Would you ever move out of your home/state/country just because of stricter gun laws?
I have a friend who wants to move out of California because he can't shoot in his backyard(even though he lives in an apartment in an urban area) and that people are too anti gun apparently
It really depends. Illinois laws are a very big stickler for me, one of the reasons I'll be glad to leave. I was not happy that I had to apply to get my 2nd Amendment rights.
Now, if a state were to outright ban "Assault Rifles", I'd probably never go there, because I spent a lot of freaking money on mine.
Soladrin wrote: I'm gonna state the opposite, so my anwser to this is still yes.
I wouldn't move to a place with your gun laws.
I would agree. I am all for being able to shoot (and would love to be able to do so in the UK), but almost completely unregulated sale and use of guns? No thanks. You have to pass tests to prove you can drive a car before you can go out on the roads on your own, why don't you need to do the same things if you want to have/use a gun?
An initial test/course teaching gun safety in use, storage and maintainence, psychological evaluation, criminal background check and so on, as well as ensuring each person has a gun safe for their weapons and ammo, then on completion (assuming you pass), you get a gun licence, against which your purchases are registered, and which you need to provide to prove you are able to buy guns and ammo at your local gun store (same as if want to rent a car you need to present your driving licence) allowing them to check that a) you have one and b) it is valid and c) to register your purchases against you.
Close loopholes like gun show sales and other "private" sales and ensure that all sales are recorded (so if you sell a gun it is registered with the central agency that you have sold it and who to) and you will have a system with very little impact on the vast majority of gun owners but with a little more safety built in.
Throw in a short re-evaluation course every 5-10 years and manditory reporting by the health services of any mental problems to the gun regulation authority and I think that will really help for the minimum of hassle.
SilverMK2 wrote: Throw in a short re-evaluation course every 5-10 years and manditory reporting by the health services of any mental problems to the gun regulation authority and I think that will really help for the minimum of hassle.
Spoken like someone who's never spent five hours in a northern Virginia DMV.
PresidentOfAsia wrote: Would you ever move out of your home/state/country just because of stricter gun laws?
I have a friend who wants to move out of California because he can't shoot in his backyard(even though he lives in an apartment in an urban area) and that people are too anti gun apparently
Your friend should want to leave California because its become a hole.
California actually has public areas where you can go shoot.
Soladrin wrote: I'm gonna state the opposite, so my anwser to this is still yes.
I wouldn't move to a place with your gun laws.
I would agree. I am all for being able to shoot (and would love to be able to do so in the UK), but almost completely unregulated sale and use of guns? No thanks. You have to pass tests to prove you can drive a car before you can go out on the roads on your own, why don't you need to do the same things if you want to have/use a gun?
An initial test/course teaching gun safety in use, storage and maintainence, psychological evaluation, criminal background check and so on, as well as ensuring each person has a gun safe for their weapons and ammo, then on completion (assuming you pass), you get a gun licence, against which your purchases are registered, and which you need to provide to prove you are able to buy guns and ammo at your local gun store (same as if want to rent a car you need to present your driving licence) allowing them to check that a) you have one and b) it is valid and c) to register your purchases against you.
Close loopholes like gun show sales and other "private" sales and ensure that all sales are recorded (so if you sell a gun it is registered with the central agency that you have sold it and who to) and you will have a system with very little impact on the vast majority of gun owners but with a little more safety built in.
Throw in a short re-evaluation course every 5-10 years and manditory reporting by the health services of any mental problems to the gun regulation authority and I think that will really help for the minimum of hassle.
Soladrin wrote: I'm gonna state the opposite, so my anwser to this is still yes.
I wouldn't move to a place with your gun laws.
I would agree. I am all for being able to shoot (and would love to be able to do so in the UK), but almost completely unregulated sale and use of guns? No thanks. You have to pass tests to prove you can drive a car before you can go out on the roads on your own, why don't you need to do the same things if you want to have/use a gun?
An initial test/course teaching gun safety in use, storage and maintainence, psychological evaluation, criminal background check and so on, as well as ensuring each person has a gun safe for their weapons and ammo, then on completion (assuming you pass), you get a gun licence, against which your purchases are registered, and which you need to provide to prove you are able to buy guns and ammo at your local gun store (same as if want to rent a car you need to present your driving licence) allowing them to check that a) you have one and b) it is valid and c) to register your purchases against you.
Close loopholes like gun show sales and other "private" sales and ensure that all sales are recorded (so if you sell a gun it is registered with the central agency that you have sold it and who to) and you will have a system with very little impact on the vast majority of gun owners but with a little more safety built in.
Throw in a short re-evaluation course every 5-10 years and manditory reporting by the health services of any mental problems to the gun regulation authority and I think that will really help for the minimum of hassle.
You won't be missed.
Living in the UK, there's a good chance he won't be hit either. Or even shot at.
Albatross wrote: Living in the UK, there's a good chance he won't be hit either. Or even shot at.
Living in the US there is a pretty good chance of that as well. I'm 28, 11 years in the military, frequently visit Detroit and St. Louis, and I've never been shot at.
Soladrin wrote: I'm gonna state the opposite, so my anwser to this is still yes.
I wouldn't move to a place with your gun laws.
I would agree. I am all for being able to shoot (and would love to be able to do so in the UK), but almost completely unregulated sale and use of guns? No thanks. You have to pass tests to prove you can drive a car before you can go out on the roads on your own, why don't you need to do the same things if you want to have/use a gun?
An initial test/course teaching gun safety in use, storage and maintainence, psychological evaluation, criminal background check and so on, as well as ensuring each person has a gun safe for their weapons and ammo, then on completion (assuming you pass), you get a gun licence, against which your purchases are registered, and which you need to provide to prove you are able to buy guns and ammo at your local gun store (same as if want to rent a car you need to present your driving licence) allowing them to check that a) you have one and b) it is valid and c) to register your purchases against you.
Close loopholes like gun show sales and other "private" sales and ensure that all sales are recorded (so if you sell a gun it is registered with the central agency that you have sold it and who to) and you will have a system with very little impact on the vast majority of gun owners but with a little more safety built in.
Throw in a short re-evaluation course every 5-10 years and manditory reporting by the health services of any mental problems to the gun regulation authority and I think that will really help for the minimum of hassle.
You won't be missed.
Living in the UK, there's a good chance he won't be hit either. Or even shot at.
Seaward wrote: Spoken like someone who's never spent five hours in a northern Virginia DMV.
I'd say that is more to do with your DMV being crap than anything else. But I guess it is easier to scream "THAT WON'T WORK! I NEED ME MY GUNZ!" than it is to actually get proactive to come up with something that might actually work for the majority of people.
It's pretty unlikely our house is going to catch fire, but there's a rope ladder stashed on the fourth floor anyway.
You too? We have a chain ladder in each room stashed under the window in case of fire. She Who Must Be Obeyed was very concerned about that. Now with TBone the wiener fire hydrant we can just load him up with water, wait thirty seconds and aim him towards the fire.
Seaward wrote: Spoken like someone who's never spent five hours in a northern Virginia DMV.
I'd say that is more to do with your DMV being crap than anything else. But I guess it is easier to scream "THAT WON'T WORK! I NEED ME MY GUNZ!" than it is to actually get proactive to come up with something that might actually work for the majority of people.
And I love you too Fraz
its not personal. We have more immigrants clamoring to get in here than we can handle now.
Seaward wrote: Spoken like someone who's never spent five hours in a northern Virginia DMV.
I'd say that is more to do with your DMV being crap than anything else. But I guess it is easier to scream "THAT WON'T WORK! I NEED ME MY GUNZ!" than it is to actually get proactive to come up with something that might actually work for the majority of people.
And I love you too Fraz
I'd believe it, except exactly none of what you proposed would've prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy, nor Columbine, nor countless others.
The worst mass killing in New York's history was accomplished with about two dollars worth of gasoline and a ninety-nine cent Bic lighter. Maybe, just maybe, it's extremely difficult to stop a committed madman from doing what he wants to do using nothing more than red tape.
To the OP, you might want to let your friend know that it doesn't matter what state he lives in, none of them will let you shoot from the back yard of an apartment complex.
djones520 wrote: To the OP, you might want to let your friend know that it doesn't matter what state he lives in, none of them will let you shoot from the back yard of an apartment complex.
Seaward wrote: I'd believe it, except exactly none of what you proposed would've prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy, nor Columbine, nor countless others.
The worst mass killing in New York's history was accomplished with about two dollars worth of gasoline and a ninety-nine cent Bic lighter. Maybe, just maybe, it's extremely difficult to stop a committed madman from doing what he wants to do using nothing more than red tape.
I'm not going to go through on a case by case basis because, well, to be honest I lack the interest to do so. You will always get dedicated people willing to do whatever it takes to acomplish their goals. We have a total ban on hand guns in the UK but there are still firearms deaths (not many, but some) every year caused by illegal handguns.
The point is not to stop these things completely, as that is clearly impossible, it is simply to make it as hard as possible without overly inconveniencing the general public. Would you say that any of the suggestions I mentioned would overly inconvenience you or anyone you know who regularly buys/sells/uses guns? More than say, having to take a driving test and present your licence whenever you hire a car? Would you say having a central, live register of gun owners, the amount of ammo they buy (and the sort), the gun offences/warnings they have recieved (such as the guy in the OP who wants to shoot in a residential area - I am not sure if that would be against the law over there? Either way, if is gun related and involves the police it could certainly be noted against his run licence number in the same way that speeding offenses are noted on your driving licence) and ensuring that everyone has at least a minimum of gun safety training and a safe place to store their gun would be a good or a bad thing?
Again, you can never stop people from going out there and doing these things completely, but it is telling when this kind of thing happens every other month...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: its not personal. We have more immigrants clamoring to get in here than we can handle now.
Welcome to every developed country in the world. I just find it a little boring that your reply to anything going against what you want "America to be" basically has you saying "don't like it? GTFO"
Seaward wrote: Spoken like someone who's never spent five hours in a northern Virginia DMV.
I'd say that is more to do with your DMV being crap than anything else. But I guess it is easier to scream "THAT WON'T WORK! I NEED ME MY GUNZ!" than it is to actually get proactive to come up with something that might actually work for the majority of people.
And I love you too Fraz
We have a solution that works for a majority of our people.
Thanks for visiting.
I don't like the idea of possibly dying in Mexico... It's barely safe to visit anymore...
I'm less concerned about the gun laws of the places I'm living, and more of the relevant crime statistics involving guns, regardless of legal or illegal possession.
Seaward wrote: I'd believe it, except exactly none of what you proposed would've prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy, nor Columbine, nor countless others.
The worst mass killing in New York's history was accomplished with about two dollars worth of gasoline and a ninety-nine cent Bic lighter. Maybe, just maybe, it's extremely difficult to stop a committed madman from doing what he wants to do using nothing more than red tape.
I'm not going to go through on a case by case basis because, well, to be honest I lack the interest to do so. You will always get dedicated people willing to do whatever it takes to acomplish their goals. We have a total ban on hand guns in the UK but there are still firearms deaths (not many, but some) every year caused by illegal handguns.
The point is not to stop these things completely, as that is clearly impossible, it is simply to make it as hard as possible without overly inconveniencing the general public. Would you say that any of the suggestions I mentioned would overly inconvenience you or anyone you know who regularly buys/sells/uses guns? More than say, having to take a driving test and present your licence whenever you hire a car? Would you say having a central, live register of gun owners, the amount of ammo they buy (and the sort), the gun offences/warnings they have recieved (such as the guy in the OP who wants to shoot in a residential area - I am not sure if that would be against the law over there? Either way, if is gun related and involves the police it could certainly be noted against his run licence number in the same way that speeding offenses are noted on your driving licence) and ensuring that everyone has at least a minimum of gun safety training and a safe place to store their gun would be a good or a bad thing?
Again, you can never stop people from going out there and doing these things completely, but it is telling when this kind of thing happens every other month...
It doesn't happen every other month, first of all. I trust you were being hyperbolic rather than buying into the, "This is getting untenable, it's happening all the time!" hysteria that's proven incorrect at best by actual facts.
As for whether or not all that would inconvenience me? Of course it would. Monitoring how much ammo I buy would lead, within five years, to determining how much ammo I'm allowed to buy, and as someone who buys a fair amount of ammo - I shoot a lot - that'd annoy the hell out of me. Not to mention likely provoke a court case or two. Determining if my gun's stored safely? I live with another responsible adult, and if she and I are both fine with the gun being stored where it's stored - in an OHAI on the back of the nightstand - why is that the state's business?
I moved to California from the United States because of school, knowing the gun laws were absolutely terrible and that owning a gun here is walking a felony tightrope. Yes, I am an idiot.
However, once school is done and I move to a state that isn't completely insane on the issue:
I look forward to being able to change the grips or stocks on my rifle and not worry about going to jail for 2-8 years.
I look forward to not worrying about whether someone can manage to stuff 1 more round (Even if this includes damaging the magazine to the point of only working once and only chambering that first round) into a magazine over an arbitrary limit and send me to a small cage for a year+ stripping me of firearms rights.
I look forward to being able to make a firearm purchase and walk out with the item after my background check comes back clean, as opposed to after the 5 minute background check comes back.....plus a 10 day arbitrary wait (Despite the fact that I already own upwards of 30 firearms anyway, and the ridiculous notion that someone DRIVEN TO THE POINT OF COMMITTING MURDER will actually "Cool off" rather than find another method.)
I look forward to being able to purchase a handgun that isn't on some politician`s list of models that are "OK" for me to buy.
I look forward to not be looking at 2-8 years for threading the barrel of my pistol to accept a recoil comp for target shooting.
Welcome to every developed country in the world. I just find it a little boring that your reply to anything going against what you want "America to be" basically has you saying "don't like it? GTFO"
And I get tired of people slagging the US, when everyone here came from other countries like yours, because they'd rather cross an ocean or a desert than have to stay there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I hear things are pretty lax in Mexico, so if the gun laws in the US were tightened up, people could emigrate south.
Mexico is a case study on why gun laws work in some countries but not others. Mexico has some of the toughest gun laws in the world. Yet over 50,000 people were killed there last year by "regular" firearms, including some provided by the US government, military firearms, and such high grade niceties as machine guns, grenades, and rockets.
SOFDC wrote: I moved to California from the United States because of school, knowing the gun laws were absolutely terrible and that owning a gun here is walking a felony tightrope. Yes, I am an idiot.
However, once school is done and I move to a state that isn't completely insane on the issue:
I look forward to being able to change the grips or stocks on my rifle and not worry about going to jail for 2-8 years.
I look forward to not worrying about whether someone can manage to stuff 1 more round (Even if this includes damaging the magazine to the point of only working once and only chambering that first round) into a magazine over an arbitrary limit and send me to a small cage for a year+ stripping me of firearms rights.
I look forward to being able to make a firearm purchase and walk out with the item after my background check comes back clean, as opposed to after the 5 minute background check comes back.....plus a 10 day arbitrary wait (Despite the fact that I already own upwards of 30 firearms anyway, and the ridiculous notion that someone DRIVEN TO THE POINT OF COMMITTING MURDER will actually "Cool off" rather than find another method.)
I look forward to being able to purchase a handgun that isn't on some politician`s list of models that are "OK" for me to buy.
I look forward to not be looking at 2-8 years for threading the barrel of my pistol to accept a recoil comp for target shooting.
Let's not get carried away. Those laws clearly work. After all, in 2011, 68% of homicides in California were committed with a firearm. If you didn't have restrictive idiocy like that, you could end up like relatively lax states like Virginia, where it's 69%.
If you didn't have restrictive idiocy like that, you could end up like relatively lax states like Virginia, where it's 69%.
Oh of course, I forgot that someone shot dead is MUCH DEADER than someone stabbed, strangled, or beaten to death. I also forgot that shot to death is also higher on the "Morally objectionable" scale than other methods. Wait...Not it isn't.
Getting out of here is one hell of an incentive to pay attention in class, I will admit.
SOFDC wrote: I moved to California from the United States because of school, knowing the gun laws were absolutely terrible and that owning a gun here is walking a felony tightrope. Yes, I am an idiot.
However, once school is done and I move to a state that isn't completely insane on the issue:
I look forward to being able to change the grips or stocks on my rifle and not worry about going to jail for 2-8 years.
I look forward to not worrying about whether someone can manage to stuff 1 more round (Even if this includes damaging the magazine to the point of only working once and only chambering that first round) into a magazine over an arbitrary limit and send me to a small cage for a year+ stripping me of firearms rights.
I look forward to being able to make a firearm purchase and walk out with the item after my background check comes back clean, as opposed to after the 5 minute background check comes back.....plus a 10 day arbitrary wait (Despite the fact that I already own upwards of 30 firearms anyway, and the ridiculous notion that someone DRIVEN TO THE POINT OF COMMITTING MURDER will actually "Cool off" rather than find another method.)
I look forward to being able to purchase a handgun that isn't on some politician`s list of models that are "OK" for me to buy.
I look forward to not be looking at 2-8 years for threading the barrel of my pistol to accept a recoil comp for target shooting.
Let's not get carried away. Those laws clearly work. After all, in 2011, 68% of homicides in California were committed with a firearm. If you didn't have restrictive idiocy like that, you could end up like relatively lax states like Virginia, where it's 69%.
And to put that in context, California's homicide rate is 20% higher per 100,000 then Virginia's.
Frazzled wrote: And I get tired of people slagging the US, when everyone here came from other countries like yours, because they'd rather cross an ocean or a desert than have to stay there.
The UK is actually quite an attractive place to emmigrate to for a lot of people. You may also have noticed that every single country in the world has changed over time. Just like America. I have a feeling that countries will continue to change over time as well as society changes.
No country is perfect and, it may pain you to hear this, this includes America. There are plenty of isues in the USA, as there are in every country, and it is far better to work towards looking at the issues to benefit the majority of people rather than standing in the corner screaming insults at anyone who thinks differently to you and putting your fingers in your ears whenever they suggest anything.
Seaward wrote:It doesn't happen every other month, first of all. I trust you were being hyperbolic rather than buying into the, "This is getting untenable, it's happening all the time!" hysteria that's proven incorrect at best by actual facts.
Yes, I was not giving an accurate time interval between these kinds of events, though it certainly seems from the news that gun attacks on the general population are fairly often, not to mention all the "regular" gun crime that goes on.
As for whether or not all that would inconvenience me? Of course it would. Monitoring how much ammo I buy would lead, within five years, to determining how much ammo I'm allowed to buy, and as someone who buys a fair amount of ammo - I shoot a lot - that'd annoy the hell out of me.
... Right... in a country as gun crazy as yours, where there are potential riots every time the words "gun" and "control" are mentioned in the same sentence, you really think that is going to happen? It doesn't happen anywhere else (that I am aware of) where guns are allowed but controlled.
Not to mention likely provoke a court case or two. Determining if my gun's stored safely? I live with another responsible adult, and if she and I are both fine with the gun being stored where it's stored - in an OHAI on the back of the nightstand - why is that the state's business?
And if you had a kid, would the "back of the nightstand" be a safe place to store it? Regardless of whether it is the state's business or not, if you don't keep your guns secure, you invite all sorts of trouble. None of the children who have carried out shootings in the past could buy guns in stores (one bit of gun control that I feel you guys got right ), so where exactly do they get their guns? If part of your gun ownership licence stipulates that you have to have a gun safe, that is another layer of protection against these kids getting their hands on guns when they are not supposed to.
Again, it will not stop the die hards, or those whose parents/relatives don't adequately secure their guns, but it builds in another level of protection. And again, does it really cost you much (in money, time, etc) to have a locked safe bolted into the back of your night stand/wardrobe/etc?
SilverMK2 wrote: Yes, I was not giving an accurate time interval between these kinds of events, though it certainly seems from the news that gun attacks on the general population are fairly often, not to mention all the "regular" gun crime that goes on.
Yes, it certainly does seem like that. It also seems like these guys are routinely using military-grade automatic weapons with special bullets.
Not the case, but it sure seems like that, according to the media.
... Right... in a country as gun crazy as yours, where there are potential riots every time the words "gun" and "control" are mentioned in the same sentence, you really think that is going to happen? It doesn't happen anywhere else (that I am aware of) where guns are allowed but controlled.
Of course it would. One of the stated goals of the AWB, according to its proponents - some of whom have admitted that it's nothing more than "do something!" showpiece legislation - is to break the dam on restriction, banning, and confiscation.
And if you had a kid, would the "back of the nightstand" be a safe place to store it?
We don't have a kid.
Regardless of whether it is the state's business or not, if you don't keep your guns secure, you invite all sorts of trouble. None of the children who have carried out shootings in the past could buy guns in stores (one bit of gun control that I feel you guys got right ), so where exactly do they get their guns? If part of your gun ownership licence stipulates that you have to have a gun safe, that is another layer of protection against these kids getting their hands on guns when they are not supposed to.
No, see, we're not the UK. That "regardless of whether it's the state's business or not," part of your statement doesn't fly over here.
Again, it will not stop the die hards, or those whose parents/relatives don't adequately secure their guns, but it builds in another level of protection. And again, does it really cost you much (in money, time, etc) to have a locked safe bolted into the back of your night stand/wardrobe/etc?
I find the notion that any of the mass killers have been something other than die hards, or possibly on the fence, to be kind of hilarious, in a very dark way. If you leave your house to kill fifteen people, you've made your call. It's not a whimsical, "Hell, it's Tuesday, I'm bored," thing that a minor impediment would stop.
I would never move to America, due to the guns. They seem way too easy for an average person, with no real training or intelligence to get. Unfortunatley it appears that alot of Amerians are ignorant to the fact that they don't need guns, and make a massive conspiracy out of gun control laws.
MetalOxide wrote: I would never move to America, due to the guns. They seem way too easy for an average person, with no real training or intelligence to get. Unfortunatley it appears that alot of Amerians are ignorant to the fact that they don't need guns, and make a massive conspiracy out of gun control laws.
Or maybe you folks are ignorant about how things work on this side of the pond. This country doesn't operate on NEED. That's what freedom means.
Seaward wrote: Not the case, but it sure seems like that, according to the media.
Yeah, I'm ignoring the whole "they used a SUPERGUN9000 with CHILD SEEKING BULLETS" and just going on "on Tuesday there was a gun attack which killed x people and injured y".
Of course it would. One of the stated goals of the AWB, according to its proponents - some of whom have admitted that it's nothing more than "do something!" showpiece legislation - is to break the dam on restriction, banning, and confiscation.
And the stated goal of a lot of groups is to bring about the complete and total change of whatever it is that group is targeting. I don't think I know of a single instance where that has ever been achieved, other than in the cases of violent revolutions backed by popular support. More often than not you get a moderation of any change (if anything happens at all). Just look at the neutered healthcare bill you guys pushed through.
We don't have a kid.
Surprisingly I realise that. However, is sticking a gun "in a draw" really that a safe a place to store it? It kind of related to what I said following that question, but more on that in a second...
No, see, we're not the UK. That "regardless of whether it's the state's business or not," part of your statement doesn't fly over here.
That isn't the point I was making. The point I was making is that is or is not a gun more secure if it is locked in a gun safe, and would or would not that prevent the majority of people who should not have access to that gun from accessing it?
I find the notion that any of the mass killers have been something other than die hards, or possibly on the fence, to be kind of hilarious, in a very dark way. If you leave your house to kill fifteen people, you've made your call. It's not a whimsical, "Hell, it's Tuesday, I'm bored," thing that a minor impediment would stop.
I find the notion that you cannot understand that ease of access promotes ease of carrying out these kinds of actions to be kind of hilarious, in a very dark way. Undoubtedly someone who says "Man, I am being bullied at school and so I am going to go in and shoot them all" will find doing that a hell of a lot easier if his parents leave their guns unsecured in a draw or cupboard, than if they are locked in a safe to which they do not have access. Again, that kid has to be a lot more driven to gain access to the guns than to just decide one day to pick them up and take them to school (or to lay out a plan of attack over however many days or weeks, then just go into the bedroom and take the gun out of a draw before they leave the house).
And again, I am not saying that it will stop every attack, but it adds just a little more protection, another layer of safety on gun ownership. And this is kind of ignoring every other suggestion I made and looking at gun owners just putting their guns in a bloody safe rather than a sock draw.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Or maybe you folks are ignorant about how things work on this side of the pond. This country doesn't operate on NEED. That's what freedom means.
Yep, you are free to get gunned down whenever you want!
Oh, wait, you concealed carry? Well, that will act as a magic bullet sheild which will prevent you from ever being harmed too!
SilverMK2 wrote: And if you had a kid, would the "back of the nightstand" be a safe place to store it? Regardless of whether it is the state's business or not, if you don't keep your guns secure, you invite all sorts of trouble. None of the children who have carried out shootings in the past could buy guns in stores (one bit of gun control that I feel you guys got right ), so where exactly do they get their guns? If part of your gun ownership licence stipulates that you have to have a gun safe, that is another layer of protection against these kids getting their hands on guns when they are not supposed to.
Again, it will not stop the die hards, or those whose parents/relatives don't adequately secure their guns, but it builds in another level of protection. And again, does it really cost you much (in money, time, etc) to have a locked safe bolted into the back of your night stand/wardrobe/etc?
Thats utter nonsense. Why on earth do you need a bolted safe? What idiocy is this? A bolt down safe is incredibly expensive for what it does. Its designed to be expensive and thus keep the commoners from having something.
You can get a simple $40 safe if all you want to do is keep them out of reach of kids. We have two quick open safes for just that reason.
Frazzled wrote: Thats utter nonsense. Why on earth do you need a bolted safe? What idiocy is this? A bolt down safe is incredibly expensive for what it does. Its designed to be expensive and thus keep the commoners from having something.
You can get a simple $40 safe if all you want to do is keep them out of reach of kids. We have two quick open safes for just that reason.
Any safe is better than no safe and I am very glad to know you use them - I personally am not really up on the costs of gun safes because I don't really use them (though my understanding is that in the UK shotguns etc must be secured in a bolted gun safe)
A bolted safe prevents the gun safe being removed to another location to be opened by someone without much skill (such as cutting through them, using a crowbar etc - all activities which cannot really be done undetected in the home).
Again, just spitballing ideas rather than laying out a detailed proposal to be passed through your law making system.
djones520 wrote: Or maybe you folks are ignorant about how things work on this side of the pond. This country doesn't operate on NEED. That's what freedom means.
Yep, you are free to get gunned down whenever you want!
Oh, wait, you concealed carry? Well, that will act as a magic bullet sheild which will prevent you from ever being harmed too!
There you go with your hyperbole again. Acting like this is Afghanistan or something. *roles eyes*
Actually, I don't have a CCW because I currently live in the only state that does not allow them. That'll be fixed next year though, since it was finally stricken down.
And maybe you should get off your high horse buddy. Your countries violent crime rate is 5 times that of the US. Per your own media.
I personally think that automatic weapons should be banned in the US. There is absolutley no need for an average citizen to have one at all. All they need is a rifle for hunting and a hand gun for defending your home. There should also be a limit to how powerful the handgun/ rifle should be.
MetalOxide wrote: I would never move to America, due to the guns. They seem way too easy for an average person, with no real training or intelligence to get. Unfortunatley it appears that alot of Amerians are ignorant to the fact that they don't need guns, and make a massive conspiracy out of gun control laws.
Its part of our Bill of Rights, and a fundamental partof our culture. Its not "ignorant." I love the slams from people who have no knoweldge from a completely different country.
SilverMK2 wrote: Yeah, I'm ignoring the whole "they used a SUPERGUN9000 with CHILD SEEKING BULLETS" and just going on "on Tuesday there was a gun attack which killed x people and injured y".
Then you'd be interested to know that mass shootings hit their peak in the '90s and have been on a downward decline since.
Surprisingly I realise that. However, is sticking a gun "in a draw" really that a safe a place to store it? It kind of related to what I said following that question, but more on that in a second...
If I doubted it wasn't that safe a place to store it, I probably wouldn't keep it in the exact same holster a couple inches above my genitals on a daily basis.
That isn't the point I was making. The point I was making is that is or is not a gun more secure if it is locked in a gun safe, and would or would not that prevent the majority of people who should not have access to that gun from accessing it?
Such as who? My girlfriend has access to my gun currently - as I have access to hers - and that would not change were it locked in a safe.
I find the notion that you cannot understand that ease of access promotes ease of carrying out these kinds of actions to be kind of hilarious, in a very dark way. Undoubtedly someone who says "Man, I am being bullied at school and so I am going to go in and shoot them all" will find doing that a hell of a lot easier if his parents leave their guns unsecured in a draw or cupboard, than if they are locked in a safe to which they do not have access. Again, that kid has to be a lot more driven to gain access to the guns than to just decide one day to pick them up and take them to school (or to lay out a plan of attack over however many days or weeks, then just go into the bedroom and take the gun out of a draw before they leave the house).
No, sorry. I don't buy that someone who means to kill his classmates is going to be stopped from doing so by the lack of availability of one chosen weapon. Someone committed to the notion is going to carry it out, whether it's shooting everybody, or making bombs out of household chemicals and five minutes on the internet, or chaining the doors shut and setting the place on fire.
Oh, wait, you concealed carry? Well, that will act as a magic bullet sheild which will prevent you from ever being harmed too!
It doesn't act as a magic bullet shield, unfortunately. It does provide you with options beyond trying to call the police to make sure they know where to find your corpse when they show up five minutes later.
djones520 wrote: Or maybe you folks are ignorant about how things work on this side of the pond. This country doesn't operate on NEED. That's what freedom means.
Yep, you are free to get gunned down whenever you want!
Oh, wait, you concealed carry? Well, that will act as a magic bullet sheild which will prevent you from ever being harmed too!
There you go with your hyperbole again. Acting like this is Afghanistan or something. *roles eyes*
Actually, I don't have a CCW because I currently live in the only state that does not allow them. That'll be fixed next year though, since it was finally stricken down.
And maybe you should get off your high horse buddy. Your countries violent crime rate is 5 times that of the US. Per your own media.
MetalOxide wrote: I personally think that automatic weapons should be banned in the US. There is absolutley no need for an average citizen to have one at all. All they need is a rifle for hunting and a hand gun for defending your home. There should also be a limit to how powerful the handgun/ rifle should be.
Automatic weapons are by and large restrictive to own.
The perception that I could walk out and buy an Uzi is not a correct one.
I'd love to see someone safely install one of those bolt down monstrosities into a 3rd floor apartment.
The cost of the things is ridiculous. That's also the easy part. Moving with the thing and installing/removing the thing without getting killed or spending very much more than your collection is worth is the MUCH bigger issue.
A bolted safe prevents the gun safe being removed to another location to be opened by someone without much skill
This is also completely and utterly wrong. When I bought mine, I was very realistic about how much time and security it will buy me: Almost none. What it will get me is visibility. Wrapping a chain around a fridge sized object, attaching the other end to a pickups trailer hitch and gunning the gas is not what I would term "Difficult." ....and a small O/A cutting torch will cut 20mm steel plate about like pouring hot water on a block of ice. It's also not going to be very difficult to take a portable grinder and cut the whole <CENSORED> door off the hinges/frame, a few minutes perhaps.
....But someone is hopefully going to notice if any of these approaches are attempted. Maybe.
MetalOxide wrote: I would never move to America, due to the guns. They seem way too easy for an average person, with no real training or intelligence to get. Unfortunatley it appears that alot of Amerians are ignorant to the fact that they don't need guns, and make a massive conspiracy out of gun control laws.
Its part of our Bill of Rights, and a fundamental part of our culture. Its not "ignorant." I love the slams from people who have no knoweldge from a completely different country.
Don't you have some monarch to go kiss up to?
Then maybe you should not engage them in the same way?
MetalOxide wrote: I personally think that automatic weapons should be banned in the US. There is absolutley no need for an average citizen to have one at all. All they need is a rifle for hunting and a hand gun for defending your home. There should also be a limit to how powerful the handgun/ rifle should be.
Automatic weapons have been banned for new sales in the US since 1986. Anything manufactured prior to '86 is still legal for transfer, but that's a dwindling supply and comes with mountains of red tape. Also, to the best of my knowledge, a legally-purchased automatic weapon has not been used in the commission of a crime since the ban.
Yep. Sometimes satire is the best way to get through to some people.
Acting like this is Afghanistan or something. *roles eyes*
Acting like owning/carring a gun is in any way necessary *rolls eyes*
Again, I would love if the UK had more open firearms laws as I would love to engage in a spot of shooting, but I would rather be denied that and have a more gun free society.
And maybe you should get off your high horse buddy. Your countries violent crime rate is 5 times that of the US. Per your own media.
And as I have pointed out in several threads, "violent crime" is not reported in the same way in different countries. The UK includes several crimes in the "violent crime" category which are not included by other countries such as the USA.
MetalOxide wrote: I personally think that automatic weapons should be banned in the US. There is absolutley no need for an average citizen to have one at all. All they need is a rifle for hunting and a hand gun for defending your home. There should also be a limit to how powerful the handgun/ rifle should be.
Automatic weapons have been banned for new sales in the US since 1986. Anything manufactured prior to '86 is still legal for transfer, but that's a dwindling supply and comes with mountains of red tape. Also, to the best of my knowledge, a legally-purchased automatic weapon has not been used in the commission of a crime since the ban.
MetalOxide wrote: I personally think that automatic weapons should be banned in the US. There is absolutley no need for an average citizen to have one at all. All they need is a rifle for hunting and a hand gun for defending your home. There should also be a limit to how powerful the handgun/ rifle should be.
Automatic weapons have been banned for new sales in the US since 1986. Anything manufactured prior to '86 is still legal for transfer, but that's a dwindling supply and comes with mountains of red tape. Also, to the best of my knowledge, a legally-purchased automatic weapon has not been used in the commission of a crime since the ban.
Interesting,.. gonna have to do more reasearch now
Kanluwen wrote: So you can afford the expense of buying the gun and ammunition but not a bolt down safe?
Yes, I own a rifle, a cleaning kit, and 25 rounds of ammunition, I spent maybe 100 dollars US, Gun cases are expensive. But I don't live with kids, and my rifle is stored in my room far out of sight of anyone in my house.
djones520 wrote: Or maybe you folks are ignorant about how things work on this side of the pond. This country doesn't operate on NEED. That's what freedom means.
Yep, you are free to get gunned down whenever you want!
Oh, wait, you concealed carry? Well, that will act as a magic bullet sheild which will prevent you from ever being harmed too!
There you go with your hyperbole again. Acting like this is Afghanistan or something. *roles eyes*
Actually, I don't have a CCW because I currently live in the only state that does not allow them. That'll be fixed next year though, since it was finally stricken down.
And maybe you should get off your high horse buddy. Your countries violent crime rate is 5 times that of the US. Per your own media.
Frazzled wrote: Thats utter nonsense. Why on earth do you need a bolted safe? What idiocy is this? A bolt down safe is incredibly expensive for what it does. Its designed to be expensive and thus keep the commoners from having something.
You can get a simple $40 safe if all you want to do is keep them out of reach of kids. We have two quick open safes for just that reason.
Any safe is better than no safe and I am very glad to know you use them - I personally am not really up on the costs of gun safes because I don't really use them (though my understanding is that in the UK shotguns etc must be secured in a bolted gun safe)
A bolted safe prevents the gun safe being removed to another location to be opened by someone without much skill (such as cutting through them, using a crowbar etc - all activities which cannot really be done undetected in the home).
Again, just spitballing ideas rather than laying out a detailed proposal to be passed through your law making system.
If you're worried about kids removing your safe to another location: 1) you don't have a clue as parent; 2) you've got a whole lot of other issues to deal with; 3) you've failed in Life (TM). Seriously, this is crazy talk.
They have to 1) get the safe; 2) move the safe; 3) somehow then get the safe pried open.
And this is a 7 year old right? Who are you raising? Zombie Manson?
Kanluwen wrote: So you can afford the expense of buying the gun and ammunition but not a bolt down safe?
Yes, I own a rifle, a cleaning kit, and 25 rounds of ammunition, I spent maybe 100 dollars US, Gun cases are expensive. But I don't live with kids, and my rifle is stored in my room far out of sight of anyone in my house.
Gun cases for long arms are a bit of a different story, I will totally agree with that.
However I think you would agree with me in that if you lived with children or others had reliable access to the rifle you would not just be throwing it in your closet?
SilverMK2 wrote: Acting like owning/carring a gun is in any way necessary *rolls eyes*
There are, by some estimates, three times as many guns in private ownership - and an unknown amount of illegal guns - in the United States than there are people in the United Kingdom. Defensive gun uses in the United States happen somewhere between KalashnikovMarine's likely high number of once every 13 seconds and sebster's hilariously low number of once every 28.5 hours.
Kanluwen, my guns are in my closet. My oldest son (only one of age to even know how to open a door) is extremely aware that they are nothing that he is allowed to touch. He won't even go into the closet without direct permission.
It's about being an actual parent, and teaching your children right.
Frazzled wrote: And this is a 7 year old right? Who are you raising? Zombie Manson?
With all those bovine growth hormones in your beef, I'm surprised you don't have a generation of little Hulks running around who can rip gun safes apart with their bare hands
But joking aside, your average 13/14 year old has enough brain cells to rub together to figure out how to open a basic gun safe with a crowbar. And if you have these kids that Seaward is talking about who were apparently adopted from MacGyver planning an attack on their school, well... it should be childs play to get the safe open. If you will forgive the expression.
SilverMK2 wrote: But joking aside, your average 13/14 year old has enough brain cells to rub together to figure out how to open a basic gun safe with a crowbar. And if you have these kids that Seaward is talking about who were apparently adopted from MacGyver planning an attack on their school, well... it should be childs play to get the safe open. If you will forgive the expression.
That's true. It takes surpassing intellect to determine that flammable material + ignition source = fire.
Kanluwen wrote: So you can afford the expense of buying the gun and ammunition but not a bolt down safe?
Yes, I own a rifle, a cleaning kit, and 25 rounds of ammunition, I spent maybe 100 dollars US, Gun cases are expensive. But I don't live with kids, and my rifle is stored in my room far out of sight of anyone in my house.
Gun cases for long arms are a bit of a different story, I will totally agree with that.
However I think you would agree with me in that if you lived with children or others had reliable access to the rifle you would not just be throwing it in your closet?
Agreed, I would most likely not own the firearm that I do own, and like I said in the Connecticut shooting thread (though my voice is far quieter than others), I would most likely sold it if I had a kid. Though I would probably buy a hand gun, keep it in a very nice keypad combination safe that only I knew the combination to, and I would keep it in one of my drawers under my bed (sleep on an old water bed frame from the 70s). It's safe, it's handy if I need it for defense, and only I know the combination.
My boss, who is ex-military, said it decently well yesterday at lunch... Your hand gun allows you to get to your rifle. Though I doubt I would need a mosin in issues of home defense.
SilverMK2 wrote: But joking aside, your average 13/14 year old has enough brain cells to rub together to figure out how to open a basic gun safe with a crowbar. And if you have these kids that Seaward is talking about who were apparently adopted from MacGyver planning an attack on their school, well... it should be childs play to get the safe open. If you will forgive the expression.
That's true. It takes surpassing intellect to determine that flammable material + ignition source = fire.
Silver, the real question is, why are your kids gaining access to your crowbar .
But seriously, I don't know of many 13/14 yr olds that have the strength to pry a safe open with a crowbar... Just watch Storage wars, a grown man has issues with cracking the safe.
Seaward wrote: That's true. It takes surpassing intellect to determine that flammable material + ignition source = fire.
It does however then take some skill to turn that into some kind of fire bomb, to which I believe you were referring to, rather than just pouring petrol all over the place and putting a match to it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alfndrate wrote: Silver, the real question is, why are your kids gaining access to your crowbar .
Damn, I knew I should have kept my crowbar in a crowbar safe rather than just in my nightstand!
But seriously, I don't know of many 13/14 yr olds that have the strength to pry a safe open with a crowbar... Just watch Storage wars, a grown man has issues with cracking the safe.
So are we agreed that if everyone kept their guns in a safe, there would be far fewer kids having access to them in order to go around shooting up their schools?
SilverMK2 wrote: It does however then take some skill to turn that into some kind of fire bomb, to which I believe you were referring to, rather than just pouring petrol all over the place and putting a match to it.
I wasn't, actually.
That New York mass murder I referred to earlier in the thread? One of the largest in US history. Guy just poured some gas in the stairwell of a night club, lit it on fire, and walked off. Killed 87 people.
Seaward wrote: That's true. It takes surpassing intellect to determine that flammable material + ignition source = fire.
It does however then take some skill to turn that into some kind of fire bomb, to which I believe you were referring to, rather than just pouring petrol all over the place and putting a match to it.
It's actually not hard to do that...
Just thinking about my high school, if I wanted to do such an act, all I would have to do is wait until there is a major play going on. Access to the inner parts of the school, 0 security (it's after hours), and the ability to get things into the building without triggering alarms (more doors unlocked). And you've got 2+ hours to spread the petrol... Though in such cases you'd probably want diesel fuel... doesn't evaporate as fast...
MetalOxide wrote: I personally think that automatic weapons should be banned in the US. There is absolutley no need for an average citizen to have one at all. All they need is a rifle for hunting and a hand gun for defending your home. There should also be a limit to how powerful the handgun/ rifle should be.
Automatic weapons ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL HERE without a very specialized permit that you're not going to be able to get, with much higher federal scrutiny. Further, I don't think there's been a case of a crime with a legally owned automatic weapon since this was put in place in the 30s.
This is the problem, people making ignorant statements and then saying we should have such and such law.
SilverMK2 wrote: It does however then take some skill to turn that into some kind of fire bomb, to which I believe you were referring to, rather than just pouring petrol all over the place and putting a match to it.
I wasn't, actually.
That New York mass murder I referred to earlier in the thread? One of the largest in US history. Guy just poured some gas in the stairwell of a night club, lit it on fire, and walked off. Killed 87 people.
What was the name of that club? I'm interested in reading about that...
That New York mass murder I referred to earlier in the thread? One of the largest in US history. Guy just poured some gas in the stairwell of a night club, lit it on fire, and walked off. Killed 87 people.
Then I apologise, I thought you were talking about some kind of fuel bomb. But then again, with the US paying almost as much for fuel as we do in the UK, it is probably cheaper for kids to get a gun from somewhere
MetalOxide wrote: I would never move to America, due to the guns. They seem way too easy for an average person, with no real training or intelligence to get. Unfortunatley it appears that alot of Amerians are ignorant to the fact that they don't need guns, and make a massive conspiracy out of gun control laws.
Its part of our Bill of Rights, and a fundamental part of our culture. Its not "ignorant." I love the slams from people who have no knoweldge from a completely different country.
Don't you have some monarch to go kiss up to?
Then maybe you should not engage them in the same way?
Educate, do not retaliate.
"If he puts one of your men in the hospital, you put one of his in the morgue." Santa Claus.
Frazzled wrote: Automatic weapons ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL HERE without a very specialized permit that you're not going to be able to get, with much higher federal scrutiny. Further, I don't think there's been a case of a crime with a legally owned automatic weapon since this was put in place in the 30s.
This is the problem, people making ignorant statements and then saying we should have such and such law.
And do people feel that this flagrant breach of their 2nd amendment rights is something that is worth suffering through for the greater good? Do you daily have to struggle on through the pain of knowing that you can't own a fully automatic weapon without filling out some paperwork and undergoing some kind of security checks?
djones520 wrote: Or maybe you folks are ignorant about how things work on this side of the pond. This country doesn't operate on NEED. That's what freedom means.
Yep, you are free to get gunned down whenever you want!
Oh, wait, you concealed carry? Well, that will act as a magic bullet sheild which will prevent you from ever being harmed too!
There you go with your hyperbole again. Acting like this is Afghanistan or something. *roles eyes*
Actually, I don't have a CCW because I currently live in the only state that does not allow them. That'll be fixed next year though, since it was finally stricken down.
And maybe you should get off your high horse buddy. Your countries violent crime rate is 5 times that of the US. Per your own media.
When all else fails, attack the source. Never mind the fact that the numbers are solid.
No, the numbers are not solid. The Daily mail is a watered down version of your Fox News. The Daily Mail typically likes to use scare-mongering tactics to try and get people to believe in the old-style right wing views. The only information I can find on the UK having a higher violent crime rate than the US is the SUN, Telegraph and Daily Mail, all not so very credible news sources.
Frazzled wrote: And this is a 7 year old right? Who are you raising? Zombie Manson?
With all those bovine growth hormones in your beef, I'm surprised you don't have a generation of little Hulks running around who can rip gun safes apart with their bare hands
You're right. I forgot about our Jr. High football teams. OT but my Boy's school is going to State this year. Wow. He's not thrilled.
Kanluwen wrote: So you can afford the expense of buying the gun and ammunition but not a bolt down safe?
Because I don't like spending money on stupidity. Kanluwen the liberties destroyer on the other hand might. Whatever floats your boat.
If you cannot engage in a discussion without namecalling, I suggest you take a break.
Summarizing your posting history =\= name calling.
Have a great summer.
djones520 wrote:Kanluwen, my guns are in my closet. My oldest son (only one of age to even know how to open a door) is extremely aware that they are nothing that he is allowed to touch. He won't even go into the closet without direct permission.
It's about being an actual parent, and teaching your children right.
I personally think you are in grave error and that your thought process has lead to hundreds of child shooting incidents. There needs to be a mechanical lock between your guns and your kids. Locks keep honest men honest and good kids good. Even a chintzy Walmart wall locker is better at keeping your kids safe than hoping your authority will overcome a child's natural curiosity and rebellion.
But thier are your guns and you kids.
SilverMK2 wrote: And do people feel that this flagrant breach of their 2nd amendment rights is something that is worth suffering through for the greater good? Do you daily have to struggle on through the pain of knowing that you can't own a fully automatic weapon without filling out some paperwork and undergoing some kind of security checks?
I think the greater good would be served by letting them back on the market. The cold truth is we'd probably have fewer fatalities in situations like this if these scrawny outcasts tried to off their class with the selector on rock and roll.
SilverMK2 wrote: But joking aside, your average 13/14 year old has enough brain cells to rub together to figure out how to open a basic gun safe with a crowbar. And if you have these kids that Seaward is talking about who were apparently adopted from MacGyver planning an attack on their school, well... it should be childs play to get the safe open. If you will forgive the expression.
That's true. It takes surpassing intellect to determine that flammable material + ignition source = fire.
Frazzled remembers fire. Nog was always putzing about in the fields even during storms. Then lightning hit Nog. And thus, fire was born!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
My boss, who is ex-military, said it decently well yesterday at lunch... Your hand gun allows you to get to your rifle. Though I doubt I would need a mosin in issues of home defense.
Hey you never know when the Hitlerites are going to invade Mother Russia.
Tell me, do you ever have the urge to lie down in a slit trench? Invade Berlin?
MetalOxide wrote:. The only information I can find on the UK having a higher violent crime rate than the US is the SUN, Telegraph and Daily Mail, all not so very credible news sources.
I suppose you don't find EuroStat very credible either...
SilverMK2 wrote: And do people feel that this flagrant breach of their 2nd amendment rights is something that is worth suffering through for the greater good? Do you daily have to struggle on through the pain of knowing that you can't own a fully automatic weapon without filling out some paperwork and undergoing some kind of security checks?
I think the greater good would be served by letting them back on the market. The cold truth is we'd probably have fewer fatalities in situations like this if these scrawny outcasts tried to off their class with the selector on rock and roll.
I never understood why flamethrowers were banned. Sure, you will probably take out the building, but most of these guys probably couldn't even lift one and they are only good for a handful of shots
Albatross wrote: Living in the UK, there's a good chance he won't be hit either. Or even shot at.
Living in the US there is a pretty good chance of that as well. I'm 28, 11 years in the military, frequently visit Detroit and St. Louis, and I've never been shot at.
Yup... as I can attest to as well.
Shoot, I went to school in the city participating in the reverse segregation program and stayed late in some of the toughest neighborhood at nights. Not once was I shot at, heard any shoots or even seen any shooting aftermaths...
Seaward wrote: That's true. It takes surpassing intellect to determine that flammable material + ignition source = fire.
It does however then take some skill to turn that into some kind of fire bomb, to which I believe you were referring to, rather than just pouring petrol all over the place and putting a match to it.
It's actually not hard to do that...
Just thinking about my high school, if I wanted to do such an act, all I would have to do is wait until there is a major play going on. Access to the inner parts of the school, 0 security (it's after hours), and the ability to get things into the building without triggering alarms (more doors unlocked). And you've got 2+ hours to spread the petrol... Though in such cases you'd probably want diesel fuel... doesn't evaporate as fast...
Bottle with 1/3 gasoline, 1/3 kerosene, 1/3 dissolved styrofoam in suspension...
That New York mass murder I referred to earlier in the thread? One of the largest in US history. Guy just poured some gas in the stairwell of a night club, lit it on fire, and walked off. Killed 87 people.
Then I apologise, I thought you were talking about some kind of fuel bomb. But then again, with the US paying almost as much for fuel as we do in the UK, it is probably cheaper for kids to get a gun from somewhere
djones520 wrote: Or maybe you folks are ignorant about how things work on this side of the pond. This country doesn't operate on NEED. That's what freedom means.
Yep, you are free to get gunned down whenever you want!
Oh, wait, you concealed carry? Well, that will act as a magic bullet sheild which will prevent you from ever being harmed too!
There you go with your hyperbole again. Acting like this is Afghanistan or something. *roles eyes*
Actually, I don't have a CCW because I currently live in the only state that does not allow them. That'll be fixed next year though, since it was finally stricken down.
And maybe you should get off your high horse buddy. Your countries violent crime rate is 5 times that of the US. Per your own media.
The number of murders and killings in England and Wales has fallen to the lowest level in nearly 30 years, Office for National Statistics figures show.
Police recorded 550 homicides in 2011-12, 88 fewer than the previous year and the lowest number since 1983.
Recorded violence against the person fell by 7%, continuing a downward trend in recent years
Provisional data shows 5,911 firearm offences were recorded - 16% down - of which 39 resulted in a death.
If we go back to the article you cite we note
In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.
Which throws the figures off mightily.
Plus of course the figures quoted for the USA must be wwaayy off or otherwise the sheer number of times a firearm saves someone in the USA presented on this board over and over again are completely inaccurate.
Frazzled wrote: Automatic weapons ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL HERE without a very specialized permit that you're not going to be able to get, with much higher federal scrutiny. Further, I don't think there's been a case of a crime with a legally owned automatic weapon since this was put in place in the 30s.
This is the problem, people making ignorant statements and then saying we should have such and such law.
And do people feel that this flagrant breach of their 2nd amendment rights is something that is worth suffering through for the greater good? Do you daily have to struggle on through the pain of knowing that you can't own a fully automatic weapon without filling out some paperwork and undergoing some kind of security checks?
Nope, just responding to the ignorance of another poster.
I only had the urge to invade Berlin twice in my life . Once was when playing Call of Duty: World at War, and the second time was when planning my "authentic" WWII Russian Themed army.
And the mosin was the example because that is currently the rifle I own. I'd rather own a hand gun, but I can't afford to purchase one at the moment. I got the mosin off of a buddy's day. He bought a pair from an old friend, gave them to my buddy who gave one to me.
Alfndrate wrote: I only had the urge to invade Berlin twice in my life . Once was when playing Call of Duty: World at War, and the second time was when planning my "authentic" WWII Russian Themed army.
And the mosin was the example because that is currently the rifle I own. I'd rather own a hand gun, but I can't afford to purchase one at the moment. I got the mosin off of a buddy's day. He bought a pair from an old friend, gave them to my buddy who gave one to me.
That is your rifle. There are many like it, but that one's yours.
Alfndrate wrote: I only had the urge to invade Berlin twice in my life . Once was when playing Call of Duty: World at War, and the second time was when planning my "authentic" WWII Russian Themed army.
And the mosin was the example because that is currently the rifle I own. I'd rather own a hand gun, but I can't afford to purchase one at the moment. I got the mosin off of a buddy's day. He bought a pair from an old friend, gave them to my buddy who gave one to me.
That is your rifle. There are many like it, but that one's yours.
I personally think you are in grave error and that your thought process has lead to hundreds of child shooting incidents. There needs to be a mechanical lock between your guns and your kids. Locks keep honest men honest and good kids good. Even a chintzy Walmart wall locker is better at keeping your kids safe than hoping your authority will overcome a child's natural curiosity and rebellion.
But thier are your guns and you kids.
Agreed. Here are some good options (if you don't have something already which was not noted).
1. Simple lock on the door, down to even a simple padlock.
2. Some rifle bags are made to have padlocks on them. Thats an excellent option as well.
3. Lock up the ammo.
Thats what we do for the long guns. We just have the ammo locked up.
Pistols? Pistols are in safes or locked up.
Albatross wrote: Living in the UK, there's a good chance he won't be hit either. Or even shot at.
Living in the US there is a pretty good chance of that as well. I'm 28, 11 years in the military, frequently visit Detroit and St. Louis, and I've never been shot at.
Yup... as I can attest to as well.
Shoot, I went to school in the city participating in the reverse segregation program and stayed late in some of the toughest neighborhood at nights. Not once was I shot at, heard any shoots or even seen any shooting aftermaths...
The first time I remember seeing a gun was in an airport in the UK when a couple of armed police walked through the waiting lounge. I can remember thinking something along the lines of "HOLYGAKTHEYHAVEGUNS!"
On my several trips across to Americaland the only times I ever saw guns were pistols on airport security and a few policemen walking around. Next time I go I will see if I can find a shooting range that will let me have a go
Other than that I have seen armed police in quite a few countries around the world; Egypt, Gambia, Malaysia, Thailand, the UAE, etc. I can't remember if I saw any guns in Australia.
Alfndrate wrote: I only had the urge to invade Berlin twice in my life . Once was when playing Call of Duty: World at War, and the second time was when planning my "authentic" WWII Russian Themed army.
And the mosin was the example because that is currently the rifle I own. I'd rather own a hand gun, but I can't afford to purchase one at the moment. I got the mosin off of a buddy's day. He bought a pair from an old friend, gave them to my buddy who gave one to me.
I've said this before, but I take a certain joy, when watching the war channel and some show on the great Lowenbrau/Smirnoff Bowl comes on, in remarking to the wife "look my ancestors are wailing on your ancestors again."
SilverMK2 wrote: On my several trips across to Americaland the only times I ever saw guns were pistols on airport security and a few policemen walking around. Next time I go I will see if I can find a shooting range that will let me have a go
There are a lot more out there. You just don't see them.
Plus of course the figures quoted for the USA must be wwaayy off or otherwise the sheer number of times a firearm saves someone in the USA presented on this board over and over again are completely inaccurate.
You should try some Hobgoblin if you can ever get your hands on any. I am not a drinker myself, but pretty much everyone I have spoken to absolutely loves it. They also have a great sense of humour as a company and do lots of themed beers. For example, their beer for January is called "January'S ale"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: There are a lot more out there. You just don't see them.
Of that I don't doubt, though I was not exactly gun-watching while I was over there
Additionally, at least the guy in the picture is unlikely to need a gun safe to keep his kids off his gun if he trips over
If you didn't have restrictive idiocy like that, you could end up like relatively lax states like Virginia, where it's 69%.
Oh of course, I forgot that someone shot dead is MUCH DEADER than someone stabbed, strangled, or beaten to death. I also forgot that shot to death is also higher on the "Morally objectionable" scale than other methods. Wait...Not it isn't.
Getting out of here is one hell of an incentive to pay attention in class, I will admit.
Many medical studies have shown that being shot is more likely to lead to death than being stabbed.
Plus of course the figures quoted for the USA must be wwaayy off or otherwise the sheer number of times a firearm saves someone in the USA presented on this board over and over again are completely inaccurate.
Care to expand, using numbers?
It's in the Conn. shooting thread.
Apparently civilian owned guns prevent somewhere from 100,000 to 2.5 million muggings/rapes/home invasions/murders/etc etc per year.
Which if we then factor the crimes that are commited and if the higher end figures are true, is getting near Mega-City One figures.
So I'm just somewhat bemused how guns make a society super safe so there's no crime that you need to worry about and yet are essential as there's so much crime one needs to be able to defend one's self, family, property etc etc , at the same time.
Well, I live in Illinios, so it doesn't get much worse (at least in our country)! I would've moved to Missouri already if I wasn't tied down to IL for personal reasons. But, no, I would never move to a state/country where the gun laws are more strict.
I'm also bemused how the though of additional gun laws will someone be the magic bullet (he pun) and stop future things from happening in a quick and easy fashion.
The US has alsways been subject to crazy events. We're a very fracturous place since the beginning, and our ability to deal with the mentally ill has been destroyed by case law.
Plus of course the figures quoted for the USA must be wwaayy off or otherwise the sheer number of times a firearm saves someone in the USA presented on this board over and over again are completely inaccurate.
Care to expand, using numbers?
It's in the Conn. shooting thread.
Apparently civilian owned guns prevent somewhere from 100,000 to 2.5 million muggings/rapes/home invasions/murders/etc etc per year.
Which if we then factor the crimes that are commited and if the higher end figures are true, is getting near Mega-City One figures.
You've failed to mention how that number is inaccurate.
mega_bassist wrote: Well, I live in Illinios, so it doesn't get much worse (at least in our country)! I would've moved to Missouri already if I wasn't tied down to IL for personal reasons. But, no, I would never move to a state/country where the gun laws are more strict.
Come on over brother!
But you don't have to move... you can store your weapons with me .
Plus of course the figures quoted for the USA must be wwaayy off or otherwise the sheer number of times a firearm saves someone in the USA presented on this board over and over again are completely inaccurate.
Care to expand, using numbers?
It's in the Conn. shooting thread.
Apparently civilian owned guns prevent somewhere from 100,000 to 2.5 million muggings/rapes/home invasions/murders/etc etc per year.
Which if we then factor the crimes that are commited and if the higher end figures are true, is getting near Mega-City One figures.
You've failed to mention how that number is inaccurate.
mega_bassist wrote: Well, I live in Illinios, so it doesn't get much worse (at least in our country)! I would've moved to Missouri already if I wasn't tied down to IL for personal reasons. But, no, I would never move to a state/country where the gun laws are more strict.
Come on over brother!
But you don't have to move... you can store your weapons with me .
Hahaha, I see what you're up to
I work north of STL, and I'm here often enough, trust me! Anywho, I'm excited that IL is finally getting concealed carry license!
Plus of course the figures quoted for the USA must be wwaayy off or otherwise the sheer number of times a firearm saves someone in the USA presented on this board over and over again are completely inaccurate.
Care to expand, using numbers?
It's in the Conn. shooting thread.
Apparently civilian owned guns prevent somewhere from 100,000 to 2.5 million muggings/rapes/home invasions/murders/etc etc per year.
Which if we then factor the crimes that are commited and if the higher end figures are true, is getting near Mega-City One figures.
You've failed to mention how that number is inaccurate.
Mathematics.
That's remarkably useless, thanks for that.
WHAT numbers are these "mathematics" based on. Hense why I asked to to expand with numbers in my original response.
Apparently there are an extra 100,00 to 2.5 million events that require the sue of a gun to resolve but would not be included in the figures in the article
So either the violent crime rate is higher than the one in the article, or the number of extra events is incorrectly recorded.
Soladrin wrote: I'm gonna state the opposite, so my anwser to this is still yes.
I wouldn't move to a place with your gun laws.
I would agree. I am all for being able to shoot (and would love to be able to do so in the UK), but almost completely unregulated sale and use of guns? No thanks. You have to pass tests to prove you can drive a car before you can go out on the roads on your own, why don't you need to do the same things if you want to have/use a gun?
An initial test/course teaching gun safety in use, storage and maintainence, psychological evaluation, criminal background check and so on, as well as ensuring each person has a gun safe for their weapons and ammo, then on completion (assuming you pass), you get a gun licence, against which your purchases are registered, and which you need to provide to prove you are able to buy guns and ammo at your local gun store (same as if want to rent a car you need to present your driving licence) allowing them to check that a) you have one and b) it is valid and c) to register your purchases against you.
Close loopholes like gun show sales and other "private" sales and ensure that all sales are recorded (so if you sell a gun it is registered with the central agency that you have sold it and who to) and you will have a system with very little impact on the vast majority of gun owners but with a little more safety built in.
Throw in a short re-evaluation course every 5-10 years and manditory reporting by the health services of any mental problems to the gun regulation authority and I think that will really help for the minimum of hassle.
SilverMK2 wrote: And do people feel that this flagrant breach of their 2nd amendment rights is something that is worth suffering through for the greater good? Do you daily have to struggle on through the pain of knowing that you can't own a fully automatic weapon without filling out some paperwork and undergoing some kind of security checks?
I think the greater good would be served by letting them back on the market. The cold truth is we'd probably have fewer fatalities in situations like this if these scrawny outcasts tried to off their class with the selector on rock and roll.
I never understood why flamethrowers were banned. Sure, you will probably take out the building, but most of these guys probably couldn't even lift one and they are only good for a handful of shots
Actually, in the US as far as I know flamethrowers aren't banned. They might be illegal in some states, but not all.
reds8n wrote: The article cites the recorded crimes.
Apparently there are an extra 100,00 to 2.5 million events that require the sue of a gun to resolve but would not be included in the figures in the article
So either the violent crime rate is higher than the one in the article, or the number of extra events is incorrectly recorded.
One would assume/hope it's the latter.
I'm going to go ahead and assume you are referring to an article you failed to post a link to since neither the BBC or Mail article include data from the US.
So since you continue to evade the question I'll go ahead and assume that you don't actually know the answer it just sounds better to say things like.
reds8n wrote: the sheer number of times a firearm saves someone in the USA presented on this board over and over again are completely inaccurate.
I'll just go ahead and give you the answer.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=162693 wrote:
The most technically sound estimates presented in Table 2 are those based on the shorter one-year recall period that rely on Rs' first-hand accounts of their own experiences (person-based estimates). These estimates appear in the first two columns. They indicate that each year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs of all types by civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents involving use of handguns.
Are these estimates plausible? Could it really be true that Americans use guns for self-protection as often as 2.1 to 2.5 million times a year? The estimate may seem remarkable in comparison to expectations based on conventional wisdom, but it is not implausibly large in comparison to various gun-related phenomena. There are probably over 220 million guns in private hands in the U.S., [57] implying that only about 1% of them are used for defensive purposes in any one year--not an impossibly high fraction. In a December 1993 Gallup survey, 49% of U.S. households reported owning a gun, and 31% of adults reported personally owning one. [58] These figures indicate that there are about 47.6 million households with a gun, with perhaps 93 million, or 49% of the adult U.S. population living in households with guns, and about 59.1 million adults personally owning a gun. Again, it hardly seems implausible that 3% (2.5 million/93 million) of the people with immediate access to a gun could have used one defensively in a given year
How could such a serious thing happen so often without becoming common knowledge? This phenomenon, regardless of how widespread it really is, is largely an invisible one as far as governmental statistics are concerned. Neither the defender/victim nor the criminal ordinarily has much incentive to report this sort of event to the police, and either or both often have strong reasons not to do so. Consequently, many of these incidents never come to the attention of the police, while others may be reported but without victims mentioning their use of a gun. And even when a DGU is reported, it will not necessarily be recorded by the police, who ordinarily do not keep statistics on matters other than DGUs resulting in a death, since police record-keeping is largely confined to information helpful in apprehending perpetrators and making a legal case for convicting them. Because such statistics are not kept, we cannot even be certain that a large number of DGUs are not reported to the police.
It is now clear that virtually none of the victims who use guns defensively tell interviewers about it in the NCVS. Our estimates imply that only about 3% of DGUs among NCVS Rs are reported to interviewers. [62] Based on other comparisons of alternative survey estimates of violent events with NCVS estimates, this high level of under-reporting is eminently plausible. Loftin and Mackenzie reported that rapes might be thirty-three times as frequent as NCVS estimates indicate, while spousal violence could easily be twelve times as high.
Weird right?
Oh right mathematics.
I suppose that if DGUs ONLY occurred during reported violent victimization when that study was produced that would be 2.5:16.8 which is what 14.88%
And lets see the most recent NCVS report 5.8M violent victimization that's 863,000. well within the broad range you seem to think is inaccurate.
I know right? Mathematics. It requires numbers.
In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.
The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.
and the quote was " or the sheer number of times a firearm saves someone in the USA etc etc "
the first word there being quite key.
carrying on...
from your quote
This phenomenon, regardless of how widespread it really is, is largely an invisible one as far as governmental statistics are concerned. Neither the defender/victim nor the criminal ordinarily has much incentive to report this sort of event to the police, and either or both often have strong reasons not to do so. Consequently, many of these incidents never come to the attention of the police, while others may be reported but without victims mentioning their use of a gun. And even when a DGU is reported, it will not necessarily be recorded by the police, who ordinarily do not keep statistics on matters other than DGUs resulting in a death, since police record-keeping is largely confined to information helpful in apprehending perpetrators and making a legal case for convicting them. Because such statistics are not kept, we cannot even be certain that a large number of DGUs are not reported to the police.
..w hich is exactly what I've been saying. That the figures quoted are either true -- in which case there can't be the X million times per year that people need to draw/shoot/whatever -- or -- the figures for the USA are wrong as apparently there's X million cases per year that apparently go "under the radar" and aren't recorded which the figures do not reflect.
Huh. I just found out Diane Feinstein, currently leading the gun control charge, had a concealed carry permit in the mid-nineties when she was worried about threats to her safety.
Seaward wrote: Huh. I just found out Diane Feinstein, currently leading the gun control charge, had a concealed carry permit in the mid-nineties when she was worried about threats to her safety.
Ain't no hypocrisy like Congressional hypocrisy.
Advocating gun control while owning a gun is not necessarily hypocrisy.
Seaward wrote: Huh. I just found out Diane Feinstein, currently leading the gun control charge, had a concealed carry permit in the mid-nineties when she was worried about threats to her safety.
Ain't no hypocrisy like Congressional hypocrisy.
Advocating gun control while owning a gun is not necessarily hypocrisy.
And by that you mean its pretty much the definition of it.
Seaward wrote: Huh. I just found out Diane Feinstein, currently leading the gun control charge, had a concealed carry permit in the mid-nineties when she was worried about threats to her safety.
Ain't no hypocrisy like Congressional hypocrisy.
Advocating gun control while owning a gun is not necessarily hypocrisy.
And by that you mean its pretty much the definition of it.
I own a car, I would not be a hypocrite if I suggested that driving tests should be more rigorous before people could go out on the roads.
Kanluwen wrote: Advocating gun control while owning a gun is not necessarily hypocrisy.
Sorry. I should have said, "while having previously stated that she would ban all firearms if she could."
Can you source this statement?
I'm genuinely intrigued to see the context of when she made it. I've only been aware of Feinstein as advocating a renewal/broadening of the "assault weapons" ban.
Seaward wrote: Huh. I just found out Diane Feinstein, currently leading the gun control charge, had a concealed carry permit in the mid-nineties when she was worried about threats to her safety.
Ain't no hypocrisy like Congressional hypocrisy.
Advocating gun control while owning a gun is not necessarily hypocrisy.
And by that you mean its pretty much the definition of it.
Advocating gun control while owning a gun is not necessarily hypocrisy.
Gun control, despite your rather narrow-minded view of the concept, is not simply "Take all the guns!". It covers proposals from more stringent requirements to own a gun to banning guns entirely. Context matters though.
Seaward wrote: Huh. I just found out Diane Feinstein, currently leading the gun control charge, had a concealed carry permit in the mid-nineties when she was worried about threats to her safety.
Ain't no hypocrisy like Congressional hypocrisy.
Advocating gun control while owning a gun is not necessarily hypocrisy.
And by that you mean its pretty much the definition of it.
I own a car, I would not be a hypocrite if I suggested that driving tests should be more rigorous before people could go out on the roads.
Thats awesome but not an appropriate example. A better example would be that you own a car but have attempted to pass legislation that would prohibit everyeone else from driving a car.
Seaward wrote: Huh. I just found out Diane Feinstein, currently leading the gun control charge, had a concealed carry permit in the mid-nineties when she was worried about threats to her safety.
Ain't no hypocrisy like Congressional hypocrisy.
Advocating gun control while owning a gun is not necessarily hypocrisy.
And by that you mean its pretty much the definition of it.
I own a car, I would not be a hypocrite if I suggested that driving tests should be more rigorous before people could go out on the roads.
Thats awesome but not an appropriate example. A better example would be that you own a car but have attempted to pass legislation that would prohibit everyeone else from driving a car.
Seaward wrote: Huh. I just found out Diane Feinstein, currently leading the gun control charge, had a concealed carry permit in the mid-nineties when she was worried about threats to her safety.
Ain't no hypocrisy like Congressional hypocrisy.
Advocating gun control while owning a gun is not necessarily hypocrisy.
And by that you mean its pretty much the definition of it.
I own a car, I would not be a hypocrite if I suggested that driving tests should be more rigorous before people could go out on the roads.
Thats awesome but not an appropriate example. A better example would be that you own a car but have attempted to pass legislation that would prohibit everyeone else from driving a car.
So concealed carry permits now apply to rifles?
Now you're being ignorant. You know the ban applied to pistol magazines as well, and she made statements that she would like to ban all guns.
Seaward wrote: Huh. I just found out Diane Feinstein, currently leading the gun control charge, had a concealed carry permit in the mid-nineties when she was worried about threats to her safety.
Ain't no hypocrisy like Congressional hypocrisy.
Advocating gun control while owning a gun is not necessarily hypocrisy.
And by that you mean its pretty much the definition of it.
I own a car, I would not be a hypocrite if I suggested that driving tests should be more rigorous before people could go out on the roads.
Thats awesome but not an appropriate example. A better example would be that you own a car but have attempted to pass legislation that would prohibit everyeone else from driving a car.
So concealed carry permits now apply to rifles?
Now you're being ignorant. You know the ban applied to pistol magazines as well, and she made statements that she would like to ban all guns.
I do not know that "she made statements that she would like to ban all guns". Seaward's post is the first I've heard of that.
The ban applied to "high capacity" pistol magazines, did it not?
That's rhetorical. I know it did. I do also know that it was rather arbitrary on what constituted a "high capacity" magazine.
Kanluwen wrote: Advocating gun control while owning a gun is not necessarily hypocrisy.
Sorry. I should have said, "while having previously stated that she would ban all firearms if she could."
Can you source this statement?
I'm genuinely intrigued to see the context of when she made it. I've only been aware of Feinstein as advocating a renewal/broadening of the "assault weapons" ban.
Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
Seaward wrote: Huh. I just found out Diane Feinstein, currently leading the gun control charge, had a concealed carry permit in the mid-nineties when she was worried about threats to her safety.
Ain't no hypocrisy like Congressional hypocrisy.
Advocating gun control while owning a gun is not necessarily hypocrisy.
And by that you mean its pretty much the definition of it.
I own a car, I would not be a hypocrite if I suggested that driving tests should be more rigorous before people could go out on the roads.
Thats awesome but not an appropriate example. A better example would be that you own a car but have attempted to pass legislation that would prohibit everyeone else from driving a car.
AustonT wrote: Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
Sounds right to me, I knew it was an old interview.
Kanluwen wrote: Advocating gun control while owning a gun is not necessarily hypocrisy.
Sorry. I should have said, "while having previously stated that she would ban all firearms if she could."
Can you source this statement?
I'm genuinely intrigued to see the context of when she made it. I've only been aware of Feinstein as advocating a renewal/broadening of the "assault weapons" ban.
Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
I'm still very skeptical on this; especially given the ellipses which are used to denote omitted material.
I'm still very skeptical on this; especially given the ellipses which are used to denote omitted material.
Why, out of curiosity? Even if it's taken out of context - I don't think it is, but I honestly can't remember - it's the next step. She knows as well as anyone that the AWB had zero impact on crime, or even gun sales. It's showpiece legislation that accomplishes nothing, and for people who are actually serious about trying to cut down on firearm homicides - which were cutting themselves down just fine before all this - you need to do more to be able to claim some responsibility than banning scary-looking guns.
Seaward wrote: Huh. I just found out Diane Feinstein, currently leading the gun control charge, had a concealed carry permit in the mid-nineties when she was worried about threats to her safety.
Ain't no hypocrisy like Congressional hypocrisy.
Advocating gun control while owning a gun is not necessarily hypocrisy.
And by that you mean its pretty much the definition of it.
I own a car, I would not be a hypocrite if I suggested that driving tests should be more rigorous before people could go out on the roads.
Thats awesome but not an appropriate example. A better example would be that you own a car but have attempted to pass legislation that would prohibit everyeone else from driving a car.
I'm still very skeptical on this; especially given the ellipses which are used to denote omitted material.
Why, out of curiosity? Even if it's taken out of context - I don't think it is, but I honestly can't remember - it's the next step. She knows as well as anyone that the AWB had zero impact on crime, or even gun sales. It's showpiece legislation that accomplishes nothing, and for people who are actually serious about trying to cut down on firearm homicides - which were cutting themselves down just fine before all this - you need to do more to be able to claim some responsibility than banning scary-looking guns.
Honestly?
Because for such an important quote, I cannot find an actual video of that 60 Minutes interview. I just keep finding that quote and "transcripts" of the show. Some of the quotes have ellipses and some do not.
If you right click and check "Check Page Info" you'll see that particular page was last modified in February of 1995...
And even THAT is a "Here is a verbatum, as best I could do it, transcript of the most
chilling part of CBS's 60 minutes interview with Fienstien. Suggest
all read and re-read this very carefully."
I find it hard to take someone seriously when they state:
OK, OK, enough mail...I went back to the tape of the show I got off
satellite. It was the show I saw, but sometimes, the feed does not
match the over-the-air version. The sat feed usually has more info.
It is, however, worth noting that there is a bit of context which makes it sound less like "Take all the guns!"
This clip was after the discussion of how manufacturers are skirting
the gun ban by changing the "cosmetics of the guns". There was some
dicussion of the PC AR-15 from Colt, and the new TEC AB-10(after ban -10)
showing how the guns are the same, but a cosmetic feature is changed, and
sales continue.
Alfndrate wrote: But it directly refutes your claim that this quote only seemed to come out during the time near the AWB being lifted...
I posted a link from 9 years before the ban would be lifted... that definitely counts as, "prior to the timeframe for the AWB expiring."
You can't believe this is just a giant conspiracy 20 years in the making can you?
First off:
I did not think to check the page info on that, since it was all text.
Second off:
As I JUST bloody said...
And even THAT is a "Here is a verbatum, as best I could do it, transcript of the most
chilling part of CBS's 60 minutes interview with Fienstien. Suggest
all read and re-read this very carefully."
I find it hard to take someone seriously when they state:
OK, OK, enough mail...I went back to the tape of the show I got off
satellite. It was the show I saw, but sometimes, the feed does not
match the over-the-air version. The sat feed usually has more info.
It is, however, worth noting that there is a bit of context which makes it sound less like "Take all the guns!"
This clip was after the discussion of how manufacturers are skirting
the gun ban by changing the "cosmetics of the guns". There was some
dicussion of the PC AR-15 from Colt, and the new TEC AB-10(after ban -10)
showing how the guns are the same, but a cosmetic feature is changed, and
sales continue.
That reads to me more like people taking something out of context years later to justify the constant bashing that goes on with pro-gun individuals against those who they view to be "infringing their second amendment rights".
and Kan, I was writing my post before your edit...
The article is decent proof that it's not just people going, "SHE GONNA TAKE OUR GUNS!!!!" without some level of evidence backing it up. Regardless of whether or not she wants to take all guns away, there is a decent "second hand" account of someone during that time period that copied down what the person heard. And it's fine that you didn't check the page info, most people don't. It's a great thing to look at when you're doing online research.
Edit: To be fair though, since it's all text and it looks like it was from the mid 90s, it probably was
and Kan, I was writing my post before your edit...
My bad.
But the context of that allows for me to read it, objectively, two different ways:
1) That Diane Feinstein is for banning all the guns, period.
2) That Diane Feinstein is for banning loopholes allowing for firearms manufacturers to continue to produce the same guns post-ban as they did pre-ban with minor cosmetic differences.
In regards to the poll: Yes. America's gun laws strongly deter me from immigrating to the US. Though the OP was actually asking about the opposite scenario.
I wouldn't move to a place that has too restrictive gun laws. As it is now I have to keep several of my firearms at my grandfather's house in New Hampshire since they're illegal here.
Can't wait to leave this hell hole.
Though I will say that the OP's friend is everything that's wrong with a lot of gun owners. He really wants to shoot in the back yard of an apartment building? What a maroon.
I'm all for another "Assault Weapons" Ban. It'll make the ones I own now substantially more valuable.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: In regards to the poll: Yes. America's gun laws strongly deter me from immigrating to the US. Though the OP was actually asking about the opposite scenario.
I think I'd agree with this.
What firearms legislation would improve the situation in the USA is tricky at this point since there are so many around, and serious US criminals certainly don't seem to avoid them in the way they do here in the UK
The best bet probably to buy & destroy guns and limit the number imported/sold to slowly reduce the number in circulation
And if anything is banned outright (eg assault weapons) don't let anbody keep them by 'grandfathering' them in, require them to to sold (at current market price) for destruction or permenantly inactivated
and maybe toss in 'negligent gun ownership' laws of some sort requiring safe storage reporting of loss to the police, recording of sales
It seems to me that a lot of the gun problems in the USA would be solved by the following measures:
1. Compulsory training before a gun can be legally bought. In other words, a license as you have to drive a car.
2. Registration, and reporting of lost/stolen weapons.
3. Sales only through licensed dealers.
4. Guns to be kept in suitable locked cabinets to prevent theft, etc.
5. Heavy penalties on unregistered guns and unlicensed dealers.
This would allow law-abiding citizens to own whatever weapons they liked, as long as they were trained to use them safely. Responsible users like Frazzled and Seaward would ace the licence test, so they would have no fear of not being able to own their guns.
The objection as far as I can make it out is that the NRA has driven anti-gun-control to the extent that it is considered unconstitutional to have any compulsory training and registration, thus eliminating my points 1 and 2.
Obviously a few nutters would slip through the net to commit mass murders, like in the UK, but that is the price you have to pay.
For your CCW: You need to take a class (The one at the local gun club says you need 120 dollars + the price of the license, 50 rounds of ammunition, and a holster for your weapon) which lets you apply for the license (which costs money)
You are required to report any stolen or lost firearms so that if they wind up being used in a crime they can track them and you'll be cleared (for the most part).
Those take care of the first two (though you want to expand it to all firearms, which is understandable).
The second one is decently enforceable,
But the last two are hard to enforce.
How do they know if I have a safe or not? Or that they're locked away?
Again, how do the cops know I have an unregistered gun if I take care of it and follow all laws but the registering one.
And if anything is banned outright (eg assault weapons) don't let anbody keep them by 'grandfathering' them in, require them to to sold (at current market price) for destruction or permenantly inactivated
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems to me that a lot of the gun problems in the USA would be solved by the following measures:
1. Compulsory training before a gun can be legally bought. In other words, a license as you have to drive a car.
2. Registration, and reporting of lost/stolen weapons.
3. Sales only through licensed dealers.
4. Guns to be kept in suitable locked cabinets to prevent theft, etc.
5. Heavy penalties on unregistered guns and unlicensed dealers.
.
I'd be in support of all of these IF:
1. Training has to be inexpensive and not unreasonable. Some states have these laws and have made it so difficult, its an effective ban. Translation: If Texas wrote the program I'd be fine. If Illinois did it I might as well go ahead, bury my firearms and call them in as stolen.
4. Again I am ok if they generally have to be in something locked. But the requirement of a full on bolt down safe (look up the prices and you'll see why I object). Additionally if it gave the police the right to randomly enter your residence you just started American Civil War Two.
But oif these items are reasonable then I'd be 100% behind them.
(Whats funny is I am taking a class like that on the 27th)
Kanluwen wrote: Advocating gun control while owning a gun is not necessarily hypocrisy.
Sorry. I should have said, "while having previously stated that she would ban all firearms if she could."
Can you source this statement?
I'm genuinely intrigued to see the context of when she made it. I've only been aware of Feinstein as advocating a renewal/broadening of the "assault weapons" ban.
Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
I'm still very skeptical on this; especially given the ellipses which are used to denote omitted material.
Interesting stats on firearm related deaths here, it seems the tighter gun regulation in the UK really works as they have statistically some of the lowest fire arm related death rates internationally.
What I wonder, is why does anyone even need a car?
I mean c'mon! You have two feet to get where you want, and the state provides a suitable transit system. If it doesn't work to your needs, then you still have your feet!
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems to me that a lot of the gun problems in the USA would be solved by the following measures:
1. Compulsory training before a gun can be legally bought. In other words, a license as you have to drive a car.
What would you do with the states that would use such a provision to effectively deny the right to ownership, such as Illinois, California, and Maryland?
2. Registration, and reporting of lost/stolen weapons.
You're already supposed to report stolen property.
3. Sales only through licensed dealers.
Fine.
4. Guns to be kept in suitable locked cabinets to prevent theft, etc.
Why do I need a locked cabinet? If I'm not at home, my gun's with me. If I'm at home, I don't need it in a safe.
The objection as far as I can make it out is that the NRA has driven anti-gun-control to the extent that it is considered unconstitutional to have any compulsory training and registration, thus eliminating my points 1 and 2.
That's a determination for the courts to make, but I'm pretty sure I know what they'd have to say about it.
In reply to the OP I live in southern California. And I plan on leaving. The gun laws are one reason but not the only one. I work on the border. In my area it seems like Spanish has become the primary language. California is a tree hugging/gun hating state that wants to help the immigrants more than its citizens. I see it everyday and I'm done with it.
yellowfever wrote: In reply to the OP I live in southern California. And I plan on leaving. The gun laws are one reason but not the only one. I work on the border. In my area it seems like Spanish has become the primary language. California is a tree hugging/gun hating state that wants to help the immigrants more than its citizens. I see it everyday and I'm done with it.
I know right? Charming has changed and it's time to go before it turns into another Lodi.
Seaward wrote: Spoken like someone who's never spent five hours in a northern Virginia DMV.
I'd say that is more to do with your DMV being crap than anything else. But I guess it is easier to scream "THAT WON'T WORK! I NEED ME MY GUNZ!" than it is to actually get proactive to come up with something that might actually work for the majority of people.
And I love you too Fraz
We have a solution that works for a majority of our people.
Thanks for visiting.
Exalted
SOFDC wrote: I moved to California from the United States because of school, knowing the gun laws were absolutely terrible and that owning a gun here is walking a felony tightrope. Yes, I am an idiot.
However, once school is done and I move to a state that isn't completely insane on the issue:
I look forward to being able to change the grips or stocks on my rifle and not worry about going to jail for 2-8 years.
I look forward to not worrying about whether someone can manage to stuff 1 more round (Even if this includes damaging the magazine to the point of only working once and only chambering that first round) into a magazine over an arbitrary limit and send me to a small cage for a year+ stripping me of firearms rights.
I look forward to being able to make a firearm purchase and walk out with the item after my background check comes back clean, as opposed to after the 5 minute background check comes back.....plus a 10 day arbitrary wait (Despite the fact that I already own upwards of 30 firearms anyway, and the ridiculous notion that someone DRIVEN TO THE POINT OF COMMITTING MURDER will actually "Cool off" rather than find another method.)
I look forward to being able to purchase a handgun that isn't on some politician`s list of models that are "OK" for me to buy.
I look forward to not be looking at 2-8 years for threading the barrel of my pistol to accept a recoil comp for target shooting.
SilverMK2 wrote: And do people feel that this flagrant breach of their 2nd amendment rights is something that is worth suffering through for the greater good? Do you daily have to struggle on through the pain of knowing that you can't own a fully automatic weapon without filling out some paperwork and undergoing some kind of security checks?
I think the greater good would be served by letting them back on the market. The cold truth is we'd probably have fewer fatalities in situations like this if these scrawny outcasts tried to off their class with the selector on rock and roll.
I never understood why flamethrowers were banned. Sure, you will probably take out the building, but most of these guys probably couldn't even lift one and they are only good for a handful of shots
Flamethrowers are legal in most states, you just gotta make it
As to me, Colorado is lax as hell and I'd only consider moving to equally lax or laxer within the United States. I have as some of you know considered a move down under, but different country, different rules.
For everyone concerned about the Children don't bother locking up your guns, fill in your backyard swimming pool, it's over 100% more likely to result in your child's death.
Just for funsies. Though this photo's out of date. The little black one (S&W M&P40c) is gone (sold in a perfectly legal private transaction ) and two long guns have been added. A Marlin .30-30 lever action and of course the M1 Garand which will hopefully get here next month.
Gun-free zones are premised on a lie: that murderers will follow rules, and that people like my student are a greater danger to those around them than crazed killers. That's an insult to honest people.
The issue, of course, is that I have no way of knowing if any given person is honest, or whether or not their honesty extends to an ability to effectively use a firearm.
In fact, as gun ownership has expanded over the past decade, crime has gone down.
I assume the author was referring to gross ownership rates by way of background check statistics, because actual rates of gun ownership are nearly impossible to determine due to the sheer lack of data. But, even then, gun ownership per capita fell significantly during the '90s, during which time the most significant decreases in crime rate also occurred; which does not suggest correlation as the upward trend in ownership did not occur until the 00's.
As they say, if it saves just one life, it's worth it.
A platitude based on inducing agreement by way of emotion. Whether or not a life is saved is relevant only if no other lives are taken. Outside of that, its simply a question of whether or not people want, or want to restrict, a CCW permit to a degree that makes it a significant political issue, which it presently is not; even in the wake of Sandy Hook.
djones520 wrote:
I've also heard, but was unable to verify, that of 99 mass shootings that occured between 1980 and 2010, 98 were in Gun-Free Zones.
If that is true, and I couldn't verify it either, then I would be more interested in the location of the 1 shooting which was not a Gun-Free Zone, given that they are so widespread.
The Michigan legislature just passed a law that would allow an upgraded version of the CPL to be carried in "gun-free zones", but Gov. Snyder vetoe'd it because he had intended for it to allow places like schools to still make the decision themselves on whether or not to allow it, and the language of the bill just made it a blanket CPL can carry no matter what. He told me* he expected a fixed version of the bill to be passed sometime in the near future.
*It was a reply to an email I sent giving my viewpoint on the bill.
A lot of gun folks are worried the NRA's going to sell out "assault weapons" and high caps in their press conference later today. I found this brief bit of analysis elsewhere, and thought it was interesting:
...sigh
Look, the NRA isn't perfect. But all this anti-NRA nonsense is just silly and shortsighted; this isn't 1994 any more people. Unlike '94, we haven't been getting our asses kicked all over the place, in fact we've been winning. In political terms, this is more like the Battle of the Bulge; yes the Nazis are wrecking our trash cans for the moment, but that's only because they know the same thing that NRA knows: that if the anti-gun people can't get their agenda passed in the wake of Sandy Hook, they're over as a political force.
Banning the assault weapons would be a step in the right direction... nobody needs one unless they are planning on going into war-like scenario.
Why do you need a car?
Care to explain how this is relevant to my post?
Well, in the United States, cars kill more people per year than guns. Nobody actually needs a car, they have feet. If they don't feel like walking the state provides public transportation. If you need something transported, you can call a government approved shipping service to move your items for you.
Cigarretes are on the exact same principle. Nobody needs them. They serve no good purpose at all. Yet they kill more people to a scale of 25 times more, then guns do in America. Where's the cries of justice and outlawing, and questioning peoples need, and all that BS?
djones520 wrote: Cigarretes are on the exact same principle. Nobody needs them. They serve no good purpose at all. Yet they kill more people to a scale of 25 times more, then guns do in America. Where's the cries of justice and outlawing, and questioning peoples need, and all that BS?
All over the place, really. It's how extortionist cigarette taxes keep getting passed.
I'm a cigarette-smoking gun owner. Thank Jebus I live in Virginia.
djones520 wrote: Cigarretes are on the exact same principle. Nobody needs them. They serve no good purpose at all. Yet they kill more people to a scale of 25 times more, then guns do in America. Where's the cries of justice and outlawing, and questioning peoples need, and all that BS?
All over the place, really. It's how extortionist cigarette taxes keep getting passed.
I'm a cigarette-smoking gun owner. Thank Jebus I live in Virginia.
Well I know the anti-smoking lobby is just as established, if not more established then the anti-gun lobby. The question was aimed more at the guy who keeps asking for our "need".
Maybe when he can get cig's banned in his hometown, he can come tell us how we should be living our lives.
djones520 wrote: Nobody needs cigarettes, and they kill more people then anyone else in Great Britain.
I don't know what it is like in the USA, but in Europe there have been big pushes to eliminate smoking. In the UK you are no longer alowed to display smoking products (my local supermarket now has them behind some sliding screens), you cannot advertise cigarettes, there are huge warnings about the dangers of smoking on the packets, they have heavy taxes associated with them and smoking has now been banned from virtually all public buildings and places that serve food. There are also free quit smoking groups run by the NHS.
I'd say that "smoking control" is progressing rather well in Europe.
As to cars, they are one hell of a lot more necessary than guns. You can't drive your gun to work (and from what I hear in the US you need a car to get everywhere since most of your towns and cities were built to take advantage of mass car ownership), you can't use your gun to move heavy loads of shopping/etc and from what I hear in the US there is effectively no public transport system outside of the inner city areas, meaning you almost have to have a car to get anywhere.
If they kill so many people maybe you need a) to ban the more dangerous types of cars (I understand that the US loves huge armoured tanks of a car which are bloody dangerous to those that drive them and those that are hit by them), b) making driving tests better, c) introduce more safety measures/systems including both in-car and on-road systems.
SilverMK2 wrote: As to cars, they are one hell of a lot more necessary than guns. You can't drive your gun to work (and from what I hear in the US you need a car to get everywhere since most of your towns and cities were built to take advantage of mass car ownership), you can't use your gun to move heavy loads of shopping/etc and from what I hear in the US there is effectively no public transport system outside of the inner city areas, meaning you almost have to have a car to get anywhere.
If they kill so many people maybe you need a) to ban the more dangerous types of cars (I understand that the US loves huge armoured tanks of a car which are bloody dangerous to those that drive them and those that are hit by them), b) making driving tests better, c) introduce more safety measures/systems including both in-car and on-road systems.
Well sure cars have their uses, more than guns. But who's to say whether you need them or not? Saying nobody needs an assault weapon is like saying nobody needs a car.
Mattman154 wrote: Well sure cars have their uses, more than guns. But who's to say whether you need them or not? Saying nobody needs an assault weapon is like saying nobody needs a car.
Only if you believe that using a false analogy is a good way to carry on debate.
Mattman154 wrote: Well sure cars have their uses, more than guns. But who's to say whether you need them or not? Saying nobody needs an assault weapon is like saying nobody needs a car.
Only if you believe that using a false analogy is a good way to carry on debate.
It is fairly obvious that cars have become a necessary part of modern life. Take every single gun away and the vast majority of people would carry on their life without any problem what so ever. Look at societies like, well, most civilised western societies for examples of people going about their day to day lives without guns.
Take away every single car and the whole of modern life will crumble. Look at the fuel shortages that the UK went through for an example of how things fall apart if people are unable to use their cars even for a short period of time. People couldn't get into work, companies couldn't deliver goods and services, etc. Thankfully on the odd occasion when fuel shortages occured they were only brief.
Granted, if cars were removed there would eventually be some replacement found (such as horses or something), but the fact is that modern life is built around the car; it has become necessary. Guns are in no way similar.
DiRTWaL wrote: One big factor that stops me from backpacking Europe is the fact that I can not have a fire arm with me at all times
Where abouts would you be looking to go backpacking? I can tell you that I know plenty of people who have been backpacking through Europe who have come back alive and unscathed without the need to carry a gun (or indeed weapon of any sort ).
Backpacking through Europe is one of the big things for a lot of students in the UK and hundreds/thousands of people do it each year without a problem.
I've also heard, but was unable to verify, that of 99 mass shootings that occured between 1980 and 2010, 98 were in Gun-Free Zones.
What about general gun related crime and accidents?
Part of the argument about the school killings is that licensing is not necessary because such incidents are rarer than being struck by lightning. We should remember the other bad effects of gun crime too, which are much more common.
It is fairly obvious that cars have become a necessary part of modern life. Take every single gun away and the vast majority of people would carry on their life without any problem what so ever. Look at societies like, well, most civilised western societies for examples of people going about their day to day lives without guns.
So we agree that there is an acceptable ratio between the need of an object and people getting killed by it on a daily basis?
And if you had a kid, would the "back of the nightstand" be a safe place to store it?
I grew up in a house with seven kids in it of various ages, and our guns were safely stored under a bed. None of us shot anybody or ourselves, or even used them to commit any crimes.
d-usa wrote: So we agree that there is an acceptable ratio between the need of an object and people getting killed by it on a daily basis?
I believe that implication is fairly clearly defined. You can never hope to entirely eliminate danger, simply reduce it to a level where it is "acceptable". It is why cars now have seatbelts, crumple zones, airbags, and you are required to pass a test before you can use one etc; these all make driving safer but do not really inconvenience people in the car (though I know there was a big row over seatbelts when they were first introduced much as there is a big row over anyone mentioning gun control now, which should let you know how pathetic some people can be ).
However, the point being, no one actually "needs" a gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lordhat wrote: I grew up in a house with seven kids in it of various ages, and our guns were safely stored under a bed. None of us shot anybody or ourselves, or even used them to commit any crimes.
d-usa wrote: So we agree that there is an acceptable ratio between the need of an object and people getting killed by it on a daily basis?
I believe that implication is fairly clearly defined. You can never hope to entirely eliminate danger, simply reduce it to a level where it is "acceptable". It is why cars now have seatbelts, crumple zones, airbags, and you are required to pass a test before you can use one etc; these all make driving safer but do not really inconvenience people in the car (though I know there was a big row over seatbelts when they were first introduced much as there is a big row over anyone mentioning gun control now, which should let you know how pathetic some people can be ).
None of which prevent you from using it as a weapon, or driving over other people, driving it drunk, passing out in the wheel. They might protect the people on the inside, but don't do anything to the people outside of the car.
So we are fine with something that kills lots of other people a year because it is helpful to you.
Kilkrazy wrote: What about general gun related crime and accidents?
Part of the argument about the school killings is that licensing is not necessary because such incidents are rarer than being struck by lightning. We should remember the other bad effects of gun crime too, which are much more common.
The fact sheet KM posted in the other thread suggests that 94% of gun crime is drug/gang related. That sounds high to me, but it sounds far from impossible.
I'm going to see if I can track them down again, but the CDC quietly published some firearm death numbers, broken down by race. White Americans have roughly as much chance of being killed by a gun as your average European, about 1.5 in 100,000. Hispanic Americans are - if memory serves - at around 4.5 in 100,000. African-American males are at a ridiculous 38.5 in 100,000.
d-usa wrote: None of which prevent you from using it as a weapon
Their sole purpose is not that of a weapon though.
or driving over other people, driving it drunk, passing out in the wheel.
There are devices which can be used to help eliminate those dangers, though they are not widespread as yet. Automatic collision sensors, built in breathalysers and sensors in the seat to monitor the driver can all help reduce the dangers posed by the driver of the car. As the technology becomes cheaper I don't doubt that it will become more common. Hell, some of them may become legal requirements like seatbelts.
They might protect the people on the inside, but don't do anything to the people outside of the car.
They are a hell of a lot safer for the people within the car than they used to be, and they are also getting safer for people who are hit (for example the old style Jaguar emblem can no longer be used as it is too dangerous to pedestrians, and pedestrian air bags are also being developed).
So we are fine with something that kills lots of other people a year because it is helpful to you.
d-usa wrote: None of which prevent you from using it as a weapon
Their sole purpose is not that of a weapon though.
So we are okay with something that killed just as many people in 2011 as guns (using US numbers) because it has been made safer, is convinient, and wasn't designed to be a weapon?
d-usa wrote: So we are okay with something that killed just as many people in 2011 as guns (using US numbers) because it has been made safer, is convinient, and wasn't designed to be a weapon?
No, we're not "OK" with that, which is why cars have been made safer and safer, road calming measures have been introduced in trouble spots, driving licence tests have become harder (in the UK at least, I don't know about the US), etc.
The point is that a car is a necessary part of modern life and no way analogous to a gun. Equating a car and a gun is a false analogy and a distraction from the issue at hand (as I am sure you are aware). Remove all the cars today and you would have absolute chaos for months or even years. Remove all the guns today and you will have some gun enthusiasts be a little bit upset and some gun nuts going mental, but for 99.9999999999999999% of people, life would go on as normal.
d-usa wrote: So we are okay with something that killed just as many people in 2011 as guns (using US numbers) because it has been made safer, is convinient, and wasn't designed to be a weapon?
No, we're not "OK" with that, which is why cars have been made safer and safer, road calming measures have been introduced in trouble spots, driving licence tests have become harder (in the UK at least, I don't know about the US), etc.
The point is that a car is a necessary part of modern life and no way analogous to a gun. Equating a car and a gun is a false analogy and a distraction from the issue at hand (as I am sure you are aware). Remove all the cars today and you would have absolute chaos for months or even years. Remove all the guns today and you will have some gun enthusiasts be a little bit upset and some gun nuts going mental, but for 99.9999999999999999% of people, life would go on as normal.
SilverMK2 wrote: The point is that a car is a necessary part of modern life and no way analogous to a gun. Equating a car and a gun is a false analogy and a distraction from the issue at hand (as I am sure you are aware). Remove all the cars today and you would have absolute chaos for months or even years. Remove all the guns today and you will have some gun enthusiasts be a little bit upset and some gun nuts going mental, but for 99.9999999999999999% of people, life would go on as normal.
I find your assertion that only 00.0000000000000001% of the population has ever had cause to use a gun to be suspect.
Seaward wrote: I find your assertion that only 00.0000000000000001% of the population has ever had cause to use a gun to be suspect.
If you look at what I said, I didn't say that those people would have had "cause to use a gun", I said, how many people would have to drastically change their lifestyle to cope with living without guns.
And as I have said several times, I don't have a problem with guns, nor do I want to ban them - I just want to have better control over their sale and distribution and ensure that people using them know what the hell they are doing.
Well... maybe my intevention is useless, but I would'nt move to America, since I wouldn't feel safe knowing that everybody is entitled to have guns. But I know europeans and americans have very different ideas about this... I really don't understand why americans feel so attached to their guns...
It is fairly obvious that cars have become a necessary part of modern life. Take every single gun away and the vast majority of people would carry on their life without any problem what so ever. Look at societies like, well, most civilised western societies for examples of people going about their day to day lives without guns.
So we agree that there is an acceptable ratio between the need of an object and people getting killed by it on a daily basis?
That's a false analogy that uses far too much logic and not enough emotion to come to a conclusion.
Leftist Hippy.
Seaward wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote: What about general gun related crime and accidents?
Part of the argument about the school killings is that licensing is not necessary because such incidents are rarer than being struck by lightning. We should remember the other bad effects of gun crime too, which are much more common.
The fact sheet KM posted in the other thread suggests that 94% of gun crime is drug/gang related. That sounds high to me, but it sounds far from impossible.
I'm going to see if I can track them down again, but the CDC quietly published some firearm death numbers, broken down by race. White Americans have roughly as much chance of being killed by a gun as your average European, about 1.5 in 100,000. Hispanic Americans are - if memory serves - at around 4.5 in 100,000. African-American males are at a ridiculous 38.5 in 100,000.
I don't think it was that quiet. I seem to remember the Chicago or Detroit police chief making a claim that boiled down to "ban guns they kill black kids." I don't remember the exact numbers either but the contrast was pretty stark. Like the difference in prison population stark. I'm sure if there were no guns all this would level out into a colorblind egalitarian utopia.
Are there higher rates of gun incidents inside gun-free zones than outside them?
Yes. Every school shooting.
No.
I mentioned it in the other thread and it got ignored there as well.
But I am pretty dang certain that the majority of gun related shootings (the illegal gang bangers) are actually committed in areas where guns are allowed to be legally carried (if you are licensed). Most shootings are in private dwellings, out in the streets, drive by's, etc. I feel very comfortable saying that if somebody did the actual work they would find that only a small minority of shootings are commited in gun free zones.
And as I have said several times, I don't have a problem with guns, nor do I want to ban them - I just want to have better control over their sale and distribution and ensure that people using them know what the hell they are doing.
Thing is though, looking at statistics, yes, current laws work, and work really well. Youre just looking at the people that use them incorrectly, when over 99% of legal gun owners, never use them in anyway other then they were intended to be used.
Are there higher rates of gun incidents inside gun-free zones than outside them?
Yes. Every school shooting.
No.
I mentioned it in the other thread and it got ignored there as well.
But I am pretty dang certain that the majority of gun related shootings (the illegal gang bangers) are actually committed in areas where guns are allowed to be legally carried (if you are licensed). Most shootings are in private dwellings, out in the streets, drive by's, etc. I feel very comfortable saying that if somebody did the actual work they would find that only a small minority of shootings are commited in gun free zones.
Generally schools (public schools) are gun free zones.
The Connecticut shooting is just the most recent example. Every school shooting in the last thirty years have been at a "gun free zone."
d-usa wrote: But the sign is saying that not having gun-free zones would be safer.
Except it isn't. There is no difference between the two in terms of risk and history backs that up.
It doesn't appear to.
I can't recall many mass shooters picking out, for example, police stations or NRA meetings as targets. Schools and churches seem pretty popular, though, as do gun-free malls.
d-usa wrote: But the sign is saying that not having gun-free zones would be safer.
Except it isn't. There is no difference between the two in terms of risk and history backs that up.
It doesn't appear to.
I can't recall many mass shooters picking out, for example, police stations or NRA meetings as targets. Schools and churches seem pretty popular, though, as do gun-free malls.
What percentage of the 30,000+ gun deaths each year were commited during mass shootings?
Are there higher rates of gun incidents inside gun-free zones than outside them?
Yes. Every school shooting.
No.
I mentioned it in the other thread and it got ignored there as well.
But I am pretty dang certain that the majority of gun related shootings (the illegal gang bangers) are actually committed in areas where guns are allowed to be legally carried (if you are licensed). Most shootings are in private dwellings, out in the streets, drive by's, etc. I feel very comfortable saying that if somebody did the actual work they would find that only a small minority of shootings are committed in gun free zones.
Actually if you look at it, the high crime cities for murder rates are Detroit, New York, parts of Cali, and while they aren't gun free zones, they have incredibly stringent gun control and in Illinois (till the other day). You're correct about the majority of homicide shootings, BUT these spree killers do target gun free, high population zones. Schools, malls, movie theaters. Mass groups of unarmed individuals. That those shootings remain rare enough that they're a statistical anomaly should also be mentioned.
Back on to "needing" my so called "assault weapon" (which as we've established is a meaningless term). No. I don't "need" it. But I want it. I and you for that matter technically don't need anything beyond some basic medical care, three hots and a cot. So who the hell are you to tell me what I can and can't have? Assault weapons annoy me and most gun owners because it's literally a cosmetic ban.
Same function, different furniture. Here's a more direct example.
This is a Saiga hunting rifle. I don't have one. I do have a Semi Automatic rifle in the Kalashnikov pattern however.
Would you like to know the difference between the two?
Not a damn thing.
Same receiver, same mag well, same bolt, slightly better quality barrel on the Saiga. The Saiga's even Russian made, so it's even higher quality then my US assembled from Romanian parts beater AK. That Saiga will never show up on a ban list, because it's dressed up in a sporting style.
Further, this type of weapon accounts for something like less then 1% of criminal firearms activity per year. So why ban them?
And as I have said several times, I don't have a problem with guns, nor do I want to ban them - I just want to have better control over their sale and distribution and ensure that people using them know what the hell they are doing.
Thing is though, looking at statistics, yes, current laws work, and work really well. Youre just looking at the people that use them incorrectly, when over 99% of legal gun owners, never use them in anyway other then they were intended to be used.
d-usa wrote: But the sign is saying that not having gun-free zones would be safer.
Except it isn't. There is no difference between the two in terms of risk and history backs that up.
It doesn't appear to.
I can't recall many mass shooters picking out, for example, police stations or NRA meetings as targets. Schools and churches seem pretty popular, though, as do gun-free malls.
Though, as pointed out by users in the other gun thread, these shootings are rarer than being struck by lightning and need not cause any concern as they are statistically insignificant.
I am not sure I believe that, myself.
We must return to the question of the number of gun incidents that happen overall, and split them into gun-free and non-gun-free zones, to see how the data stacks up.
Overall, no, apologies. I thought we were just trying to solve mass shootings, as that's what everyone's hysterical about right now.
Yeah, I was just commenting on the sign itself and the idea that not having any gun-free zones would make us all safer.
Does having them make us safer?
We know that they attract people who wish to do mass shootings. But do they really dissuade anyone period?
The neighbor's wiener dog - Maximo- would routinely get out and wander into the elementary school. All the staff new Max well and he was their unofficial mascot. Since his passing, Carl the cat (the cat Rodney actually got a hold of once) has taken his place as school mascot and resident.
), so where exactly do they get their guns? If part of your gun ownership licence stipulates that you have to have a gun safe, that is another layer of protection against these kids getting their hands on guns when they are not supposed to.
(but only by 3 years)
.
