Gun control

I was making the point that a gun can't be both safe and available for self defence at the same time. Lock it away and is is safer but it become useless for defense as it is locked away.

I understand that. I was making the point that perhaps more people die from their own guns than are saved by them. Outside of the films and the telly, that is.
 
I understand that. I was making the point that perhaps more people die from their own guns than are saved by them. Outside of the films and the telly, that is.

Yes indeed. Very very few people are saved from anything by guns but lots die as a result of ownership.
 
Watch that Jim Jefferies sketch I posted earlier. Despite doing stand up he actually pretty much nails most arguments for gun ownership. Which makes it funnier.
 
Last edited:
If the kid had been armed he wouldn't have needed his mother's gun. NRA "logic".

If the checkout attendant had a machine gun he could have taken the 2 year old down before he killed him mum etc etc etc

Exactly! But these communists will still try to point that guns kill people and should be banned from United States. They'll get my gun from my cold, dead hands.

It is really bizarre! All these things happening, and no-one seems to give a shit about it. Why on Earth should every person be allowed to get guns (in fact lots of guns) and even take them when they go out?
 
Ah, the guilt-by-association argument which still gets wheeled out by the bitter relativists and historicists.

When I'm at a proper laptop (iPad right now) I will school you on why the Bill of Rights is a vital component of our constitutional architecture in the United States -- by your "logic" the right to the free speech is equally discredited today because it was embraced by slaveholders in the 18th century -- and not some discredited relic of a medieval tyranny.

Constitutions are man made constructs which bear no special intrinsic value. If they no longer apply they need to be undated or changed. It is that simple.

Of course changes to the second amendment will never go through because of the collective insanity that afflicts the US when it comes to guns.
 
You will never be able to "school" me on why your bill of rights entitles your citizens in most states to carry a device which allows them to take a life at the pull of a trigger, and it is that that I am arguing. My reason for raising the point about slavery is because I'm tired of hearing some Americans cling to "the right to bear arms" as if it part of a sacred and unchallengeable text. Freedom of speech is one thing as it doesn't lead direct to the taking of lives and is a benefit to society in most cases. The "right to bear arms" is costing lives either directly or indirectly practically every day in America.

Your founding fathers were not wrong about everything but there are some things that they were profoundly wrong about, slavery and "the right to bear arms" are just two of those things.

PS oh yeah and that whole treatment of Native Americans thing as well.
Agree, and I'm not big on the 'free speech whatever the consequence' thing either. It can't work unless you live alone on an island.
 
What I don't get is how a 2 year old kid can have the strength to pull the trigger of a firearm. I didn't think it was that easy to pull a trigger.
 
Hope they make sure the kid doesn't find out about this.. I thought every gun would have a safety (not that I have ever touched a gun in my life),surprised that it isn't the case and also a little frightening..
 
On a mostly American forum I use, a poster in Michigan said that people near him had started firing 'celebratory gunshots' as the New Year approached. Other posters replying to him didn't seem too concerned and told him not to bother reporting it to anyone. Can you imagine what the police response to that would be in the UK? The whole area would be closed down, people would be evacuated and armed units would be deployed.
 
Hope they make sure the kid doesn't find out about this.. I thought every gun would have a safety (not that I have ever touched a gun in my life),surprised that it isn't the case and also a little frightening..
His dad has already said he is going to tell his son exactly what happened, he is also very upset that people are using this incident as a platform for those that want to ban guns.
 
Keeping guns legal just because it's in the constitution is just plain daft.

It actually isn't in in the constitution in that manner:
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The gun lobbyists manged to twist that around to serve their own purposes.
 
You could imagine that police firearms experts might be allowed to carry those, but I agree - you'd think that members of the public would be obliged to carry weapons with safety features.
Yeah, even highly trained soldiers have safety catches on their weapons ffs!

Poor kid, and his/her siblings.
 
It's ambiguous and as much as I oppose guns, I think they have a point there.
In what way? I don't get it at all

Also I know little about the U.S. constitution. But what is the bit that you have to have guns in case your government goes crazy?
 
In what way? I don't get it at all

Also I know little about the U.S. constitution. But what is the bit that you have to have guns in case your government goes crazy?

It was in case the English came back. The country was mainly made up of farmers at that time in the war had been won when farmers left their crops and used their personal guns to fight the war. So that is where the of personal firearms being necessary for the security of the state comes in.

The other point is that having only just fought off one oppressive government, each citizen having the right to own guns prevented a new tyranny from replacing it.
 
I always thought guns laws in America only permitted you to own a firearm to defend your property if need be and you wasn't allowed to carry them around day to day life.

If this is the case, why was the mother carrying this weapon in Walmart? :/
 
I always thought guns laws in America only permitted you to own a firearm to defend your property if need be and you wasn't allowed to carry them around day to day life.

If this is the case, why was the mother carrying this weapon in Walmart? :/

They can be carried in most places, and they've got a section to sell firearms in Walmart too.

As someone else said earlier, search for "open carry" on Google images and you'll see quite a few of people openly carrying/wearing them in supermarkets.
 
Dwazza could address gun safety better than I can, he owns a few. I have none, and don't want to either

They are pretty useless for self defence when they're locked up; however, worn on one's person (i.e. holstered) they are much more useful. I don't understand why people refuse to do this but instead leave loaded handguns in drawers, under pillows, etc. They need to be under your direct control at all times. Leaving one unattended is highly dangerous.

What I don't get is how a 2 year old kid can have the strength to pull the trigger of a firearm. I didn't think it was that easy to pull a trigger.

The seeming ease with which the toddler fired the gun and hit something makes me wonder if a revolver was used, but it would need to be cocked to have the lightest trigger pull available. I have some doubts about this as it would be unnecessary and stupid to carry a cocked revolver; they're easy enough to cock with one hand while brandishing or you can use the double action trigger to cock and release the hammer in one long motion. That being said, someone with small, weak hands might choose a shrouded hammer design but I still think carrying a cocked revolver, even holstered, is inherently risky. Additionally, unlike semi-automatic pistols, revolvers are very forgiving if the person shooting them has poor or no technique.
 
Last edited:
The seeming ease with which the toddler fired the gun and hit something makes me wonder if a revolver was used, but it would need to be cocked to have the lightest trigger pull available. I have some doubts about this as it would be unnecessary and stupid to carry a cocked revolver; they're easy enough to cock with one hand while brandishing or you can use the double action trigger to cock and release the hammer in one long motion. That being said, someone with small, weak hands might choose a shrouded hammer design but I still think carrying a cocked revolver, even holstered, is inherently risky. Additionally, unlike semi-automatic pistols, revolvers are very forgiving if the person shooting them has poor or no technique.
I like it when you talk dirty to me.
 
It was in case the English came back. The country was mainly made up of farmers at that time in the war had been won when farmers left their crops and used their personal guns to fight the war. So that is where the of personal firearms being necessary for the security of the state comes in.

The other point is that having only just fought off one oppressive government, each citizen having the right to own guns prevented a new tyranny from replacing it.

In other words it is outdated and needs replacing.
 
As someone else said earlier, search for "open carry" on Google images and you'll see quite a few of people openly carrying/wearing them in supermarkets.

open_carry_gun_law_03.jpg

BN-DB555_target_G_20140603151325.jpg


:wenger:
 
They can be carried in most places, and they've got a section to sell firearms in Walmart too.

As someone else said earlier, search for "open carry" on Google images and you'll see quite a few of people openly carrying/wearing them in supermarkets.
Depends the state, in New Jersey they don't sale guns on Walmart and the only ones with a concealed gun are the criminals because is basically impossible to get one.
 
His dad has already said he is going to tell his son exactly what happened, he is also very upset that people are using this incident as a platform for those that want to ban guns.
FFS..