I think this country is fecked. I'm counting down the years to my retirement somewhere in Central America.
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
yeah....saw that.
what scares me is people in law enforcement who refuse to enforce a Presidential edict.
I love this country...but if things don't improve...I may just join my brother in law in Australia when I retire.
Like the county sheriff where I live who apparently supports the second amendment but censored my post. The irony.
It's in decay...I came here and was very excited but the future just isn't looking good.
moral and mental decay mate..
2nd amendment...at the cost of all the other amendments....
feel like the country is tearing apart....
I have talked to people who feel uncomfortable living next to republicans...I'm sure they must feel uncomfortable living next door to us liberals too.
where I am the old folks across us are democrats..so is my neighbor to my left. I talk to them. I'm not sure what the divorced old bat on my right is...bloody unfriendly...so most likely a republican
Love thy neighbour, RD!
That's right...there's a 'U' in it.
That's right...there's a 'U' in it.
My neighbour is a tea partier. We have a right laugh when we get together. I just don't talk to him too much about politics.
yeah. remember you mentioning that.
I got a bit pissed off with my friend this last time...him saying if a teacher had a concealed weapon he or she could have perhaps prevented the killing of those kids.
He came through cancer...still recovering but things look very good. Hope he makes it...great family an all. I can agree to disagree about economics...but this gun thing...just got to me personally...especially after those kids got killed. I cannot imagine losing one of my children to senseless violence.
First steps I guess.
What percentage of death in violent crime is by explosive?
Give me your wallet or I'll throw this semtex at you.
If guns aren't the problem you might as well hand out rocket launchers because rocket launchers don't kill people etc etc
And if the UK is the most violent country in Europe then how come so few people get killed in comparison to the US?
Hint: availability of guns
I'm not sure where to start replying because I got so many replies, and I just had an exam so I'm not really in the mood to answer everyone but... I'll respond to this. I could ask you the same question Wibble, what percentage of violent crime is committed using a gun? What percentage of crimes are done using an AR-15? In fact, since when was semtex considered a 'home-made explosive' anyway?
Your arguments are just simple reductio ad absurdums. Who said anything about handing out guns or rocket launchers (even though I would love to have one)?
Asking me why fewer people are killed in the UK than in the US is the same as asking why there are more Americans in the US than in the UK; that is, very stupid. Americans imprison a larger proportion proportion of their population than anywhere else in the world, is that simply because they have more prisons? Stop asking me stupid questions please.
Actually, I like weapons in general. More into swords than guns (I don't own a gun), but I can appreciate a decent gun. Quite like martial arts too.
But what does that have to do with anything?
Why do you differentiate between Breivik and the people committing the shootings in the US and the UK?
I brought up the China example for a reason, and I even mentioned that no one was killed. I didn't really ignore it. China is basically an authoritarian single-party state. Their reasons for banning guns aren't as saintly as yours, but I'm sure if you went around the world and told people in Lybia, Serbia, Algeria, Tunisia and even China what they think about 'gun control', they'd probably laugh in your face.
I'm not saying that in Europe and the US we are on the verge of being crushed by our governments, but history tells us it doesn't exactly take very long for something like that to happen.
I seem to remember that it is 65% ish in the US and about 5% or less in places like the UK and Australia. Plus the death rate is far far higher in the US. The death rate from knives is about the same in the US and the UK (a bit higher in the US but close enough) but the death rate from guns is 70 times higher in the US.
And if you don't like Semtex then substitute the word explosive. It still applies. But inadvertently you have made my point. Semtex isn't used because the general public can't get hold of it. Plus guns are so much better fr the purpose being designed for it and all.
Simple but true and highly applicable. If you argue that guns don't need to be restricted because humans are the problem then the argument applied to rocket launchers, tanks and tactical nukes.
Erm? That is 2 completely different questions as the rate (not gross number) is vastly higher in the US.
If they were the same then the answer would be the same. But I'm fairly sure that there aren't more Americans in the US because the UK restricts guns.
I'm thinking it is for a combination of reasons including the US's lack of a decent social system resulting in the disenfranchisement of the lower socio-economic groupings which in turn causes more crime with the predominant solution being more prisons and more jail time. Plus throwing 300 + million guns into the mix making lots of petty crime far from petty.
Breivik acquired his guns legally, let's not forget. He tried to buy illegally but failed.
The way to go for achieving regime change is not necessarily by arming the civilian population. In fact, some argue - notably political scientist Gene Sharp - that that's the worst you can do, because you then legitimize a retaliation from the regime, which almost inevitably ends in a blood bath (like Syria):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Dictatorship_to_Democracy
The way to go for achieving regime change is not necessarily by arming the civilian population. In fact, some argue - notably political scientist Gene Sharp - that that's the worst you can do, because you then legitimize a retaliation from the regime, which almost inevitably ends in a blood bath (like Syria):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Dictatorship_to_Democracy
That's a bit too sophisticated for yank gun nuts.
Andrew, do you live in a bunker with a steadfast supply of fresh water per chance? You seem to be concerned that taking guns away from the civilian population is sinister in someway? You do realise that nearly all western european countries have severely restricted access to firearms and we've somehow managed to not be overthrown by our devilish totalitarian governments in the last few years.
And that's without considering that a government in control of aircraft carriers, heat seeking missales and nuclear bombs would be unlikely to be massively concerned by a few hillbillies with semi automatic rifles.
Not that we should always trust our governments by any means, we should consistently hold them to account whenever possible, but the kind of people who see an intelligent seeming President wanting to limit the amount of portable death machines available to all and sundry after a spate of school shootings as somehow having sinister totalitarian reasons, strike me as the same kind of people who think the world is run by a group of jewish lizard bakers and coerce all their relatives into buying huge reserve supplies of fresh water and tin foil.
They also strike me as the kind of people unlikely to have gotten an A in A level Politics and spent most of their adult life having a keen interest in it. Like...Oh, I dunno...Me? Because if you actually did keep a keen eye on global politics, you'd most likely see the western political landscape as a ramshackle bunch of twits unable to keep their marital affairs and financial frauds under wraps, let alone their diabolical fascist world domination schemes.
And that's without considering that a government in control of aircraft carriers, heat seeking missales and nuclear bombs would be unlikely to be massively concerned by a few hillbillies with semi automatic rifles.
Not that we should always trust our governments by any means, we should consistently hold them to account whenever possible, but the kind of people who see an intelligent seeming President wanting to limit the amount of portable death machines available to all and sundry after a spate of school shootings as somehow having sinister totalitarian reasons, strike me as the same kind of people who think the world is run by a group of jewish lizard bakers and coerce all their relatives into buying huge reserve supplies of fresh water and tin foil.
They also strike me as the kind of people unlikely to have gotten an A in A level Politics and spent most of their adult life having a keen interest in it. Like...Oh, I dunno...Me? Because if you actually did keep a keen eye on global politics, you'd most likely see the western political landscape as a ramshackle bunch of twits unable to keep their marital affairs and financial frauds under wraps, let alone their diabolical fascist world domination schemes.
That really was spot on wasn't it.
Fox, Limbaugh, Drudge etc. really screws them up.
I know it's a really crass discrediting technique to try and tie people with disenting views to crack pot loons, but I genuinely can't see how anyone can see Obama's gun legislation as anything but a soft, well meaning attempt to limit the amount of guns in the country after a consistent, high profile problem with it. There's no context of sneaky socialist dictatoriship to tie it to, nor any motivation for him to do so.
The US President has an election term limit which he's already surpassed for a start. If he's got a fight on his hands to get universal healthcare and less guns - both eminently worthy and uncontroversial things by European standards - passed congress, then the idea he's going to make a go of constitutional reform of leadership in order to strengthen his power is nothing short of absolutely fecking bonkers.
The US President has an election term limit which he's already surpassed for a start. If he's got a fight on his hands to get universal healthcare and less guns - both eminently worthy and uncontroversial things by European standards - passed congress, then the idea he's going to make a go of constitutional reform of leadership in order to strengthen his power is nothing short of absolutely fecking bonkers.
I have the feeling that much of the gun lobby fantasises about a sort of zombie apocalypse where all the zombies are democrats who look remarkably like Obama.
Or that we could return the 1800s where lynchings were common and people carried guns everywhere.
The only person that can stop a zombie with a gun, is a republican with a bigger gun. - Palin/Perry 2016
Maybe we should start calling guns "animal killing machines". Then every time you want to show off your new gun you have to refer to it as an animal killing machine. I can see the t shirts now "animal killing machines don't kill people, people kill people".
The moniker "people killing machines" would make those t-shirts even better.
Witness the dumbassery that the right present. The gun that makes the biggest hole is the one that should be banned!
Easy on the eye though!
Easy on the eye though!
Yes there are perfectly responsible people out there who can own those guns and be trusted not to do anything stupid with them. The problem is you give these weapons to people who are NOT perfectly responsible beings.
There is also no legitimate reason to own an assault rifle other than it's 'fun' These weapons were made with the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
And the difference between Sado-masochistic sex and assault rifles is one you can only hurt yourself / your partner, the other can kill 30 people without having to reload.
I like guns, I've owned guns. I just see no point in ever owning a fecking assault rifle other than for poops and giggles.
Is that actually an argument that they are wheeling out. Look this gun only makes small holes in things, compared to that other gun
No mention at all about the rate of fire or anything like that though.
Rather worrying when she says her five year old killed his first deer the other day as well.
You referred to him, and I don't. Hence "People like Breivik...."
What the Hell has this got to do with my statement that, if he'd had access to firearms, there would've been more fatalities? A point you ably swerved.
This bullshit is the icing on your paranoia-cake!
Do you think there is any need for an elected government to use force to oppress you?
If it ever got to that stage, it would mean that all other means of control had failed. And then what?
Are you going to take on the might of the most heavily militarised superpower in history, with your pea-shooter, whilst Bubba slings shit at Apache gunships and unmanned drones?
Get real!
Live life without fear. That is liberating!
Why even bother to have freedom if you spend it cowering, expecting to be attacked by everyone, from the Manson family, to your own government?
I like that last bit. I'd like to steal it and use it on the various gun nuts that I encounter.
Be my guest Grinner.
I'm sure I will borrow from you in the future. (but I might not have the decency to tell you first)
As I've said before, when trying to determine who is a responsible gun owner, anyone who says its 'to protect me from the government' or variations on such should be at the top of the list of people who are very much not going to be responsible gun owners.
Because they are fecking fruitcakes.
Aside from the whole 'the average politician cant even hide their expenses fiddles never mind a plot for global domination' scenario , the people spouting this in the US are also the ones whoopin' and a hollorin' as they watch the US military blow the shit out of some helpless middle eastern country on the news.
Guess what, those middle easterners have the same guns as you bright boys. If they get stomped, what the hell do they think will happen to them when they declare war on the government? An AR 15 and a couple of glocks isnt going to help you much when a drones dropping on your 'encampent' .
Because they are fecking fruitcakes.
Aside from the whole 'the average politician cant even hide their expenses fiddles never mind a plot for global domination' scenario , the people spouting this in the US are also the ones whoopin' and a hollorin' as they watch the US military blow the shit out of some helpless middle eastern country on the news.
Guess what, those middle easterners have the same guns as you bright boys. If they get stomped, what the hell do they think will happen to them when they declare war on the government? An AR 15 and a couple of glocks isnt going to help you much when a drones dropping on your 'encampent' .
The worst thing Americans have done for themselves is forget how powerful they are as a collective. These gun nuts now allow their lives to be dominated by fear. It's childish.
If you ask most Americans, they feel voting is their civic duty. However, it is also your civic duty to challenge the government, if you feel they are not living up to the standards upheld in the US constitution. Although this will probably never happen, it sounds nice in theory. Basically, if 80% of the populace decided not to vote, the government would have to take notice. No one could be elected if that many people decided not to vote.
Not a great example but the point I am getting at is this. With the busy lives most people live, when it comes to topics such as politics and government, they are more prone to let someone else's view in the media shape or further cultivate their own personal views instead of doing their own research and shaping (what I think) a more balanced topic on the aforementioned topics.
It also doesn't surprise me seeing more coverage of these shootings. When you have people who think "well my rights say I can do whatever the feck I want" then why should we be surprised when people take liberty in shooting another person?
If you ask most Americans, they feel voting is their civic duty. However, it is also your civic duty to challenge the government, if you feel they are not living up to the standards upheld in the US constitution. Although this will probably never happen, it sounds nice in theory. Basically, if 80% of the populace decided not to vote, the government would have to take notice. No one could be elected if that many people decided not to vote.
Not a great example but the point I am getting at is this. With the busy lives most people live, when it comes to topics such as politics and government, they are more prone to let someone else's view in the media shape or further cultivate their own personal views instead of doing their own research and shaping (what I think) a more balanced topic on the aforementioned topics.
It also doesn't surprise me seeing more coverage of these shootings. When you have people who think "well my rights say I can do whatever the feck I want" then why should we be surprised when people take liberty in shooting another person?
Actually, as a general rule there is no minimum # of votes need to be cast to make an election. A 20% turnout would result in someone being elected.
As far as the last paragraph goes, I agree, I have said it a few times on the forum that a huge part of the violence issue in the US is that we have an ego problem.
Totally misguided thing to say. It was obvious to anyone that once Bush lifted the assault weapon ban, there would be an ensuing bloodbath on the other side of the border with Texas, and that is exactly what happened. Exactly. Many people had predicted it. Another glowing example of extremely narrow minded US exceptionalism policy.
And as I understand, the ATM policy of giving the Mexican guns later to trace them was begun under the Bush administration. And you must look at why they tried such a foolish measure; the fact that US military assault rifles were flowing freely into Mexico cartels' hands with the bloody results. If you want to look at the hypocrisy of the whole thing, it is the "moral" stance of the the US, especially that of conservative US, which on one hand spends billions of tax payer dollars funding the "drug war," as well as punishing the players, allows it to be fully armed, meanwhile turns a blind eye or takes out a wet noodle when American and European banks fill their coffers from the money laundering.
I can't wait for the day that all of Latin America unifies to give the big feck you to the US and their "drug war" and actually earns tax profits off it (just like alcohol and tobacco), while the drug players inside the US borders exercise their 2nd ammendment rights when big bad government tries to take their business away. US drug policy has been incredibly hypocritical and lethal to Latin American democracies for years.