Ok mate.
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
Ok mate.
I have my handgun inside a small safe (because I have a teenager son) that cost me over $100 and another day I was watching tv and the guy opened a similar safe just punching on top of the safe and turning the knob... I tried my safe and feck .... Opened
Two more incidents today near Kansas City.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/13/us/kansas-jewish-center-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/13/us/kansas-jewish-center-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
If only everyone had a gun .......
I really do shudder to think of the scale of an incedent required to make America change it's gun laws, If sandy hook did not do it then who knows what will.
No mass shooting will be big enough to change their gun laws because the gun NRA and other gun lobby groups legally bribe the politicians to do nothing about it. Even if the majority of people in the US would support a ban on guns or even stricter gun laws nothing would happen. Best example for this are the background checks for weapons, even a large percentage of republicans were in favor of those but they still didn't happen because the NRA successfully lobbied against it.
Apparently the people he shot weren't even Jewish. Two Catholics and a Methodist. The Klan hates Catholics but not as much as Jews.
A massacre at a gun show where the attendants start opening fire on each other thinking the other is the "gunman."
Because they are reasonable enough to realise that rare attacks like Sandy Hook aren't what you base your policy on.
Lobbying is a two-way street: anti-gun lobbyists can pressure legislators the same as pro-gun lobbyists.
Any comments on the school stabbings that occurred last week? Thank god the kid did not have access to a gun or it would have another round of mass killings, not that being wounded in a stabbing is a pleasant experience for any of the victims.
Yeah the only difference being that the gun-lobbyists are backed by a multi-billion dollar industry while there is no big industry that stands to gain anything by backing the "anti-gun lobby". While it's a two way street the gun lobby pretty much drives a Hummer and the anti-gun lobby drives bicycle without wheels. Not exactly what I would call a fair contest.
This is the essence of the problem. When people get angry some of them lash out with whatever they have at hand. If they only have a hand then they hit people but if they have guns etc
Funny that the same society that believes in guns for all also led the restrictions that prevent you taking nailclippers on a plane. Take me to Cuba or the pilot's cuticles get it.
A lot of different things, why?
The imposition of one pointless measure does not justify the imposition of another.
Yes. That was the point I was making.
A bit like ignoring the death and disease thing when legislating about smoking.
It shouldn't surprise you to find out that I think if people want to kill themselves with smoking, the government shouldn't be legislating against that either.
What about killing me? No need to answer.
What about passive smoking though? Surely the government is right to legislate against someone polluting your or your children's airspace with potentially harmful fumes.
I've got no problem if someone wants to shoot themselves but I'm far happier if my government legislate to significantly reduce our risk of dying due to passive lead poisoning too.
Guns don't kill you by virtue of existing.
You and your children don't own the airspace you happen to be walking in, to be fair. That being said, I'm actually not that opposed to ban on public smoking in principle, I just don't think a fine or something given to someone for smoking on the pavement is really proportionate and I can see it being very unpopular.
Although I dount that many have been killed by non-existent guns.
Given the real thing are designed to kill and that when guns are available that is exactly what happens in alarming numbers it doesn't seem unreasonable to ban them. We ban tanks, rocket launchers and tactical nukes on the same basis. Except Texas of course.
So you're not opposed to a ban on public smoking but will stand up for people's rights to wave a gun around in public
IIRC, tanks aren't actually banned, you can drive one around town if the wheels have been changed so you don't wreck the roads. But that's beside the point: the reason why they are banned is because governments view an armed population as a threat. It's good you mentioned tactical nukes actually; in common policy lexicon, they call them 'nuclear deterrents' and a well equipped armed forces is viewed as a deterrent to attack. This logic translates very well to an individual level, arms are a deterrent to aggressors.
So you're not opposed to a ban on public smoking but will stand up for people's rights to wave a gun around in public
Who said anything about waving a gun around in public? I support the right for people to be armed, that's all.
And the right to bear arms has never lead to anyone waving a gun around in public? I'd support the right to arm bears before allowing loons like you the right to anything more dangerous than a Q-Tip and I'm not sure you haven't pushed too deeply with one of them in the past.
Meh. People wave guns now even when they are effectively illegal in the UK. You've stopped bringing any points now, calling me a loon doesn't improve your argument at all.
Should knives been banned? Canadian killed 5 people with a knife
I'm pretty sure the gun and munitions part of a tank isn't road legal.
And an armed population are a threat. Just look at the annual slaughter in the US. And the deterrent bit obviously isn't working at all. The pattern is quite well know and persistent. The more guns the higher the death rate, not gross number, rate. Mexico is obviously an outlier for other reasons although I doubt you could use that as an argument for more guns.
A line of best fit through that lot tells you all you need to know.
Because gun laws aren't anywhere near tight enough.
Not sure 5 is enough to warrant a change in the law but if certain dangerous knives aren't outlawed perhaps. UK gun death were 0.25 per 100,000 in 2010 which makes about 175 gun deaths in comparison. I think the US exceeds 30,000 deaths per year, a rate per head of population over 40 times higher than the UK.
Last edited:
So you're not opposed to a ban on public smoking but will stand up for people's rights to wave a gun around in public
Welcome to the new breed of right wing Caf loon Bury.
I'm pretty sure the gun and munitions part of a tank isn't road legal.
And an armed population are a threat. Just look at the annual slaughter in the US. And the deterrent bit obviously isn't working at all. The pattern is quite well know and persistent. The more guns the higher the death rate, not gross number, rate. Mexico is obviously an outlier for other reasons although I doubt you could use that as an argument for more guns.
A line of best fit through that lot tells you all you need to know.
The 'annual slaughter' in the US (and Mexico), as you so creatively call it, is directly related to the drug war. Telling me that a greater amount of gun ownership correlates with greater usage of guns in crime is about as inane as telling me basketballers tend to be tall. If you control for certain contextual factors (such as gang activity), the availability of guns doesn't increase the murder rate at all. The usage of guns increases with greater availability, not the propensity to kill.
I don't think you realise how difficult it is to get a gun in the UK...
The flaw in your "argument" is that tallness and being a pro basketballer does correlate. Do you know why? Because being tall is a large part of what you need to be a basketball player. The correlation is due to causation.
Whatever the other issues it is impossible to shoot someone if you don't have a gun. Pointing 2 fingers at someone and shouting bang bang simply isn't as fatal.
People get angry and want to hurt others. It is a fact of life. If they have fists they punch, if they have knives they stab and if they have guns they shoot each other or massacre large numbers of school children. Many countries simply can't control the numbers go guns e.g. Honduras and Mexico and the US has so many guns already it will take decades of prohibition to make a dent. Other countries like the UK will have trouble policing their borders for illegal guns but making the ownership of all guns illegal and imposing decent sentences on gun possession would mitigate the worst. Here in Australia a huge proportion of illegal guns are stolen legal guns so much better gun laws would make a major dent on gun deaths. Guns are also a huge cause of youth suicide particularly in the country. Remove the gun and a large proportion wouldn't kill themselves as young males, on average, don't like to kill themselves in other ways.
Yes I do. It is piss easy. Fill in a form, get a reference (or 2 if not for a shotgun) from another gun nut and pay the fee while not obviously talking to invisible friends and you are in.
Wibble stated that the Mexican outlier in the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths per capita had obvious reasons, congrats for spotting the reason. It's BS when the NRA claim that 80% of gun deaths in the US are gang/drug related.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-problem_b_5071639.html
2011's fiugres show that there were only 1,824 gang related deaths (not all gun deaths either) while the total number of gun deaths in the same year was 11,101 homicides and 19,766 suicides. The usage of guns is clearly increasing with ownership but the propensity to kill looks to be fairly strong to me and the murder rate is clearly increasing with the US at 10-20 times the murder rate of similarly developed nations with gun control measures in place.
Well you don't get one for opening a bank account or changing your phone supplier, so trickier than the US obviously but it's not that difficult if you're caught up in the culture of gangs and drugs in the UK where the relatively few gun deaths are largely within gang and drug circles. I'd struggle like buggery to buy a gun in the UK now as middle age has distanced me from the few loons who do own/sell guns back home but 10-20 years ago I could have got you one within 24 hours.
You could get one legally very easily.
There's something like 2 million legally held firearms in the UK.
The slight problem with legal gun ownership in the UK is that you are only legally allowed to use it on licensed shooting ranges and the gun must remain on those premises in a secure lockbox. Other than the odd (literally odd usually) farmer who goes after someone with a shotgun, legally held firearms in the UK are so secure that it's impossible to use them in any criminal activity. It's the illegal ones the kids who can't even pull their pants up are waving around on the Moss that poses the problems in the UK that Andrew~ (never has a squiggle been so apt) seems to think is a reason for arming every Bob, Mick and Larry in the UK to protect themselves when in reality, if you're not living on Moss Side, Toxteth, Brixton etc there is practically no risk to you.
With the biggest argument for gun ownership being personal safety, have any studies ever come to light about the relative safety of people who own guns vs people who don't? I.E, being a murder or violent assault victim, etc?
I'm sure I've heard that you're more likely to get shot if you own a gun.
I'm pretty sure that many studies have shown that gun ownership increases you changes of being killed by one.