” concealed carry law meaning that defensive gun use should be higher than the national average.
Extrapolating Kleck-Gertz survey results to the Phoenix area would predict 98 defensive killings or injuries and 236 defensive firings during the study period. Instead, the study found a total of 3 defensive gun uses where the gun was fired, including one instance in which a feud between two families exploded into a brawl and several of the participants began firing. These results were much more in line with (but still substantially less than) extrapolated NCVS data, which predicted 8 defensive killings or injuries and 19 firings over the same time frame."
https://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-defensive-gun-use-myth/
I wonder how big of a disaster would have to happen for the US to do something remotely sensible about guns. I mean, if Sandy Hook, Orlando and Vegas wasn’t enough, what will be?
A GOP member getting shot at by one of these gun nuts ought to have more of an impact than these school shootings.
That happened at a baseball game and one was hit. Nothing happened.
Werent a bunch of them shot at last year? You would think that would change their mind.
There was also a shooting of a Congresswoman in 2011 where six people died.
Ok so GOP members would rather die than be sensible about this. How about prominent NRA members? Any of them face the brunt of their stupidity yet?
It's happened, not just his party but the guy who was hit (and lived) are still fans of the guns.
Edit: others answered earlier