Gun control

ATXRedDevil said:
Lots of liberal Brits in here scared of big bad guns. (Full disclosure - I'm a Brit who's about to become a proud American citizen)

In an ideal world there wouldn't be guns. But that's the problem with left-wing idealists - they mean well but this isn't an ideal world so their idealistic views don't always translate to the real world. The UK banned hand guns before they irreversibly permeated society. There are so many guns in circulation now in the US that banning them would be futile (aside from the fact that some people that would literally revolt). Some good folks would surrender their firearms as the law mandated, some wouldn't, but criminals definitely wouldn't. Guns are not a factor of most crime in the UK and that's great. Not the case in the US. If someone tries to invade my home and threatens me and my loved ones it is likely they will be armed and so will I. I'll happily shoot to kill and not think twice about it before they harm me or my family. Pretty much that simple. Oh, and there's also this whole thing called the second amendment.


The crime doesn't deserve 55 years in jail but the law itself makes a ton of sense. He was the proximate cause for the other's kid's death. The law is in place so that if someone robs a bank, for example, and draws a gun and the guard opens fire and injures the robber but a stray bullet of his hits a bank customer then the robber is held responsible. But-for him robbing he bank the customer never would have been shot and killed. If you try to evade the cops and another car swerves out of your way and hits a pedestrian, you're responsible for the death because the pedestrian wouldn't have been hit if not for your criminal act. Makes a ton of sense to me even if the sentencing was overdone.

Unfortunately the US goes overboard on lots of prison sentences. The rate of incarceration is out of control, specifically regarding drug crimes. On the other hand, the UK is FAR too lax with its sentencing. Like with many social issues it is my opinion that the middle ground between the US and the UK would be optimal.
Click to expand...
All due respect, but it's those kinds of attitudes that get many people other than the perpetrators killed in that situation. Us "idealists" are well aware that a full blown ban is a pipe dream, but think it would be a step forward if stuff like high powered semi automatic rifles and the according ammunition was cracked down on after examples like Sandy Hook. And heighten checks on psychiatric history so people that might murder children don't get hold of one.

But of course not, doing all that would impinge on the ability of the american public to mount an armed resistance against the United States government.
 
Ubik said:
All due respect, but it's those kinds of attitudes that get many people other than the perpetrators killed in that situation. Us "idealists" are well aware that a full blown ban is a pipe dream, but think it would be a step forward if stuff like high powered semi automatic rifles and the according ammunition was cracked down on after examples like Sandy Hook. And heighten checks on psychiatric history so people that might murder children don't get hold of one.

But of course not, doing all that would impinge on the ability of the american public to mount an armed resistance against the United States government.
Click to expand...

All rifles are dangerous. High powered means nothing if you look into the ballistics.

Banning semi-autos is a ridiculous proposition. Should people who use firearms for self defence be consigned to use inferior technology because the media puts them on the same level as select fire military hardware?

The US could do a lot of things but nothing happens because small steps are never proposed. Safe storage, for example, which would keep guns out of the hands of little ones. Why not require a licence to purchase ammunition? No one's 2nd amendment rights get infringed and you can background check, reference check and keep tabs on who is purchasing large quantities of rounds. No, instead let's ban an entire class of ammunition and cause a furore and sales spike in the interim. Genius. Compromise is the only thing that will help them but sadly it will never happen because the American psyche isn't set up to make compromises.
 
Dwazza Van Hernandez said:
That stuff happens a lot. I love dogs but people have a bad habit of letting them roam and insisting they couldn't possibly do anything wrong. This type of dog owner is a dick.

And then they let them do this next to a property owned by someone who thinks firearms are good at solving problems and also believes in teaching others "hard lessons". This type of person is a dick, too.

So what we have are cnuts being cnuts but they're not man enough to take each other on and the poor dogs are left holding the bag, or dead as in this case.

America in a nutshell, all personal freedom no personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Hmmhh, one was naive, maybe. There is no suggestion that he let his dogs 'roam', to put him on the same level of cuntishness as the man (not really sure this applies) who shot the dogs and then proceeded to boast about it on social media is misleading (one person is definitely more culpable for the dogs deaths, the fella who pullled the trigger).

Agree with the last sentence.
 
Mick1991 said:
Hmmhh, one was naive, maybe. There is no suggestion that he let his dogs 'roam', to put him on the same level of cuntishness as the man (not really sure this applies) who shot the dogs and then proceeded to boast about it on social media is misleading (one person is definitely more culpable for the dogs deaths, the fella who pullled the trigger).

Agree with the last sentence.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah I'm making an assumption about the dog owner as these incidents tend to happen in rural areas where people let their dogs roam on (their) large property. This might clarify the first part of what I said. What happens is the dogs are left to their own devices, get bored and go looking at nearby properties for something fun to do.
 
Dwazza Van Hernandez said:
All rifles are dangerous. High powered means nothing if you look into the ballistics.

Banning semi-autos is a ridiculous proposition. Should people who use firearms for self defence be consigned to use inferior technology because the media puts them on the same level as select fire military hardware?

The US could do a lot of things but nothing happens because small steps are never proposed. Safe storage, for example, which would keep guns out of the hands of little ones. Why not require a licence to purchase ammunition? No one's 2nd amendment rights get infringed and you can background check, reference check and keep tabs on who is purchasing large quantities of rounds. No, instead let's ban an entire class of ammunition and cause a furore and sales spike in the interim. Genius. Compromise is the only thing that will help them but sadly it will never happen because the American psyche isn't set up to make compromises.
Click to expand...
It was all one phrase, "high powered semi-automatic rifles". I fail to see how someone would need one of those to defend from home invasion. They are however very useful for massacres.

The ammunition idea seems a great idea to me, not a clue why someone wouldn't have proposed such a measure even aside from the frequent shootings (although are you sure that wouldn't be decried as 2nd amendment infringement?).
 
Mick1991 said:
Fair enough, but dogs sometimes just get out, happens to every dog owner.
Click to expand...

Sure but these stories are a lot of he said she said. I don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt. It's probably a feud between neighbours, one is easily the bigger asshole but the other is no angel, either.
 
ATXRedDevil said:
Lots of liberal Brits in here scared of big bad guns. (Full disclosure - I'm a Brit who's about to become a proud American citizen)

In an ideal world there wouldn't be guns. But that's the problem with left-wing idealists - they mean well but this isn't an ideal world so their idealistic views don't always translate to the real world. The UK banned hand guns before they irreversibly permeated society. There are so many guns in circulation now in the US that banning them would be futile (aside from the fact that some people that would literally revolt). Some good folks would surrender their firearms as the law mandated, some wouldn't, but criminals definitely wouldn't. Guns are not a factor of most crime in the UK and that's great. Not the case in the US. If someone tries to invade my home and threatens me and my loved ones it is likely they will be armed and so will I. I'll happily shoot to kill and not think twice about it before they harm me or my family. Pretty much that simple. Oh, and there's also this whole thing called the second amendment.
Click to expand...

The bulk of your post is basically saying "the problem is too hard to fix, so we'll have to give up".

Yes, there's a shit-tonne of guns out there. Yes, initiating control will he for from easy, but we have to start somewhere. There are options, including severe restrictions on the availability of ammunition.

Saying 'there's too many out there' just doesn't wash.

As for the bold, this is the go to response of every gun lover, as if that is automatically the end of the debate.

The constitution also valued black people as 3/5 of a man, and allowed slavery. Laws change. Countries develop.
 
Ubik said:
It was all one phrase, "high powered semi-automatic rifles". I fail to see how someone would need one of those to defend from home invasion. They are however very useful for massacres.

The ammunition idea seems a great idea to me, not a clue why someone wouldn't have proposed such a measure even aside from the frequent shootings (although are you sure that wouldn't be decried as 2nd amendment infringement?).
Click to expand...

The phrase complicates things as the high powered part can refer to all rifles that fire anything other than .22lr rounds and the action type is applicable to handguns as well. All firearms are extremely dangerous, calibre and action only alter that danger mildly, imho so for me the distinction is only for shock value.

I'm sure there are many who would argue that an ammo licence would infringe on the bear arms part of of the 2nd but it's worth a go. Here on Canada you cannot buy ammo without a firearms licence, it's a minor hassle in that you need to make sure you have your RPAL before you go to the Bass Pro but that's it.

As always I harp on about two things in this issue: personal responsibility and compromise. Without these the problem will always be the same. People who own guns need to start acting responsibly; don't leave them lying about loaded, don't shoot recklessly etc., because guns can be fecking dangerous and both sides of the debate need to check their all or nothing approach at the door.
 
ATXRedDevil said:
Lots of liberal Brits in here scared of big bad guns. (Full disclosure - I'm a Brit who's about to become a proud American citizen)

In an ideal world there wouldn't be guns. But that's the problem with left-wing idealists - they mean well but this isn't an ideal world so their idealistic views don't always translate to the real world. The UK banned hand guns before they irreversibly permeated society. There are so many guns in circulation now in the US that banning them would be futile (aside from the fact that some people that would literally revolt). Some good folks would surrender their firearms as the law mandated, some wouldn't, but criminals definitely wouldn't. Guns are not a factor of most crime in the UK and that's great. Not the case in the US. If someone tries to invade my home and threatens me and my loved ones it is likely they will be armed and so will I. I'll happily shoot to kill and not think twice about it before they harm me or my family. Pretty much that simple. Oh, and there's also this whole thing called the second amendment.

Offenders were known to their victims in 65% of violent
burglaries

Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence occurred
during a burglary while a resident was present.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

The crime doesn't deserve 55 years in jail but the law itself makes a ton of sense. He was the proximate cause for the other's kid's death. The law is in place so that if someone robs a bank, for example, and draws a gun and the guard opens fire and injures the robber but a stray bullet of his hits a bank customer then the robber is held responsible. But-for him robbing he bank the customer never would have been shot and killed. If you try to evade the cops and another car swerves out of your way and hits a pedestrian, you're responsible for the death because the pedestrian wouldn't have been hit if not for your criminal act. Makes a ton of sense to me even if the sentencing was overdone.

Unfortunately the US goes overboard on lots of prison sentences. The rate of incarceration is out of control, specifically regarding drug crimes. On the other hand, the UK is FAR too lax with its sentencing. Like with many social issues it is my opinion that the middle ground between the US and the UK would be optimal.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about the Law making sense but the sentencing was just ridiculous. Add to that the fact that it was an unarmed burglary and he was 16.
 
Infra-red said:
It also makes any altercation potentially deadly. Imagine you get in a minor tussle with some guy over some issue or other, and during the course of your handbags/shoving match you notice he's carrying a concealed firearm, and then he notices that you've noticed his firearm... suddenly you could both find yourselves engaged in a life and death struggle, with each man assuming that the first one to draw the weapon will use it (and then in turn feeling justified in using it themselves in self-defence, should they be the one that gets hold of the gun).
Click to expand...

Z2Hdb.jpg
 
ATXRedDevil said:
Lots of liberal Brits in here scared of big bad guns. (Full disclosure - I'm a Brit who's about to become a proud American citizen)

In an ideal world there wouldn't be guns. But that's the problem with left-wing idealists - they mean well but this isn't an ideal world so their idealistic views don't always translate to the real world. The UK banned hand guns before they irreversibly permeated society. There are so many guns in circulation now in the US that banning them would be futile (aside from the fact that some people that would literally revolt). Some good folks would surrender their firearms as the law mandated, some wouldn't, but criminals definitely wouldn't. Guns are not a factor of most crime in the UK and that's great. Not the case in the US. If someone tries to invade my home and threatens me and my loved ones it is likely they will be armed and so will I. I'll happily shoot to kill and not think twice about it before they harm me or my family. Pretty much that simple. Oh, and there's also this whole thing called the second amendment.


The crime doesn't deserve 55 years in jail but the law itself makes a ton of sense. He was the proximate cause for the other's kid's death. The law is in place so that if someone robs a bank, for example, and draws a gun and the guard opens fire and injures the robber but a stray bullet of his hits a bank customer then the robber is held responsible. But-for him robbing he bank the customer never would have been shot and killed. If you try to evade the cops and another car swerves out of your way and hits a pedestrian, you're responsible for the death because the pedestrian wouldn't have been hit if not for your criminal act. Makes a ton of sense to me even if the sentencing was overdone.

Unfortunately the US goes overboard on lots of prison sentences. The rate of incarceration is out of control, specifically regarding drug crimes. On the other hand, the UK is FAR too lax with its sentencing. Like with many social issues it is my opinion that the middle ground between the US and the UK would be optimal.
Click to expand...
I'm happy for you, and the UK. You and America deserve eachother.
 
Your point is kinda ruined by the article also mentioning another knife attack in which 29 people died.
 
M
Desert Eagle said:
Perhaps a different article would have made the point better not one that mentions a knife attack that killed 29 people.
Click to expand...

My point still stands. Would you rather defend yourself against a knife or a gun?

Besides why do gun owners feel the need to bring up knife crime as a means of defending themselves against criticism of gun crime? 2 wrongs don't make a right

Fwiw I'd feel the same all weapons need to be taken out of the hands of the general population
 
I'll try to do this without sounding too condescending.

Pogue' point :
Nobody dead. What happens when people go postal in a country without easy access to guns.
Click to expand...
People going postal in a country without easy access to guns killed 29 people.
Conclusion : point poorly made

GB's point: Guns are more dangerous than knives.
Conclusion: I agree.

I'll also add that you complaining about gun owners bringing up knife attacks is highly ironic seeing as Pogue brought up the comparison and intended for it to have the opposite effect.
 
Desert Eagle said:
Your point is kinda ruined by the article also mentioning another knife attack in which 29 people died.
Click to expand...

Heh. That does weaken my point alright. Still, we have a situation here were two people went postal, attacking a whole bunch of people and yet nobody died. I can't imagine that ever happening if guns were involved.
 
Desert Eagle said:
Perhaps a different article would have made the point better not one that mentions a knife attack that killed 29 people.
Click to expand...
Do a bit of research first. The attack in Kunming was a terrorist assault at a rail station carried out by 8 Uighur separatists who simultaneously stormed the rail station and hacked 29 people to death. Had they had guns feck only knows how many they'd have killed.

Nothing like a lone idiot going postal and the difference in the devastation between one armed with a knife or one armed with a gun.
 
I'll just refer you to the earlier post where I said guns are more dangerous than knives which is what you seem to be arguing.
 
Guns that shoot knives would be something else though.
 
Desert Eagle said:
I'll just refer you to the earlier post where I said guns are more dangerous than knives which is what you seem to be arguing.
Click to expand...
I'll just refer you to your post attempting to rubbish Pogue's point about the difference in severity between a lone nutter with a gun and a lone nutter with a knife by raising an orchestrated terrorist assault with knives. You "graciously" condescended to agree the blatantly obvious point that guns are more dangerous but still threw an apple into the orange comparison competition which is pretty standard fare for the gun apologists in this thread.
 
Bury Red said:
I'll just refer you to your post attempting to rubbish Pogue's point about the difference in severity between a lone nutter with a gun and a lone nutter with a knife by raising an orchestrated terrorist assault with knives. You "graciously" condescended to agree the blatantly obvious point that guns are more dangerous but still threw an apple into the orange comparison competition which is pretty standard fare for the gun apologists in this thread.
Click to expand...
I'm a gun apologist now :lol:
He made a point I agree with. He just made it poorly. The article didn't mention the context and if your link rubbishes your claim, I would suggest you add the context yourself. Pogue seems to have accepted the point I was making ( that he chose a shitty link to make his point) graciously so lets just leave it there.
 
golden_blunder said:
Without any permission? Are you sane?
Click to expand...

Car kill people, knifes kill people, golf club kill people.

Do we have permission to use those?

Do bad guys get gun permissions? How is that fair that they don't need gun license yet you do?

For me: psychiatric/ psychological examination + community interview + obligatory training = gun license.

To make it clear I'm not worried about normal people misusing guns. If you deal with them you gain a lot of respect towards them.
 
Desert Eagle said:
I'm a gun apologist now :lol:
Click to expand...
I didn't say you were or you weren't, don't know you from Adam, the tactic you adopted is typical of the gun apologists however.

To somebody who doesn't know you though it probably doesn't help that you appear to be named after a handgun. If you enter a thread full of gun apologists and second amendment nutters wearing an NRA T shirt and making the same daft comparisons they do, you shouldn't be surprised if people do mistake you for one of the loons.
 
golden_blunder said:
M


My point still stands. Would you rather defend yourself against a knife or a gun?

Besides why do gun owners feel the need to bring up knife crime as a means of defending themselves against criticism of gun crime? 2 wrongs don't make a right

Fwiw I'd feel the same all weapons need to be taken out of the hands of the general population
Click to expand...

Please do a simple reaserch and check how many shootings in USA took place in gun free zones.

Also check result of attempted shootings in institutions which had armed security.

The points is if the bad guy has a gunci want to have one to protect myself. If you want to stick to pepper spray or rape wistle be my guest.
 
Sunny Jim said:
Car kill people, knifes kill people, golf club kill people.

Do we have permission to use those?
Click to expand...

Cars, knives and golf clubs all serve other purposes though. Permission, well you need a license to drive, need to be over a certain age to purchase knives and have to wear a pringle sweater and pastel slacks that mark you out as a card carrying tw@ to play golf so some permissions are necessary.

Sunny Jim said:
Do bad guys get gun permissions? How is that fair that they don't need gun license yet you do?
Click to expand...

Bad guys bend the rules so we should abolish the rules :wenger:. The fact that most of the guns in the hands of your simplistic black hatted villains in the states were taken from law abiding owners should point to a potential solution in reducing the risk of bad guys getting guns (or even feeling they need them).

Sunny Jim said:
For me: psychiatric/ psychological examination + community interview + obligatory training = gun license.
Click to expand...

So your statement that in your opinion people should be able to own guns without any permission is not true as you believe gun licenses should be necessary and that the testing for obtention of a license should be stricter than it currently is in almost every single State:confused:

Sunny Jim said:
To make it clear I'm not worried about normal people misusing guns. If you deal with them you gain a lot of respect towards them.
Click to expand...

I worry about anyone potentially misusing or simply using guns if it poses an elevated risk to my or others continued existence. Feck respect, I'd simply rather not be shot at. I've had a gun pulled on me and had no respect for the person wielding it and know that GB has been shot and doubt he respected the person who shot him too much.
 
Last edited:
Sunny Jim said:
gun-control-you-beat-him-whats-the-matter-with-you.jpg
Click to expand...
Name one practical use in modern society for a handgun. Yes, there's something wrong with all murderers regardless of method but why give them an easy choice of weapon that serves no other purpose?

If you can't see that guns are a problem despite the overwhelming statistical evidence and the vast majority of your compatriots are similarly deluded then despite your great nations backlash against Darwinism we will continue to see the proof of it in action as you continue to thin your idiotic herd.
 
Sunny Jim said:
Car kill people, knifes kill people, golf club kill people.

Do we have permission to use those?

Do bad guys get gun permissions? How is that fair that they don't need gun license yet you do?

For me: psychiatric/ psychological examination + community interview + obligatory training = gun license.

To make it clear I'm not worried about normal people misusing guns. If you deal with them you gain a lot of respect towards them.
Click to expand...

Define "normal"
 
Bury Red said:
Cars, knives and golf clubs all serve other purposes though. Permission, well you need a license to drive, need to be over a certain age to purchase knives and have to wear a pringle sweater and pastel slacks that mark you out as a card carrying tw@ to play golf so some permissions are necessary.

Guns are meant to kill, whether you assault or defend yourself it a matter of choice. Which i don't have, the other person does.

Bad guys bend the rules so we should abolish the rules :wenger:. The fact that most of the guns in the hands of your simplistic black hatted villains in the states were taken from law abiding owners should point to a potential solution in reducing the risk of bad guys getting guns (or even feeling they need them).

The rules set by whom? Is it a good rule that when attacked by an armed person you are a victim straight away?


So your statement that in your opinion people should be able to own guns without any permission is not true as you believe gun licenses should be necessary and that the testing for obtention of a license should be stricter than it currently is in almost every single State:confused:

In Poland you need to specific the purpose for which you want to own a gun. The police can reject it as they wish. I don't believe it's fair.

I worry about anyone potentially misusing or simply using guns if it poses an elevated risk to my or others continued existence. Feck respect, I'd simply rather not be shot at. I've had a gun pulled on me and had no respect for the person wielding it and know that GB has been shot and doubt he respected the person who shot him too much.

I worded it badly- you gain respect towards guns. I can, but do not carry a gun. Sorry.
Click to expand...

here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.