FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > 160 Mass shootings
160 Mass shootings
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There have been at least 160 mass shootings in the US so far this year and it is only April… It is highly political subject in that country with the 2nd Amendment to the constitution welded to the nation’s psyche… But what would your solution be to prevent any more of these tragedies occurring ? Make it much more difficult to obtain guns " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There have been at least 160 mass shootings in the US so far this year and it is only April… It is highly political subject in that country with the 2nd Amendment to the constitution welded to the nation’s psyche… But what would your solution be to prevent any more of these tragedies occurring ? " The go to answer is ban all guns, however the reality is that ship sailed years ago. I believe it goes deeper than guns, If you consider the question, "if guns disappeared overnight would the problem go away or resurface with other weapons or methods to create the same outcome"? If it is the outcome that drives these attacks, why has it risen so sharply so quickly. If guns were taken away could it in theory drive even worse outcomes as methods changed. How do authorities identify the people who are carrying out these attacks before they attack? It is a tough nut to crack with no one answer that will stop all attacks in my opinion, but I do think the starting point towards reduction is to understand why these people are intent on the outcome of mass killings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not our country so fuck all to do with any of us" Don’t comment then  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There have been at least 160 mass shootings in the US so far this year and it is only April… It is highly political subject in that country with the 2nd Amendment to the constitution welded to the nation’s psyche… But what would your solution be to prevent any more of these tragedies occurring ? " I am interested in the gun enthusiasts opinion of what should be done. Because whatever they're doing now, simply isn't working. Our fellow poster from the US suggested that armed guards in schools could help. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The ship has sailed but in my (British not American) opinion there is zero reason for any civilian to own assault rifles or machine guns. Surely, pistols, hunting rifles, and shotguns should have been sufficient to satisfy the constitution (is it the second amendment?). The constitution was put together in a different age where the fledgling USA wanted to ensure a sufficiently armed and ready militia existed in case the British decided to come back and have another go. A single shot musket is not the same as an assault rifle! " The amendment appears to be unamenable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not our country so fuck all to do with any of us Don’t comment then "again fab im entitled to post on what i want, as for guns nothing to do with us we dont live there | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were as many guns in the USA in the sixties and seventies as there are now and these kind of things didn’t happen as much. What has changed, the access to guns, or the behavior of people?" People have changed, but it seems for others it is easier to focus on the weapon not the motive in any conversation like this. If the motive remains, and guns are no more the weapon will change. What is the motive and how can it be identified. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were as many guns in the USA in the sixties and seventies as there are now and these kind of things didn’t happen as much. What has changed, the access to guns, or the behavior of people? People have changed, but it seems for others it is easier to focus on the weapon not the motive in any conversation like this. If the motive remains, and guns are no more the weapon will change. What is the motive and how can it be identified. " It is harder to commit mass knifings than it is mass shootings. As I said above, there is no reason for civilians to have access to assault rifles. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were as many guns in the USA in the sixties and seventies as there are now and these kind of things didn’t happen as much. What has changed, the access to guns, or the behavior of people? People have changed, but it seems for others it is easier to focus on the weapon not the motive in any conversation like this. If the motive remains, and guns are no more the weapon will change. What is the motive and how can it be identified. It is harder to commit mass knifings than it is mass shootings. As I said above, there is no reason for civilians to have access to assault rifles." Why would it be mass knifings? If it is "mass" that is the driver for these killers, other weapons may be used that could be more deadly than an assault rifle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not our country so fuck all to do with any of us Don’t comment then again fab im entitled to post on what i want, as for guns nothing to do with us we dont live there"The irony | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were as many guns in the USA in the sixties and seventies as there are now and these kind of things didn’t happen as much. What has changed, the access to guns, or the behavior of people? People have changed, but it seems for others it is easier to focus on the weapon not the motive in any conversation like this. If the motive remains, and guns are no more the weapon will change. What is the motive and how can it be identified. It is harder to commit mass knifings than it is mass shootings. As I said above, there is no reason for civilians to have access to assault rifles. Why would it be mass knifings? If it is "mass" that is the driver for these killers, other weapons may be used that could be more deadly than an assault rifle." What weapon do you believe could be more deadly than an assault rifle….. maybe an individual could go on the rampage a nuclear device or two…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were as many guns in the USA in the sixties and seventies as there are now and these kind of things didn’t happen as much. What has changed, the access to guns, or the behavior of people? People have changed, but it seems for others it is easier to focus on the weapon not the motive in any conversation like this. If the motive remains, and guns are no more the weapon will change. What is the motive and how can it be identified. It is harder to commit mass knifings than it is mass shootings. As I said above, there is no reason for civilians to have access to assault rifles. Why would it be mass knifings? If it is "mass" that is the driver for these killers, other weapons may be used that could be more deadly than an assault rifle. What weapon do you believe could be more deadly than an assault rifle….. maybe an individual could go on the rampage a nuclear device or two…." Are you being serious? I'm not going to spell this out to you have a think.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were as many guns in the USA in the sixties and seventies as there are now and these kind of things didn’t happen as much. What has changed, the access to guns, or the behavior of people? People have changed, but it seems for others it is easier to focus on the weapon not the motive in any conversation like this. If the motive remains, and guns are no more the weapon will change. What is the motive and how can it be identified. It is harder to commit mass knifings than it is mass shootings. As I said above, there is no reason for civilians to have access to assault rifles. Why would it be mass knifings? If it is "mass" that is the driver for these killers, other weapons may be used that could be more deadly than an assault rifle." Well I thought it went without saying that hand grenades, bomb making components, cruise missiles and ICBMs should also not be available to civilians. Call me a stick in the mud  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were as many guns in the USA in the sixties and seventies as there are now and these kind of things didn’t happen as much. What has changed, the access to guns, or the behavior of people? People have changed, but it seems for others it is easier to focus on the weapon not the motive in any conversation like this. If the motive remains, and guns are no more the weapon will change. What is the motive and how can it be identified. It is harder to commit mass knifings than it is mass shootings. As I said above, there is no reason for civilians to have access to assault rifles. Why would it be mass knifings? If it is "mass" that is the driver for these killers, other weapons may be used that could be more deadly than an assault rifle. Well I thought it went without saying that hand grenades, bomb making components, cruise missiles and ICBMs should also not be available to civilians. Call me a stick in the mud "Stick in the mud, we are straying off my point
If a person is committing these horrific acts to hurt and kill as many people as possible, taking guns off them won't necessarily stop them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were as many guns in the USA in the sixties and seventies as there are now and these kind of things didn’t happen as much. What has changed, the access to guns, or the behavior of people? People have changed, but it seems for others it is easier to focus on the weapon not the motive in any conversation like this. If the motive remains, and guns are no more the weapon will change. What is the motive and how can it be identified. It is harder to commit mass knifings than it is mass shootings. As I said above, there is no reason for civilians to have access to assault rifles. Why would it be mass knifings? If it is "mass" that is the driver for these killers, other weapons may be used that could be more deadly than an assault rifle. Well I thought it went without saying that hand grenades, bomb making components, cruise missiles and ICBMs should also not be available to civilians. Call me a stick in the mud
Stick in the mud, we are straying off my point
If a person is committing these horrific acts to hurt and kill as many people as possible, taking guns off them won't necessarily stop them "In all seriousness though, yes a hand gun is still deadly, as is a shotgun or hunting rifle. Yes you could use a vehicle. Homemade bombs too, although that takes effort and planning. Simply popping to Walmart with your driving licence and buying an assault rifle and ammo is just easier! I guess I just think it shouldn’t be so easy to purchase military grade weaponry! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were as many guns in the USA in the sixties and seventies as there are now and these kind of things didn’t happen as much. What has changed, the access to guns, or the behavior of people? People have changed, but it seems for others it is easier to focus on the weapon not the motive in any conversation like this. If the motive remains, and guns are no more the weapon will change. What is the motive and how can it be identified. It is harder to commit mass knifings than it is mass shootings. As I said above, there is no reason for civilians to have access to assault rifles. Why would it be mass knifings? If it is "mass" that is the driver for these killers, other weapons may be used that could be more deadly than an assault rifle. Well I thought it went without saying that hand grenades, bomb making components, cruise missiles and ICBMs should also not be available to civilians. Call me a stick in the mud
Stick in the mud, we are straying off my point
If a person is committing these horrific acts to hurt and kill as many people as possible, taking guns off them won't necessarily stop them
In all seriousness though, yes a hand gun is still deadly, as is a shotgun or hunting rifle. Yes you could use a vehicle. Homemade bombs too, although that takes effort and planning.
Simply popping to Walmart with your driving licence and buying an assault rifle and ammo is just easier!
I guess I just think it shouldn’t be so easy to purchase military grade weaponry!"I don't disagree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were as many guns in the USA in the sixties and seventies as there are now and these kind of things didn’t happen as much. What has changed, the access to guns, or the behavior of people? People have changed, but it seems for others it is easier to focus on the weapon not the motive in any conversation like this. If the motive remains, and guns are no more the weapon will change. What is the motive and how can it be identified. It is harder to commit mass knifings than it is mass shootings. As I said above, there is no reason for civilians to have access to assault rifles. Why would it be mass knifings? If it is "mass" that is the driver for these killers, other weapons may be used that could be more deadly than an assault rifle. Well I thought it went without saying that hand grenades, bomb making components, cruise missiles and ICBMs should also not be available to civilians. Call me a stick in the mud
Stick in the mud, we are straying off my point
If a person is committing these horrific acts to hurt and kill as many people as possible, taking guns off them won't necessarily stop them "in which the question is why are Americans more prone (it seems) to mass killings than other western countries. Why is Blu (say) more fearful of her neighbour than a Brit ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were as many guns in the USA in the sixties and seventies as there are now and these kind of things didn’t happen as much. What has changed, the access to guns, or the behavior of people? People have changed, but it seems for others it is easier to focus on the weapon not the motive in any conversation like this. If the motive remains, and guns are no more the weapon will change. What is the motive and how can it be identified. It is harder to commit mass knifings than it is mass shootings. As I said above, there is no reason for civilians to have access to assault rifles. Why would it be mass knifings? If it is "mass" that is the driver for these killers, other weapons may be used that could be more deadly than an assault rifle. Well I thought it went without saying that hand grenades, bomb making components, cruise missiles and ICBMs should also not be available to civilians. Call me a stick in the mud
Stick in the mud, we are straying off my point
If a person is committing these horrific acts to hurt and kill as many people as possible, taking guns off them won't necessarily stop them in which the question is why are Americans more prone (it seems) to mass killings than other western countries. Why is Blu (say) more fearful of her neighbour than a Brit ?"Great question, it was in my original post, what is the motive and how can it be understood | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There have been at least 160 mass shootings in the US so far this year and it is only April… It is highly political subject in that country with the 2nd Amendment to the constitution welded to the nation’s psyche… But what would your solution be to prevent any more of these tragedies occurring ? I am interested in the gun enthusiasts opinion of what should be done. Because whatever they're doing now, simply isn't working. Our fellow poster from the US suggested that armed guards in schools could help. " I am a Gun enthusiast, I own 4 large calibre rifles one 9 shot semi auto shotgun (solid slug) and one handgun, obviously all legal I stalk deer on estates and shoot farm vermin as well as a member of gun clubs For the USA; I would make it essential that you, * first have to have a medical report before obtaining a firearms certificate * remove all automatic assault rifles * remove licence to carry, so that you cannot walk around the streets with a handgun on your belt or basically on your person at all. These will not stop shootings, but would be a beginning of legislation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There have been at least 160 mass shootings in the US so far this year and it is only April… It is highly political subject in that country with the 2nd Amendment to the constitution welded to the nation’s psyche… But what would your solution be to prevent any more of these tragedies occurring ? I am interested in the gun enthusiasts opinion of what should be done. Because whatever they're doing now, simply isn't working. Our fellow poster from the US suggested that armed guards in schools could help. I am a Gun enthusiast, I own 4 large calibre rifles one 9 shot semi auto shotgun (solid slug) and one handgun, obviously all legal I stalk deer on estates and shoot farm vermin as well as a member of gun clubs For the USA; I would make it essential that you, * first have to have a medical report before obtaining a firearms certificate * remove all automatic assault rifles * remove licence to carry, so that you cannot walk around the streets with a handgun on your belt or basically on your person at all. These will not stop shootings, but would be a beginning of legislation. " Good to see that someone is coming up with suggestions to my original post. BTW my comment about going on the rampage with a nuclear device or two was meant to be sarcastic… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mass shooting is defined as where 4 or more people are either killed or injured In 2019 there were 417 such events. In 2022 there were 647" Per capita... How many were there in the UK? What about EU countries? Canada? Australia? NZ? I suspect the general answer is a lot less than the USA? So is it access to guns or is it some kind of mental state (obviously it is both but what I am trying to get to is whether our friends over the pond are for some reason more predisposed to taking this kind of action?) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mass shooting is defined as where 4 or more people are either killed or injured In 2019 there were 417 such events. In 2022 there were 647 Per capita... How many were there in the UK? What about EU countries? Canada? Australia? NZ? I suspect the general answer is a lot less than the USA? So is it access to guns or is it some kind of mental state (obviously it is both but what I am trying to get to is whether our friends over the pond are for some reason more predisposed to taking this kind of action?)" As a comparison of gun related killings as a percentage of all homicides the stats for 2020 are… US 79% Canada 37% Australia 13% UK 4% Also the US tops the poll of civilian owning countries With an estimated 120.5 firearms per 100 residents Second is Yemen at estimated 52.8 firearms per 100 residents. Whilst their neighbour Canada is 6th at an estimated 34.7 firearms per 100 residents. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mass shooting is defined as where 4 or more people are either killed or injured In 2019 there were 417 such events. In 2022 there were 647 Per capita... How many were there in the UK? What about EU countries? Canada? Australia? NZ? I suspect the general answer is a lot less than the USA? So is it access to guns or is it some kind of mental state (obviously it is both but what I am trying to get to is whether our friends over the pond are for some reason more predisposed to taking this kind of action?) As a comparison of gun related killings as a percentage of all homicides the stats for 2020 are… US 79% Canada 37% Australia 13% UK 4% Also the US tops the poll of civilian owning countries With an estimated 120.5 firearms per 100 residents Second is Yemen at estimated 52.8 firearms per 100 residents. Whilst their neighbour Canada is 6th at an estimated 34.7 firearms per 100 residents. " To my British sensibilities that is just crazy! Asking for trouble! And I get why people would want firearms because every other crazy MF has them! Escalation of threat and self perpetuating. When I was younger I wanted to live in the USA. Spent a lot of time there but never lived. Never will! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mass shooting is defined as where 4 or more people are either killed or injured In 2019 there were 417 such events. In 2022 there were 647 Per capita... How many were there in the UK? What about EU countries? Canada? Australia? NZ? I suspect the general answer is a lot less than the USA? So is it access to guns or is it some kind of mental state (obviously it is both but what I am trying to get to is whether our friends over the pond are for some reason more predisposed to taking this kind of action?) As a comparison of gun related killings as a percentage of all homicides the stats for 2020 are… US 79% Canada 37% Australia 13% UK 4% Also the US tops the poll of civilian owning countries With an estimated 120.5 firearms per 100 residents Second is Yemen at estimated 52.8 firearms per 100 residents. Whilst their neighbour Canada is 6th at an estimated 34.7 firearms per 100 residents. To my British sensibilities that is just crazy! Asking for trouble! And I get why people would want firearms because every other crazy MF has them! Escalation of threat and self perpetuating. When I was younger I wanted to live in the USA. Spent a lot of time there but never lived. Never will!" Meanwhile here in the UK kids are stabbed to dead almost every single day | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were as many guns in the USA in the sixties and seventies as there are now and these kind of things didn’t happen as much. What has changed, the access to guns, or the behavior of people? People have changed, but it seems for others it is easier to focus on the weapon not the motive in any conversation like this. If the motive remains, and guns are no more the weapon will change. What is the motive and how can it be identified. It is harder to commit mass knifings than it is mass shootings. As I said above, there is no reason for civilians to have access to assault rifles." but most mass shooting are done with handguns. I don't see anyone complaining about them. Why is that? It is because what the news feeds you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were as many guns in the USA in the sixties and seventies as there are now and these kind of things didn’t happen as much. What has changed, the access to guns, or the behavior of people? People have changed, but it seems for others it is easier to focus on the weapon not the motive in any conversation like this. If the motive remains, and guns are no more the weapon will change. What is the motive and how can it be identified. It is harder to commit mass knifings than it is mass shootings. As I said above, there is no reason for civilians to have access to assault rifles. but most mass shooting are done with handguns. I don't see anyone complaining about them. Why is that? It is because what the news feeds you. " tbh, you are probably miss reading the room. Most Brits would say ban guns. But at the very least ban assualt rifles. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were as many guns in the USA in the sixties and seventies as there are now and these kind of things didn’t happen as much. What has changed, the access to guns, or the behavior of people? People have changed, but it seems for others it is easier to focus on the weapon not the motive in any conversation like this. If the motive remains, and guns are no more the weapon will change. What is the motive and how can it be identified. It is harder to commit mass knifings than it is mass shootings. As I said above, there is no reason for civilians to have access to assault rifles. but most mass shooting are done with handguns. I don't see anyone complaining about them. Why is that? It is because what the news feeds you. tbh, you are probably miss reading the room. Most Brits would say ban guns. But at the very least ban assualt rifles. " Indeed and exactly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were as many guns in the USA in the sixties and seventies as there are now and these kind of things didn’t happen as much. What has changed, the access to guns, or the behavior of people? People have changed, but it seems for others it is easier to focus on the weapon not the motive in any conversation like this. If the motive remains, and guns are no more the weapon will change. What is the motive and how can it be identified. It is harder to commit mass knifings than it is mass shootings. As I said above, there is no reason for civilians to have access to assault rifles. but most mass shooting are done with handguns. I don't see anyone complaining about them. Why is that? It is because what the news feeds you. " I think most people are complaining about the mass shootings, and not necessarily which specific type of gun is used for the mass murdering. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok what is the British definition of a assault rifle ? " I suspect many of us don't have one. And don't know the difference between an AR and an AK. Nor even could tell you which was used in which shooting. I would say that for many (based on surveying me) guns come as handguns, machine gun, and assault rifles. With the latter being stuff that the army uses. And machine guns is what Hollywood uses. And tbh, I'm not that bothered. It's a range of kill a few people easily in one go, to kill a load. With no other purpose. And tbh, Im not invested in US laws and US hobbies You have your fun. I just struggle with how so many can't see a link between their hobby and innocent people dying. It's the lack of accountabiliyy that surprises me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not our country so fuck all to do with any of us Don’t comment then "Very true | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were as many guns in the USA in the sixties and seventies as there are now and these kind of things didn’t happen as much. What has changed, the access to guns, or the behavior of people? People have changed, but it seems for others it is easier to focus on the weapon not the motive in any conversation like this. If the motive remains, and guns are no more the weapon will change. What is the motive and how can it be identified. It is harder to commit mass knifings than it is mass shootings. As I said above, there is no reason for civilians to have access to assault rifles. but most mass shooting are done with handguns. I don't see anyone complaining about them. Why is that? It is because what the news feeds you. I think most people are complaining about the mass shootings, and not necessarily which specific type of gun is used for the mass murdering. " I think a more important question is, would those committing these crimes carry out mass murder if guns were not available? In other words what is the driving force behind the act? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were as many guns in the USA in the sixties and seventies as there are now and these kind of things didn’t happen as much. What has changed, the access to guns, or the behavior of people? People have changed, but it seems for others it is easier to focus on the weapon not the motive in any conversation like this. If the motive remains, and guns are no more the weapon will change. What is the motive and how can it be identified. It is harder to commit mass knifings than it is mass shootings. As I said above, there is no reason for civilians to have access to assault rifles. but most mass shooting are done with handguns. I don't see anyone complaining about them. Why is that? It is because what the news feeds you. I think most people are complaining about the mass shootings, and not necessarily which specific type of gun is used for the mass murdering. I think a more important question is, would those committing these crimes carry out mass murder if guns were not available? In other words what is the driving force behind the act? " That's probably a complex answer, which could be different for every mass murderer. The interesting question is. What do the pro-gun people suggest? More of what they're doing now, isn't working. I assume even the most hardcore gun nuts don't want children gunned down at school. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were as many guns in the USA in the sixties and seventies as there are now and these kind of things didn’t happen as much. What has changed, the access to guns, or the behavior of people? People have changed, but it seems for others it is easier to focus on the weapon not the motive in any conversation like this. If the motive remains, and guns are no more the weapon will change. What is the motive and how can it be identified. It is harder to commit mass knifings than it is mass shootings. As I said above, there is no reason for civilians to have access to assault rifles. but most mass shooting are done with handguns. I don't see anyone complaining about them. Why is that? It is because what the news feeds you. I think most people are complaining about the mass shootings, and not necessarily which specific type of gun is used for the mass murdering. I think a more important question is, would those committing these crimes carry out mass murder if guns were not available? In other words what is the driving force behind the act? " i suspect there is a combination of driving force and ease of access to the means. It appears that many pronguns are anti drugs ... Often with the argument is making it legal will see more addicts .... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In other words what is the driving force behind the act? " As you can imagine, it's many and various. However one reason which I hadn't considered until a friend mentioned it, was, "Because I can." We were talking late one night, and he motioned to a clock tower and said "You know, that's a good sniping spot. If I was so inclined, I could set myself up there and take out many people." Somewhat horrified, I said, "Why would you even want to do that ?" and he replied, "Because I can". I said "Yes, but what's your motive?" He said, "I don't need a motive. Everyone is obsessed with motives and trying to understand what makes people do things. Perhaps to prevent them happening again. My point is, you don't need a motive. You can sometimes just do things because you can. If you really have to have a motive; that is the motive. Because you can. Sometimes, that is the only motive." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were as many guns in the USA in the sixties and seventies as there are now and these kind of things didn’t happen as much. What has changed, the access to guns, or the behavior of people? People have changed, but it seems for others it is easier to focus on the weapon not the motive in any conversation like this. If the motive remains, and guns are no more the weapon will change. What is the motive and how can it be identified. It is harder to commit mass knifings than it is mass shootings. As I said above, there is no reason for civilians to have access to assault rifles. but most mass shooting are done with handguns. I don't see anyone complaining about them. Why is that? It is because what the news feeds you. I think most people are complaining about the mass shootings, and not necessarily which specific type of gun is used for the mass murdering. I think a more important question is, would those committing these crimes carry out mass murder if guns were not available? In other words what is the driving force behind the act? That's probably a complex answer, which could be different for every mass murderer. The interesting question is. What do the pro-gun people suggest? More of what they're doing now, isn't working. I assume even the most hardcore gun nuts don't want children gunned down at school. " I don't want children being gunned down. But if I was there at a mass shooting in a gun free zones taking out a mass shooter guess who gets charged with a felony. It's a hard nut to crack everyone wants this banned and that banned defund police. Riots houses burned down people getting assaulted. Like it or not I am not going to be a victim. If I have to defend myself and others I will do so to the best of my abilities. There are plenty of law abiding ones out there yet we are the problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were as many guns in the USA in the sixties and seventies as there are now and these kind of things didn’t happen as much. What has changed, the access to guns, or the behavior of people? People have changed, but it seems for others it is easier to focus on the weapon not the motive in any conversation like this. If the motive remains, and guns are no more the weapon will change. What is the motive and how can it be identified. It is harder to commit mass knifings than it is mass shootings. As I said above, there is no reason for civilians to have access to assault rifles. but most mass shooting are done with handguns. I don't see anyone complaining about them. Why is that? It is because what the news feeds you. I think most people are complaining about the mass shootings, and not necessarily which specific type of gun is used for the mass murdering. I think a more important question is, would those committing these crimes carry out mass murder if guns were not available? In other words what is the driving force behind the act? That's probably a complex answer, which could be different for every mass murderer. The interesting question is. What do the pro-gun people suggest? More of what they're doing now, isn't working. I assume even the most hardcore gun nuts don't want children gunned down at school. I don't want children being gunned down. But if I was there at a mass shooting in a gun free zones taking out a mass shooter guess who gets charged with a felony. It's a hard nut to crack everyone wants this banned and that banned defund police. Riots houses burned down people getting assaulted. Like it or not I am not going to be a victim. If I have to defend myself and others I will do so to the best of my abilities. There are plenty of law abiding ones out there yet we are the problem." So what's the solution? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were as many guns in the USA in the sixties and seventies as there are now and these kind of things didn’t happen as much. What has changed, the access to guns, or the behavior of people? People have changed, but it seems for others it is easier to focus on the weapon not the motive in any conversation like this. If the motive remains, and guns are no more the weapon will change. What is the motive and how can it be identified. It is harder to commit mass knifings than it is mass shootings. As I said above, there is no reason for civilians to have access to assault rifles. but most mass shooting are done with handguns. I don't see anyone complaining about them. Why is that? It is because what the news feeds you. I think most people are complaining about the mass shootings, and not necessarily which specific type of gun is used for the mass murdering. I think a more important question is, would those committing these crimes carry out mass murder if guns were not available? In other words what is the driving force behind the act? That's probably a complex answer, which could be different for every mass murderer. The interesting question is. What do the pro-gun people suggest? More of what they're doing now, isn't working. I assume even the most hardcore gun nuts don't want children gunned down at school. I don't want children being gunned down. But if I was there at a mass shooting in a gun free zones taking out a mass shooter guess who gets charged with a felony. It's a hard nut to crack everyone wants this banned and that banned defund police. Riots houses burned down people getting assaulted. Like it or not I am not going to be a victim. If I have to defend myself and others I will do so to the best of my abilities. There are plenty of law abiding ones out there yet we are the problem." do you agree that you are more likely to be a victim because guns are legal in the US? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And why are mass shooter picking the AR over the AK .both do the same exact functions. So do others. Is it the media hype?" This post and... "Ok what is the British definition of a assault rifle ?" ...are two of the most bizarre posts you have ever left on the forum Blu 
Who gives an actual fuck which manufacturer produces the weapon of choice for a mass shooter? 
Personally I do not see why civilians need to own any guns of any type BUT as said above, in the USA that boat sailed over 200 years ago.
The focus on assault rifles (and key’s be clear, as a layperson I mean rapid fire military grade weaponry) is due to a couple of factors:
1. It appears most mass shootings in the USA involve a weapon with rapid fire capability and a large magazine.
2. In the USA you appear to be able to buy these over the counter with only rudimentary checks.
To me that is crazy.
So a question for you Blu...Why does a civilian NEED an assault rifle?
Not want, not my right, not because other crazy MFs have them so I gotta have them (because I would take them ALL away). Why does any civilian NEED an assault rifle? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There were as many guns in the USA in the sixties and seventies as there are now and these kind of things didn’t happen as much. What has changed, the access to guns, or the behavior of people? People have changed, but it seems for others it is easier to focus on the weapon not the motive in any conversation like this. If the motive remains, and guns are no more the weapon will change. What is the motive and how can it be identified. It is harder to commit mass knifings than it is mass shootings. As I said above, there is no reason for civilians to have access to assault rifles. but most mass shooting are done with handguns. I don't see anyone complaining about them. Why is that? It is because what the news feeds you. I think most people are complaining about the mass shootings, and not necessarily which specific type of gun is used for the mass murdering. I think a more important question is, would those committing these crimes carry out mass murder if guns were not available? In other words what is the driving force behind the act? That's probably a complex answer, which could be different for every mass murderer. The interesting question is. What do the pro-gun people suggest? More of what they're doing now, isn't working. I assume even the most hardcore gun nuts don't want children gunned down at school. I don't want children being gunned down. But if I was there at a mass shooting in a gun free zones taking out a mass shooter guess who gets charged with a felony. It's a hard nut to crack everyone wants this banned and that banned defund police. Riots houses burned down people getting assaulted. Like it or not I am not going to be a victim. If I have to defend myself and others I will do so to the best of my abilities. There are plenty of law abiding ones out there yet we are the problem.do you agree that you are more likely to be a victim because guns are legal in the US? " It’s a circular/self-fulfilling prophecy. Gun laws in the USA means there are lots of guns. Some of those guns are in the hands of bad people. The good people are afraid and want to defend themselves so they want guns. The bad people know all the good people have guns so if they want to do bad stuff they need bigger and better guns. And so on. It is an arms race. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why are schools in the US not better protected? Bullet proof glass on all ingress points and security systems that can lock down corridor doors, trapping or preventing movement? The video from Nashville showed the shooter could move around at will. I also agree with other posters that have suggested cutting back on the media reporting to see if it would make a difference, I think parents have been calling for this too. " On the school security question I suspect it comes down to one thing...$$$$ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"School security, reducing the media glorification are just tinkering around the edges of this. It will require brave political leadership to tackle this and will take a long time to resolve by taking small steps. You don’t eat a whole pie with one bite. I don’t believe the ship has sailed on this one. Potentially anyone who does take bold step to take this on is in danger of committing political suicide. However doing the right thing often requires sacrifice." I admire your optimism but... Charlton Heston “I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" Just about sums it up. For over two centuries gun ownership in the USA has been a constitutional right. Changing the constitution is no small thing! Charlton Heston also said “There are no good guns, There are no bad guns. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a good man is no threat to anyone, except bad people.” which is back to my point about an arms race. If I lived in the USA I would want to own a gun because I know the “bad people” own guns. I don’t like guns and don’t really see why civilians need guns but if the bad people have them then I am going to need one too! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I remember under trump he was blamed for bot dealing with them and not changing gun laws. Media a lot lot quieter ehen placing blame now a democrat is in charge" At least Trump was honest about valuing money over human life. Biden will say a bunch of stuff, but also do fuck all about it. The NRA donates heavily to both parties. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I remember under trump he was blamed for bot dealing with them and not changing gun laws. Media a lot lot quieter ehen placing blame now a democrat is in charge At least Trump was honest about valuing money over human life. Biden will say a bunch of stuff, but also do fuck all about it. The NRA donates heavily to both parties. " Different sides of the same shit coin | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why are schools in the US not better protected? Bullet proof glass on all ingress points and security systems that can lock down corridor doors, trapping or preventing movement? The video from Nashville showed the shooter could move around at will. I also agree with other posters that have suggested cutting back on the media reporting to see if it would make a difference, I think parents have been calling for this too. On the school security question I suspect it comes down to one thing...$$$$" Exactly we send billions overseas to other countries to secure their borders. Yet can even spend that here. Plenty of veterans that are trained to protect can be hired and used as security. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1. It appears most mass shootings in the USA involve a weapon with rapid fire capability and a large magazine. Actually they’re not, most mass shootings in the US involve handguns. In most states, an American can buy an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle after their 18th birthday. At the same time, the age limit to buy handguns in many states and at the federal level is higher, at 21 years old. Experts say that’s because handguns are the most common firearms used in crimes involving guns. Rifles and other long guns are more associated with hunting. Federal law regulates handgun sales differently than sales of shotguns and rifles, including AR-15-style rifles. (Over the years, "AR-15" has become an umbrella term that is colloquially used for a variety of semi-automatic rifles.) Under federal regulations, it is unlawful for licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, dealers and collectors to sell firearms or ammunition to someone who is younger than 18. 2. In the USA you appear to be able to buy these over the counter with only rudimentary checks. The checks are very similar to checks here in the UK The bipartisan gun legislation that President Joe Biden signed into law did not raise the minimum age for buying semi-automatic rifles. But it increased scrutiny for gun buyers under 21 during background checks, requiring a review of whether the buyer has a juvenile record that would disqualify them from buying a gun. It gives authorities 10 business days to examine state juvenile justice and mental health records. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is a background check system in the United States created by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Law) of 1993 to prevent firearm sales to people prohibited under the Act. The system was launched by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 1998. Under the system, firearm dealers, manufacturers or importers who hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL) are required to undertake a NICS background check on prospective buyers before transferring a firearm. The NICS is not intended to be a gun registry, but is a list of persons prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. By law, upon successfully passing the background check, the buyer’s details are to be discarded and a record on NICS of the firearm purchase is not to be made, though the seller as a FFL holder is required to keep a record of the transaction. It is not perfect but unlike our system is a national background check. A little history , The AR-15 was developed in the late 1950s as a civilian weapon by Eugene Stoner, a former Marine working for small California startup called ArmaLite (which is where the AR comes from). The gun, revolutionary for its light weight, easy care and adaptability with additional components, entered the mainstream in the mid-1960s, after Colt bought the patent and developed an automatic-fire version for troops in Vietnam, called the M16." Thanks interesting stuff. Supports my view that all gun ownership should be stopped. You say checks are the same as UK but there has to be more to it than that? We don’t have anywhere near the level of gun ownership in the UK so what is different? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1. It appears most mass shootings in the USA involve a weapon with rapid fire capability and a large magazine. Actually they’re not, most mass shootings in the US involve handguns. In most states, an American can buy an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle after their 18th birthday. At the same time, the age limit to buy handguns in many states and at the federal level is higher, at 21 years old. Experts say that’s because handguns are the most common firearms used in crimes involving guns. Rifles and other long guns are more associated with hunting. Federal law regulates handgun sales differently than sales of shotguns and rifles, including AR-15-style rifles. (Over the years, "AR-15" has become an umbrella term that is colloquially used for a variety of semi-automatic rifles.) Under federal regulations, it is unlawful for licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, dealers and collectors to sell firearms or ammunition to someone who is younger than 18. 2. In the USA you appear to be able to buy these over the counter with only rudimentary checks. The checks are very similar to checks here in the UK The bipartisan gun legislation that President Joe Biden signed into law did not raise the minimum age for buying semi-automatic rifles. But it increased scrutiny for gun buyers under 21 during background checks, requiring a review of whether the buyer has a juvenile record that would disqualify them from buying a gun. It gives authorities 10 business days to examine state juvenile justice and mental health records. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is a background check system in the United States created by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Law) of 1993 to prevent firearm sales to people prohibited under the Act. The system was launched by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 1998. Under the system, firearm dealers, manufacturers or importers who hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL) are required to undertake a NICS background check on prospective buyers before transferring a firearm. The NICS is not intended to be a gun registry, but is a list of persons prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. By law, upon successfully passing the background check, the buyer’s details are to be discarded and a record on NICS of the firearm purchase is not to be made, though the seller as a FFL holder is required to keep a record of the transaction. It is not perfect but unlike our system is a national background check. A little history , The AR-15 was developed in the late 1950s as a civilian weapon by Eugene Stoner, a former Marine working for small California startup called ArmaLite (which is where the AR comes from). The gun, revolutionary for its light weight, easy care and adaptability with additional components, entered the mainstream in the mid-1960s, after Colt bought the patent and developed an automatic-fire version for troops in Vietnam, called the M16. Thanks interesting stuff. Supports my view that all gun ownership should be stopped. You say checks are the same as UK but there has to be more to it than that? We don’t have anywhere near the level of gun ownership in the UK so what is different?" The UK is different in the way checks are carried out. The possession of firearms and ammunition in Great Britain is regulated mainly by the Firearms Act 1968. In order to be granted a firearms licence, individuals must be assessed by their local police force and judged not to pose a threat to public safety, and to have “good reason” to own the firearm. The age at which a person can possess a firearm differs across the UK’s regions. In England, Wales and Scotland, anyone aged 14 and above may own and use a section 1 firearm if they hold a valid firearms certificate for it. In Northern Ireland, a person must be 18 and above to possess a firearm, though over-16s can use one in the company of an adult who holds a licence. People who have been given a prison sentence of three years or more are banned from possessing a firearm or ammunition. The Police decide whether to grant an individual a firearm after judging whether the applicant is fit to own one. This follows a number of checks, which typically include interviews, visits to the person’s property, criminal records checks and references from friends. They should be able to demonstrate that “they require their firearm on a regular, legitimate basis for work, sport or leisure (including collections or research)”, although police are able to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis of what merits a “good reason” to own a firearm. In renewing a certificate, individuals are required by law to disclose their mental health history. Applicants’ GPs may be contacted during the vetting process, and GPs are informed once a certificate has been granted. This all has to happen prior to any firearm purchase. Some firearms are completely prohibited, making it an offence to possess, buy or acquire them without the authority of the home secretary. Handguns were in effect outlawed in the UK after the 1996 Dunblane massacre, Britain’s deadliest mass shooting, which killed 16 schoolchildren and one teacher. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*can't*" https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7979/text?r=12&s=1 It didn't pass. All for it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1. It appears most mass shootings in the USA involve a weapon with rapid fire capability and a large magazine. Actually they’re not, most mass shootings in the US involve handguns. In most states, an American can buy an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle after their 18th birthday. At the same time, the age limit to buy handguns in many states and at the federal level is higher, at 21 years old. Experts say that’s because handguns are the most common firearms used in crimes involving guns. Rifles and other long guns are more associated with hunting. Federal law regulates handgun sales differently than sales of shotguns and rifles, including AR-15-style rifles. (Over the years, "AR-15" has become an umbrella term that is colloquially used for a variety of semi-automatic rifles.) Under federal regulations, it is unlawful for licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, dealers and collectors to sell firearms or ammunition to someone who is younger than 18. 2. In the USA you appear to be able to buy these over the counter with only rudimentary checks. The checks are very similar to checks here in the UK The bipartisan gun legislation that President Joe Biden signed into law did not raise the minimum age for buying semi-automatic rifles. But it increased scrutiny for gun buyers under 21 during background checks, requiring a review of whether the buyer has a juvenile record that would disqualify them from buying a gun. It gives authorities 10 business days to examine state juvenile justice and mental health records. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is a background check system in the United States created by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Law) of 1993 to prevent firearm sales to people prohibited under the Act. The system was launched by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 1998. Under the system, firearm dealers, manufacturers or importers who hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL) are required to undertake a NICS background check on prospective buyers before transferring a firearm. The NICS is not intended to be a gun registry, but is a list of persons prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. By law, upon successfully passing the background check, the buyer’s details are to be discarded and a record on NICS of the firearm purchase is not to be made, though the seller as a FFL holder is required to keep a record of the transaction. It is not perfect but unlike our system is a national background check. A little history , The AR-15 was developed in the late 1950s as a civilian weapon by Eugene Stoner, a former Marine working for small California startup called ArmaLite (which is where the AR comes from). The gun, revolutionary for its light weight, easy care and adaptability with additional components, entered the mainstream in the mid-1960s, after Colt bought the patent and developed an automatic-fire version for troops in Vietnam, called the M16. Thanks interesting stuff. Supports my view that all gun ownership should be stopped. You say checks are the same as UK but there has to be more to it than that? We don’t have anywhere near the level of gun ownership in the UK so what is different? The UK is different in the way checks are carried out. The possession of firearms and ammunition in Great Britain is regulated mainly by the Firearms Act 1968. In order to be granted a firearms licence, individuals must be assessed by their local police force and judged not to pose a threat to public safety, and to have “good reason” to own the firearm. The age at which a person can possess a firearm differs across the UK’s regions. In England, Wales and Scotland, anyone aged 14 and above may own and use a section 1 firearm if they hold a valid firearms certificate for it. In Northern Ireland, a person must be 18 and above to possess a firearm, though over-16s can use one in the company of an adult who holds a licence. People who have been given a prison sentence of three years or more are banned from possessing a firearm or ammunition. The Police decide whether to grant an individual a firearm after judging whether the applicant is fit to own one. This follows a number of checks, which typically include interviews, visits to the person’s property, criminal records checks and references from friends. They should be able to demonstrate that “they require their firearm on a regular, legitimate basis for work, sport or leisure (including collections or research)”, although police are able to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis of what merits a “good reason” to own a firearm. In renewing a certificate, individuals are required by law to disclose their mental health history. Applicants’ GPs may be contacted during the vetting process, and GPs are informed once a certificate has been granted. This all has to happen prior to any firearm purchase. Some firearms are completely prohibited, making it an offence to possess, buy or acquire them without the authority of the home secretary. Handguns were in effect outlawed in the UK after the 1996 Dunblane massacre, Britain’s deadliest mass shooting, which killed 16 schoolchildren and one teacher. " Thanks for taking time to explain that. Really interesting. So does that mean the main issue (in the USA) is accessibility of guns? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ………. Thanks for taking time to explain that. Really interesting. So does that mean the main issue (in the USA) is accessibility of guns?" It’s probably a lot more complicated than that… Political ineptitude with politicians on all sides unwilling or unable to make meaningful change. The fact that individual states can set their own laws around gun ownership. The right to bare arms as defined in the constitution which is part of the nation’s psyche. NRA wielding enormous influence via lobbying of politicians The militarisation of the police forces in the US - If you look at some police tactical units they are almost indistinguishable from the military in terms of hardware and uniforms. The slightly authoritarian civil society institutions - Yes, it’s the land of the free as long as you obey the rules. Just as an example…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*can't* https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7979/text?r=12&s=1 It didn't pass. All for it." Why did it not pass? I'm rather shocked that the security of schools has not been made a priority, increasing that would deter attacks, delay attackers and save lives surely. I would also have thought a presidential candidate would ride a wave of support if it was on the to-do list?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*can't* https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7979/text?r=12&s=1 It didn't pass. All for it. Why did it not pass? I'm rather shocked that the security of schools has not been made a priority, increasing that would deter attacks, delay attackers and save lives surely. I would also have thought a presidential candidate would ride a wave of support if it was on the to-do list??" The problem with the Bill was it contained stipulations for the schools in receipt of grant funds to make them secure. These stipulations include that parents must receive counselling records and mental health assessments for children who receive services, cannot advocate for abortion or abortion services, and must not teach Critical Race Theory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And now a mass shooting in Maine… Clearly not a problem with gun ownership in the US… “sarcasm” " Clearly the other people were not armed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And now a mass shooting in Maine… Clearly not a problem with gun ownership in the US… “sarcasm” Clearly the other people were not armed." And just how exactly having the victims armed would have prevented this…. Can’t exactly return fire is someone shoots you dead first…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And now a mass shooting in Maine… Clearly not a problem with gun ownership in the US… “sarcasm” Clearly the other people were not armed. And just how exactly having the victims armed would have prevented this…. Can’t exactly return fire is someone shoots you dead first…. " Atleast they would have had a chance right? Ok explain how not being armed actually saved them ? It didn't. What part can't you understand that people with bad intentions are going to do what they want. No matter what laws are in place. Clearly it is against the law to murder someone. Explain what you would do in that situation ? All schools are gun free zones. It doesn't work now does it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*can't* https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7979/text?r=12&s=1 It didn't pass. All for it. Why did it not pass? I'm rather shocked that the security of schools has not been made a priority, increasing that would deter attacks, delay attackers and save lives surely. I would also have thought a presidential candidate would ride a wave of support if it was on the to-do list??" Why are you surprised? There are countless school shootings over there. This far they have done fuck all about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*can't* https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7979/text?r=12&s=1 It didn't pass. All for it. Why did it not pass? I'm rather shocked that the security of schools has not been made a priority, increasing that would deter attacks, delay attackers and save lives surely. I would also have thought a presidential candidate would ride a wave of support if it was on the to-do list?? Why are you surprised? There are countless school shootings over there. This far they have done fuck all about it." so we rely on our own means. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reality almost 400 million guns. You either want to protect yourself or you don't. It's not rocket science. Guns are not going away. The pandemic and the unrest exasperated purchases. " Is it not worth even trying? Is there a threshold when it would be? Say 10,000 mass shootings a year? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reality almost 400 million guns. You either want to protect yourself or you don't. It's not rocket science. Guns are not going away. The pandemic and the unrest exasperated purchases. Is it not worth even trying? Is there a threshold when it would be? Say 10,000 mass shootings a year?" Since when are our politicians are held responsible. I gave a actual bill that was introduced. Yet CRT and other minor issues means more then to protecting children. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reality almost 400 million guns. You either want to protect yourself or you don't. It's not rocket science. Guns are not going away. The pandemic and the unrest exasperated purchases. " It’s a rather sad indictment that US society has evolved to this point…. A level of maturity need to develop in civil society and move away from they have a gun so I must get a bigger one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reality almost 400 million guns. You either want to protect yourself or you don't. It's not rocket science. Guns are not going away. The pandemic and the unrest exasperated purchases. Is it not worth even trying? Is there a threshold when it would be? Say 10,000 mass shootings a year? Since when are our politicians are held responsible. I gave a actual bill that was introduced. Yet CRT and other minor issues means more then to protecting children." Would the bill for armed guards be the best solution? You know my view, I don't give a shit how they do it, they need to address the situation and make it stop. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reality almost 400 million guns. You either want to protect yourself or you don't. It's not rocket science. Guns are not going away. The pandemic and the unrest exasperated purchases. It’s a rather sad indictment that US society has evolved to this point…. A level of maturity need to develop in civil society and move away from they have a gun so I must get a bigger one." there is no " Bigger " gun. If there was people would be purchasing .50 BMGs. Do you realize a shotgun would be more devastating in close quarters? Is a shotgun gun a assault rifle ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reality almost 400 million guns. You either want to protect yourself or you don't. It's not rocket science. Guns are not going away. The pandemic and the unrest exasperated purchases. Is it not worth even trying? Is there a threshold when it would be? Say 10,000 mass shootings a year? Since when are our politicians are held responsible. I gave a actual bill that was introduced. Yet CRT and other minor issues means more then to protecting children. Would the bill for armed guards be the best solution? You know my view, I don't give a shit how they do it, they need to address the situation and make it stop." Yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reality almost 400 million guns. You either want to protect yourself or you don't. It's not rocket science. Guns are not going away. The pandemic and the unrest exasperated purchases. Is it not worth even trying? Is there a threshold when it would be? Say 10,000 mass shootings a year? Since when are our politicians are held responsible. I gave a actual bill that was introduced. Yet CRT and other minor issues means more then to protecting children. Would the bill for armed guards be the best solution? You know my view, I don't give a shit how they do it, they need to address the situation and make it stop. Yes. " Israel does it is it working ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reality almost 400 million guns. You either want to protect yourself or you don't. It's not rocket science. Guns are not going away. The pandemic and the unrest exasperated purchases. Is it not worth even trying? Is there a threshold when it would be? Say 10,000 mass shootings a year? Since when are our politicians are held responsible. I gave a actual bill that was introduced. Yet CRT and other minor issues means more then to protecting children. Would the bill for armed guards be the best solution? You know my view, I don't give a shit how they do it, they need to address the situation and make it stop. Yes. Israel does it is it working ?" Israel have their own problems. But as far as I am aware, they're not mass shooting eachother all the time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reality almost 400 million guns. You either want to protect yourself or you don't. It's not rocket science. Guns are not going away. The pandemic and the unrest exasperated purchases. It’s a rather sad indictment that US society has evolved to this point…. A level of maturity need to develop in civil society and move away from they have a gun so I must get a bigger one. there is no " Bigger " gun. If there was people would be purchasing .50 BMGs. Do you realize a shotgun would be more devastating in close quarters? Is a shotgun gun an assault rifle ?" That misses the point ….or should I say target | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reality almost 400 million guns. You either want to protect yourself or you don't. It's not rocket science. Guns are not going away. The pandemic and the unrest exasperated purchases. Is it not worth even trying? Is there a threshold when it would be? Say 10,000 mass shootings a year? Since when are our politicians are held responsible. I gave a actual bill that was introduced. Yet CRT and other minor issues means more then to protecting children. Would the bill for armed guards be the best solution? You know my view, I don't give a shit how they do it, they need to address the situation and make it stop. Yes. Israel does it is it working ? Israel have their own problems. But as far as I am aware, they're not mass shooting eachother all the time." No schools being shot up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So I will protect my family and friends and strangers to the best of my abilities. Hate it like it I really don't give a fuck. I am not the problem. Society is. " You say society is the problem….yet individuals make up society. Can I ask how many firearms do you own ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So I will protect my family and friends and strangers to the best of my abilities. Hate it like it I really don't give a fuck. I am not the problem. Society is. You say society is the problem….yet individuals make up society. Can I ask how many firearms do you own ?" 32 most are family heirlooms from me and him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So I will protect my family and friends and strangers to the best of my abilities. Hate it like it I really don't give a fuck. I am not the problem. Society is. You say society is the problem….yet individuals make up society. Can I ask how many firearms do you own ? 32 most are family heirlooms from me and him." I fully understand having family heirlooms, whether it being firearms or vases. Out of the 32 firearms how many are viable weapons and do you have ammunition for all of them as I assume that they all not of the same calibre. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reality almost 400 million guns. You either want to protect yourself or you don't. It's not rocket science. Guns are not going away. The pandemic and the unrest exasperated purchases. Is it not worth even trying? Is there a threshold when it would be? Say 10,000 mass shootings a year? Since when are our politicians are held responsible. I gave a actual bill that was introduced. Yet CRT and other minor issues means more then to protecting children. Would the bill for armed guards be the best solution? You know my view, I don't give a shit how they do it, they need to address the situation and make it stop. Yes. Israel does it is it working ? Israel have their own problems. But as far as I am aware, they're not mass shooting eachother all the time. No schools being shot up." Israel is not unique in this. The rest of the world also has this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this just now... “Ron DeSantis has signed a permitless carry bill into law that will abolish all gun training and safety requirements to carry a gun in Florida. No background checks, no gun safety classes, no questions” Just fucking mad! @Blu I get why YOU would want guns...because all the crazy MFs got guns. You feel the need to defend yourself against the bad people who are tooled up. If I lived in the USA I would want a gun(s) too. THAT is the problem. Too many fucking guns and yep it is too late. Govt changing constitution and banning guns would be impossible to enforce without civil war!" Why is it too late? Albania had a similar issue, not as bad, they had a gun amnesty. They fixed it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So I will protect my family and friends and strangers to the best of my abilities. Hate it like it I really don't give a fuck. I am not the problem. Society is. You say society is the problem….yet individuals make up society. Can I ask how many firearms do you own ? 32 most are family heirlooms from me and him. I fully understand having family heirlooms, whether it being firearms or vases. Out of the 32 firearms how many are viable weapons and do you have ammunition for all of them as I assume that they all not of the same calibre." just my competition hunting and the one I carry. I have a reloader. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this just now... “Ron DeSantis has signed a permitless carry bill into law that will abolish all gun training and safety requirements to carry a gun in Florida. No background checks, no gun safety classes, no questions” Just fucking mad! @Blu I get why YOU would want guns...because all the crazy MFs got guns. You feel the need to defend yourself against the bad people who are tooled up. If I lived in the USA I would want a gun(s) too. THAT is the problem. Too many fucking guns and yep it is too late. Govt changing constitution and banning guns would be impossible to enforce without civil war!" 25 other states have permitless carry. Florida is the 26th now. Like I said earlier to amend the constitution it has to be ratified by 38 states legislatures. 26 are constitutional carry.That not going to happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this just now... “Ron DeSantis has signed a permitless carry bill into law that will abolish all gun training and safety requirements to carry a gun in Florida. No background checks, no gun safety classes, no questions” Just fucking mad! @Blu I get why YOU would want guns...because all the crazy MFs got guns. You feel the need to defend yourself against the bad people who are tooled up. If I lived in the USA I would want a gun(s) too. THAT is the problem. Too many fucking guns and yep it is too late. Govt changing constitution and banning guns would be impossible to enforce without civil war! Why is it too late? Albania had a similar issue, not as bad, they had a gun amnesty. They fixed it. " @Blu gave one answer. My Charlton Heston quotes are another indicator of mindset. Plus amongst some groups in USA there is a mistrust of the Federal Govt. It is also a question of scale. The population of Albania is minuscule compared to the USA. Last stat I saw was there were 120 civilian owned guns for every 100 people in the USA! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this just now... “Ron DeSantis has signed a permitless carry bill into law that will abolish all gun training and safety requirements to carry a gun in Florida. No background checks, no gun safety classes, no questions” Just fucking mad! @Blu I get why YOU would want guns...because all the crazy MFs got guns. You feel the need to defend yourself against the bad people who are tooled up. If I lived in the USA I would want a gun(s) too. THAT is the problem. Too many fucking guns and yep it is too late. Govt changing constitution and banning guns would be impossible to enforce without civil war! Why is it too late? Albania had a similar issue, not as bad, they had a gun amnesty. They fixed it. @Blu gave one answer. My Charlton Heston quotes are another indicator of mindset. Plus amongst some groups in USA there is a mistrust of the Federal Govt. It is also a question of scale. The population of Albania is minuscule compared to the USA. Last stat I saw was there were 120 civilian owned guns for every 100 people in the USA!" Personally don't really understand how the mindset to want guns, overrides the desire to not live in a society of common mass shootings. I also don't understand the mistrust of the government being an element. Anyone here I know doesn't trust the government as far as they can throw them. But we're not all heavily armed ready to open fire on them if they up taxes? I understand Albania is much smaller. But surely the US has more resources and capability? Personally I don't buy the "it's difficult, so we shouldn't even bother trying" argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this just now... “Ron DeSantis has signed a permitless carry bill into law that will abolish all gun training and safety requirements to carry a gun in Florida. No background checks, no gun safety classes, no questions” Just fucking mad! @Blu I get why YOU would want guns...because all the crazy MFs got guns. You feel the need to defend yourself against the bad people who are tooled up. If I lived in the USA I would want a gun(s) too. THAT is the problem. Too many fucking guns and yep it is too late. Govt changing constitution and banning guns would be impossible to enforce without civil war! Why is it too late? Albania had a similar issue, not as bad, they had a gun amnesty. They fixed it. @Blu gave one answer. My Charlton Heston quotes are another indicator of mindset. Plus amongst some groups in USA there is a mistrust of the Federal Govt. It is also a question of scale. The population of Albania is minuscule compared to the USA. Last stat I saw was there were 120 civilian owned guns for every 100 people in the USA! Personally don't really understand how the mindset to want guns, overrides the desire to not live in a society of common mass shootings. I also don't understand the mistrust of the government being an element. Anyone here I know doesn't trust the government as far as they can throw them. But we're not all heavily armed ready to open fire on them if they up taxes? I understand Albania is much smaller. But surely the US has more resources and capability? Personally I don't buy the "it's difficult, so we shouldn't even bother trying" argument." I am with you on the gun ownership thing. Just don’t get it. Gun availability is clearly linked to gun related homicide and crime. No legal guns, less crime with guns (and no grey area). But as an outsider looking in, I just can’t see the USA tackling it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this just now... “Ron DeSantis has signed a permitless carry bill into law that will abolish all gun training and safety requirements to carry a gun in Florida. No background checks, no gun safety classes, no questions” Just fucking mad! @Blu I get why YOU would want guns...because all the crazy MFs got guns. You feel the need to defend yourself against the bad people who are tooled up. If I lived in the USA I would want a gun(s) too. THAT is the problem. Too many fucking guns and yep it is too late. Govt changing constitution and banning guns would be impossible to enforce without civil war! Why is it too late? Albania had a similar issue, not as bad, they had a gun amnesty. They fixed it. @Blu gave one answer. My Charlton Heston quotes are another indicator of mindset. Plus amongst some groups in USA there is a mistrust of the Federal Govt. It is also a question of scale. The population of Albania is minuscule compared to the USA. Last stat I saw was there were 120 civilian owned guns for every 100 people in the USA! Personally don't really understand how the mindset to want guns, overrides the desire to not live in a society of common mass shootings. I also don't understand the mistrust of the government being an element. Anyone here I know doesn't trust the government as far as they can throw them. But we're not all heavily armed ready to open fire on them if they up taxes? I understand Albania is much smaller. But surely the US has more resources and capability? Personally I don't buy the "it's difficult, so we shouldn't even bother trying" argument." The government would have to change 2 amendments. The 2nd and the 4th in order to have a total ban. That's extremely difficult. Having government enter your home without warrants. You think people are going to go for that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this just now... “Ron DeSantis has signed a permitless carry bill into law that will abolish all gun training and safety requirements to carry a gun in Florida. No background checks, no gun safety classes, no questions” Just fucking mad! @Blu I get why YOU would want guns...because all the crazy MFs got guns. You feel the need to defend yourself against the bad people who are tooled up. If I lived in the USA I would want a gun(s) too. THAT is the problem. Too many fucking guns and yep it is too late. Govt changing constitution and banning guns would be impossible to enforce without civil war! Why is it too late? Albania had a similar issue, not as bad, they had a gun amnesty. They fixed it. @Blu gave one answer. My Charlton Heston quotes are another indicator of mindset. Plus amongst some groups in USA there is a mistrust of the Federal Govt. It is also a question of scale. The population of Albania is minuscule compared to the USA. Last stat I saw was there were 120 civilian owned guns for every 100 people in the USA! Personally don't really understand how the mindset to want guns, overrides the desire to not live in a society of common mass shootings. I also don't understand the mistrust of the government being an element. Anyone here I know doesn't trust the government as far as they can throw them. But we're not all heavily armed ready to open fire on them if they up taxes? I understand Albania is much smaller. But surely the US has more resources and capability? Personally I don't buy the "it's difficult, so we shouldn't even bother trying" argument. The government would have to change 2 amendments. The 2nd and the 4th in order to have a total ban. That's extremely difficult. Having government enter your home without warrants. You think people are going to go for that?" even if the military was ordered to do so by the president it would be a bloody intervention. Probably a coup. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this just now... “Ron DeSantis has signed a permitless carry bill into law that will abolish all gun training and safety requirements to carry a gun in Florida. No background checks, no gun safety classes, no questions” Just fucking mad! @Blu I get why YOU would want guns...because all the crazy MFs got guns. You feel the need to defend yourself against the bad people who are tooled up. If I lived in the USA I would want a gun(s) too. THAT is the problem. Too many fucking guns and yep it is too late. Govt changing constitution and banning guns would be impossible to enforce without civil war! Why is it too late? Albania had a similar issue, not as bad, they had a gun amnesty. They fixed it. @Blu gave one answer. My Charlton Heston quotes are another indicator of mindset. Plus amongst some groups in USA there is a mistrust of the Federal Govt. It is also a question of scale. The population of Albania is minuscule compared to the USA. Last stat I saw was there were 120 civilian owned guns for every 100 people in the USA! Personally don't really understand how the mindset to want guns, overrides the desire to not live in a society of common mass shootings. I also don't understand the mistrust of the government being an element. Anyone here I know doesn't trust the government as far as they can throw them. But we're not all heavily armed ready to open fire on them if they up taxes? I understand Albania is much smaller. But surely the US has more resources and capability? Personally I don't buy the "it's difficult, so we shouldn't even bother trying" argument. The government would have to change 2 amendments. The 2nd and the 4th in order to have a total ban. That's extremely difficult. Having government enter your home without warrants. You think people are going to go for that?" I don't understand what you mean by "government enter your home without warrants"? But yeah, I know it would be difficult. Still, I think they should give it a go. Doing nothing (their current plan) is resulting in 100s of mass shootings and school shootings etc. To me, I think it's worth being arsed trying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this just now... “Ron DeSantis has signed a permitless carry bill into law that will abolish all gun training and safety requirements to carry a gun in Florida. No background checks, no gun safety classes, no questions” Just fucking mad! @Blu I get why YOU would want guns...because all the crazy MFs got guns. You feel the need to defend yourself against the bad people who are tooled up. If I lived in the USA I would want a gun(s) too. THAT is the problem. Too many fucking guns and yep it is too late. Govt changing constitution and banning guns would be impossible to enforce without civil war! Why is it too late? Albania had a similar issue, not as bad, they had a gun amnesty. They fixed it. @Blu gave one answer. My Charlton Heston quotes are another indicator of mindset. Plus amongst some groups in USA there is a mistrust of the Federal Govt. It is also a question of scale. The population of Albania is minuscule compared to the USA. Last stat I saw was there were 120 civilian owned guns for every 100 people in the USA! Personally don't really understand how the mindset to want guns, overrides the desire to not live in a society of common mass shootings. I also don't understand the mistrust of the government being an element. Anyone here I know doesn't trust the government as far as they can throw them. But we're not all heavily armed ready to open fire on them if they up taxes? I understand Albania is much smaller. But surely the US has more resources and capability? Personally I don't buy the "it's difficult, so we shouldn't even bother trying" argument. The government would have to change 2 amendments. The 2nd and the 4th in order to have a total ban. That's extremely difficult. Having government enter your home without warrants. You think people are going to go for that? I don't understand what you mean by "government enter your home without warrants"? But yeah, I know it would be difficult. Still, I think they should give it a go. Doing nothing (their current plan) is resulting in 100s of mass shootings and school shootings etc. To me, I think it's worth being arsed trying. " kicking people's doors in to confiscate weapons ? That's a breach of the 4th amendment. That go will never happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this just now... “Ron DeSantis has signed a permitless carry bill into law that will abolish all gun training and safety requirements to carry a gun in Florida. No background checks, no gun safety classes, no questions” Just fucking mad! @Blu I get why YOU would want guns...because all the crazy MFs got guns. You feel the need to defend yourself against the bad people who are tooled up. If I lived in the USA I would want a gun(s) too. THAT is the problem. Too many fucking guns and yep it is too late. Govt changing constitution and banning guns would be impossible to enforce without civil war! Why is it too late? Albania had a similar issue, not as bad, they had a gun amnesty. They fixed it. @Blu gave one answer. My Charlton Heston quotes are another indicator of mindset. Plus amongst some groups in USA there is a mistrust of the Federal Govt. It is also a question of scale. The population of Albania is minuscule compared to the USA. Last stat I saw was there were 120 civilian owned guns for every 100 people in the USA! Personally don't really understand how the mindset to want guns, overrides the desire to not live in a society of common mass shootings. I also don't understand the mistrust of the government being an element. Anyone here I know doesn't trust the government as far as they can throw them. But we're not all heavily armed ready to open fire on them if they up taxes? I understand Albania is much smaller. But surely the US has more resources and capability? Personally I don't buy the "it's difficult, so we shouldn't even bother trying" argument. The government would have to change 2 amendments. The 2nd and the 4th in order to have a total ban. That's extremely difficult. Having government enter your home without warrants. You think people are going to go for that? I don't understand what you mean by "government enter your home without warrants"? But yeah, I know it would be difficult. Still, I think they should give it a go. Doing nothing (their current plan) is resulting in 100s of mass shootings and school shootings etc. To me, I think it's worth being arsed trying. kicking people's doors in to confiscate weapons ? That's a breach of the 4th amendment. That go will never happen." Why do they have to kick the door in? There is presumably a more civilised way of doing it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this just now... “Ron DeSantis has signed a permitless carry bill into law that will abolish all gun training and safety requirements to carry a gun in Florida. No background checks, no gun safety classes, no questions” Just fucking mad! @Blu I get why YOU would want guns...because all the crazy MFs got guns. You feel the need to defend yourself against the bad people who are tooled up. If I lived in the USA I would want a gun(s) too. THAT is the problem. Too many fucking guns and yep it is too late. Govt changing constitution and banning guns would be impossible to enforce without civil war! Why is it too late? Albania had a similar issue, not as bad, they had a gun amnesty. They fixed it. @Blu gave one answer. My Charlton Heston quotes are another indicator of mindset. Plus amongst some groups in USA there is a mistrust of the Federal Govt. It is also a question of scale. The population of Albania is minuscule compared to the USA. Last stat I saw was there were 120 civilian owned guns for every 100 people in the USA! Personally don't really understand how the mindset to want guns, overrides the desire to not live in a society of common mass shootings. I also don't understand the mistrust of the government being an element. Anyone here I know doesn't trust the government as far as they can throw them. But we're not all heavily armed ready to open fire on them if they up taxes? I understand Albania is much smaller. But surely the US has more resources and capability? Personally I don't buy the "it's difficult, so we shouldn't even bother trying" argument. The government would have to change 2 amendments. The 2nd and the 4th in order to have a total ban. That's extremely difficult. Having government enter your home without warrants. You think people are going to go for that? I don't understand what you mean by "government enter your home without warrants"? But yeah, I know it would be difficult. Still, I think they should give it a go. Doing nothing (their current plan) is resulting in 100s of mass shootings and school shootings etc. To me, I think it's worth being arsed trying. kicking people's doors in to confiscate weapons ? That's a breach of the 4th amendment. That go will never happen. Why do they have to kick the door in? There is presumably a more civilised way of doing it. " Ok what is it? Alot will not comply. Can't help your thoughts because you can't grasp the magnitude of that task. the 26 states are constitutional carry for reason. Those people in those states want it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is US domestic gun policy any of our business? Oh...that's right...Aunty media tells us we need to be concerned about it. That aside, if you look into the statistics of what the media classes as a 'mass shooting' you will likely find it is gang or drug related crime. Over here in the UK we have young kids carrying knives and using them on each other in arguments. Guns aren't the problem, appalling parenting, lack of integration, and failure to nurture a sense of cohesive community are the problem." you are correct. If I done something stupid growing up my dad told the neighbors that had permission to beat my ass. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is US domestic gun policy any of our business? Oh...that's right...Aunty media tells us we need to be concerned about it. That aside, if you look into the statistics of what the media classes as a 'mass shooting' you will likely find it is gang or drug related crime. Over here in the UK we have young kids carrying knives and using them on each other in arguments. Guns aren't the problem, appalling parenting, lack of integration, and failure to nurture a sense of cohesive community are the problem." Why is anything anyone’s business? Aren’t we allowed an opinion? Why do Americans come on here posting views on British politics? And it is a shame to see such violence and escalation of violence in one of our former colonies. We need to scold our children!
Nobody is claiming there isn’t violent crime in the UK. Knife/gang crime is indeed very bad in some areas. But the OP is about “mass shootings” which are still thankfully rare in the UK but seemingly on the increase in the USA.
Some shocking stats:
USA civilian gun ownership = 120,000 per 100,000 people (yep more guns than ppl)
UK civilian gun ownership = 4,600 per 100,000 people
USA gun related homicides = 4.12 per 100,000 people
UK gun related homicides = 0.04 per 100,000 people
These are a few years out of date too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this just now... “Ron DeSantis has signed a permitless carry bill into law that will abolish all gun training and safety requirements to carry a gun in Florida. No background checks, no gun safety classes, no questions” Just fucking mad! @Blu I get why YOU would want guns...because all the crazy MFs got guns. You feel the need to defend yourself against the bad people who are tooled up. If I lived in the USA I would want a gun(s) too. THAT is the problem. Too many fucking guns and yep it is too late. Govt changing constitution and banning guns would be impossible to enforce without civil war! Why is it too late? Albania had a similar issue, not as bad, they had a gun amnesty. They fixed it. @Blu gave one answer. My Charlton Heston quotes are another indicator of mindset. Plus amongst some groups in USA there is a mistrust of the Federal Govt. It is also a question of scale. The population of Albania is minuscule compared to the USA. Last stat I saw was there were 120 civilian owned guns for every 100 people in the USA! Personally don't really understand how the mindset to want guns, overrides the desire to not live in a society of common mass shootings. I also don't understand the mistrust of the government being an element. Anyone here I know doesn't trust the government as far as they can throw them. But we're not all heavily armed ready to open fire on them if they up taxes? I understand Albania is much smaller. But surely the US has more resources and capability? Personally I don't buy the "it's difficult, so we shouldn't even bother trying" argument. The government would have to change 2 amendments. The 2nd and the 4th in order to have a total ban. That's extremely difficult. Having government enter your home without warrants. You think people are going to go for that? I don't understand what you mean by "government enter your home without warrants"? But yeah, I know it would be difficult. Still, I think they should give it a go. Doing nothing (their current plan) is resulting in 100s of mass shootings and school shootings etc. To me, I think it's worth being arsed trying. kicking people's doors in to confiscate weapons ? That's a breach of the 4th amendment. That go will never happen. Why do they have to kick the door in? There is presumably a more civilised way of doing it. Ok what is it? Alot will not comply. Can't help your thoughts because you can't grasp the magnitude of that task. the 26 states are constitutional carry for reason. Those people in those states want it." What is the punishment for having a gun without a license? That doesn't seem to be a deterrent. If it was a very harsh penalty, that was enforced with rigor, that should help people who have guns illegally to think twice. Here it's 5-7 years. Every other country in the world manages not to have this problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I understand it the USA have a amendment that allows their people to carry arms. I understand this right is given as a tool to keep the government in check if said government began or attempted to take control or trash peoples rights. So to remove this law would be seen as an attempt to circumvent the amendment, the government trying to take control, without the hassle of American people trying to set up a militia. So I cannot see the USA ever changing, and as it would never affect me why would I care. I think we should keep our eyes set firmly on these jokers here running the country, I only wish we could bare arms against them." Do they though, can't they just vote out a party they don't like, that seems more sensible than an armed uprising over tax hikes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this just now... “Ron DeSantis has signed a permitless carry bill into law that will abolish all gun training and safety requirements to carry a gun in Florida. No background checks, no gun safety classes, no questions” Just fucking mad! @Blu I get why YOU would want guns...because all the crazy MFs got guns. You feel the need to defend yourself against the bad people who are tooled up. If I lived in the USA I would want a gun(s) too. THAT is the problem. Too many fucking guns and yep it is too late. Govt changing constitution and banning guns would be impossible to enforce without civil war! Why is it too late? Albania had a similar issue, not as bad, they had a gun amnesty. They fixed it. @Blu gave one answer. My Charlton Heston quotes are another indicator of mindset. Plus amongst some groups in USA there is a mistrust of the Federal Govt. It is also a question of scale. The population of Albania is minuscule compared to the USA. Last stat I saw was there were 120 civilian owned guns for every 100 people in the USA! Personally don't really understand how the mindset to want guns, overrides the desire to not live in a society of common mass shootings. I also don't understand the mistrust of the government being an element. Anyone here I know doesn't trust the government as far as they can throw them. But we're not all heavily armed ready to open fire on them if they up taxes? I understand Albania is much smaller. But surely the US has more resources and capability? Personally I don't buy the "it's difficult, so we shouldn't even bother trying" argument. The government would have to change 2 amendments. The 2nd and the 4th in order to have a total ban. That's extremely difficult. Having government enter your home without warrants. You think people are going to go for that? I don't understand what you mean by "government enter your home without warrants"? But yeah, I know it would be difficult. Still, I think they should give it a go. Doing nothing (their current plan) is resulting in 100s of mass shootings and school shootings etc. To me, I think it's worth being arsed trying. kicking people's doors in to confiscate weapons ? That's a breach of the 4th amendment. That go will never happen. Why do they have to kick the door in? There is presumably a more civilised way of doing it. Ok what is it? Alot will not comply. Can't help your thoughts because you can't grasp the magnitude of that task. the 26 states are constitutional carry for reason. Those people in those states want it. What is the punishment for having a gun without a license? That doesn't seem to be a deterrent. If it was a very harsh penalty, that was enforced with rigor, that should help people who have guns illegally to think twice. Here it's 5-7 years. Every other country in the world manages not to have this problem. " Think of our states as separate countries. Laws are different from state to state according to what those people in those states agree upon.My state laws differ from others. I can own a AR here I cannot in Massachusetts as a example. If I transport mine to Massachusetts it's considered a felony. Here it is not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this just now... “Ron DeSantis has signed a permitless carry bill into law that will abolish all gun training and safety requirements to carry a gun in Florida. No background checks, no gun safety classes, no questions” Just fucking mad! @Blu I get why YOU would want guns...because all the crazy MFs got guns. You feel the need to defend yourself against the bad people who are tooled up. If I lived in the USA I would want a gun(s) too. THAT is the problem. Too many fucking guns and yep it is too late. Govt changing constitution and banning guns would be impossible to enforce without civil war! Why is it too late? Albania had a similar issue, not as bad, they had a gun amnesty. They fixed it. @Blu gave one answer. My Charlton Heston quotes are another indicator of mindset. Plus amongst some groups in USA there is a mistrust of the Federal Govt. It is also a question of scale. The population of Albania is minuscule compared to the USA. Last stat I saw was there were 120 civilian owned guns for every 100 people in the USA! Personally don't really understand how the mindset to want guns, overrides the desire to not live in a society of common mass shootings. I also don't understand the mistrust of the government being an element. Anyone here I know doesn't trust the government as far as they can throw them. But we're not all heavily armed ready to open fire on them if they up taxes? I understand Albania is much smaller. But surely the US has more resources and capability? Personally I don't buy the "it's difficult, so we shouldn't even bother trying" argument. The government would have to change 2 amendments. The 2nd and the 4th in order to have a total ban. That's extremely difficult. Having government enter your home without warrants. You think people are going to go for that? I don't understand what you mean by "government enter your home without warrants"? But yeah, I know it would be difficult. Still, I think they should give it a go. Doing nothing (their current plan) is resulting in 100s of mass shootings and school shootings etc. To me, I think it's worth being arsed trying. kicking people's doors in to confiscate weapons ? That's a breach of the 4th amendment. That go will never happen. Why do they have to kick the door in? There is presumably a more civilised way of doing it. Ok what is it? Alot will not comply. Can't help your thoughts because you can't grasp the magnitude of that task. the 26 states are constitutional carry for reason. Those people in those states want it. What is the punishment for having a gun without a license? That doesn't seem to be a deterrent. If it was a very harsh penalty, that was enforced with rigor, that should help people who have guns illegally to think twice. Here it's 5-7 years. Every other country in the world manages not to have this problem. Think of our states as separate countries. Laws are different from state to state according to what those people in those states agree upon.My state laws differ from others. I can own a AR here I cannot in Massachusetts as a example. If I transport mine to Massachusetts it's considered a felony. Here it is not." I think you highlight a general misunderstanding about the USA. It is not a single country but the member states have agreed on a range of areas where they cede control to the Federal govt (such as foreign policy). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this just now... “Ron DeSantis has signed a permitless carry bill into law that will abolish all gun training and safety requirements to carry a gun in Florida. No background checks, no gun safety classes, no questions” Just fucking mad! @Blu I get why YOU would want guns...because all the crazy MFs got guns. You feel the need to defend yourself against the bad people who are tooled up. If I lived in the USA I would want a gun(s) too. THAT is the problem. Too many fucking guns and yep it is too late. Govt changing constitution and banning guns would be impossible to enforce without civil war! Why is it too late? Albania had a similar issue, not as bad, they had a gun amnesty. They fixed it. @Blu gave one answer. My Charlton Heston quotes are another indicator of mindset. Plus amongst some groups in USA there is a mistrust of the Federal Govt. It is also a question of scale. The population of Albania is minuscule compared to the USA. Last stat I saw was there were 120 civilian owned guns for every 100 people in the USA! Personally don't really understand how the mindset to want guns, overrides the desire to not live in a society of common mass shootings. I also don't understand the mistrust of the government being an element. Anyone here I know doesn't trust the government as far as they can throw them. But we're not all heavily armed ready to open fire on them if they up taxes? I understand Albania is much smaller. But surely the US has more resources and capability? Personally I don't buy the "it's difficult, so we shouldn't even bother trying" argument. The government would have to change 2 amendments. The 2nd and the 4th in order to have a total ban. That's extremely difficult. Having government enter your home without warrants. You think people are going to go for that? I don't understand what you mean by "government enter your home without warrants"? But yeah, I know it would be difficult. Still, I think they should give it a go. Doing nothing (their current plan) is resulting in 100s of mass shootings and school shootings etc. To me, I think it's worth being arsed trying. kicking people's doors in to confiscate weapons ? That's a breach of the 4th amendment. That go will never happen. Why do they have to kick the door in? There is presumably a more civilised way of doing it. Ok what is it? Alot will not comply. Can't help your thoughts because you can't grasp the magnitude of that task. the 26 states are constitutional carry for reason. Those people in those states want it. What is the punishment for having a gun without a license? That doesn't seem to be a deterrent. If it was a very harsh penalty, that was enforced with rigor, that should help people who have guns illegally to think twice. Here it's 5-7 years. Every other country in the world manages not to have this problem. Think of our states as separate countries. Laws are different from state to state according to what those people in those states agree upon.My state laws differ from others. I can own a AR here I cannot in Massachusetts as a example. If I transport mine to Massachusetts it's considered a felony. Here it is not." Yeah, so if they restricted gun ownership to a similar level as in the rest of the civilised world. And put 5-7 years in jail for owning a gun without the proper permit, licence etc. They could sort this out? I don't mind if each state does it, or of its centralised. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this just now... “Ron DeSantis has signed a permitless carry bill into law that will abolish all gun training and safety requirements to carry a gun in Florida. No background checks, no gun safety classes, no questions” Just fucking mad! @Blu I get why YOU would want guns...because all the crazy MFs got guns. You feel the need to defend yourself against the bad people who are tooled up. If I lived in the USA I would want a gun(s) too. THAT is the problem. Too many fucking guns and yep it is too late. Govt changing constitution and banning guns would be impossible to enforce without civil war! Why is it too late? Albania had a similar issue, not as bad, they had a gun amnesty. They fixed it. @Blu gave one answer. My Charlton Heston quotes are another indicator of mindset. Plus amongst some groups in USA there is a mistrust of the Federal Govt. It is also a question of scale. The population of Albania is minuscule compared to the USA. Last stat I saw was there were 120 civilian owned guns for every 100 people in the USA! Personally don't really understand how the mindset to want guns, overrides the desire to not live in a society of common mass shootings. I also don't understand the mistrust of the government being an element. Anyone here I know doesn't trust the government as far as they can throw them. But we're not all heavily armed ready to open fire on them if they up taxes? I understand Albania is much smaller. But surely the US has more resources and capability? Personally I don't buy the "it's difficult, so we shouldn't even bother trying" argument. The government would have to change 2 amendments. The 2nd and the 4th in order to have a total ban. That's extremely difficult. Having government enter your home without warrants. You think people are going to go for that? I don't understand what you mean by "government enter your home without warrants"? But yeah, I know it would be difficult. Still, I think they should give it a go. Doing nothing (their current plan) is resulting in 100s of mass shootings and school shootings etc. To me, I think it's worth being arsed trying. kicking people's doors in to confiscate weapons ? That's a breach of the 4th amendment. That go will never happen. Why do they have to kick the door in? There is presumably a more civilised way of doing it. Ok what is it? Alot will not comply. Can't help your thoughts because you can't grasp the magnitude of that task. the 26 states are constitutional carry for reason. Those people in those states want it. What is the punishment for having a gun without a license? That doesn't seem to be a deterrent. If it was a very harsh penalty, that was enforced with rigor, that should help people who have guns illegally to think twice. Here it's 5-7 years. Every other country in the world manages not to have this problem. Think of our states as separate countries. Laws are different from state to state according to what those people in those states agree upon.My state laws differ from others. I can own a AR here I cannot in Massachusetts as a example. If I transport mine to Massachusetts it's considered a felony. Here it is not. I think you highlight a general misunderstanding about the USA. It is not a single country but the member states have agreed on a range of areas where they cede control to the Federal govt (such as foreign policy)." Exactly we are not 1 entity. What works is California doesn't mean other states should follow suit. It's up to the people of those individual states to decide. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this just now... “Ron DeSantis has signed a permitless carry bill into law that will abolish all gun training and safety requirements to carry a gun in Florida. No background checks, no gun safety classes, no questions” Just fucking mad! @Blu I get why YOU would want guns...because all the crazy MFs got guns. You feel the need to defend yourself against the bad people who are tooled up. If I lived in the USA I would want a gun(s) too. THAT is the problem. Too many fucking guns and yep it is too late. Govt changing constitution and banning guns would be impossible to enforce without civil war! Why is it too late? Albania had a similar issue, not as bad, they had a gun amnesty. They fixed it. @Blu gave one answer. My Charlton Heston quotes are another indicator of mindset. Plus amongst some groups in USA there is a mistrust of the Federal Govt. It is also a question of scale. The population of Albania is minuscule compared to the USA. Last stat I saw was there were 120 civilian owned guns for every 100 people in the USA! Personally don't really understand how the mindset to want guns, overrides the desire to not live in a society of common mass shootings. I also don't understand the mistrust of the government being an element. Anyone here I know doesn't trust the government as far as they can throw them. But we're not all heavily armed ready to open fire on them if they up taxes? I understand Albania is much smaller. But surely the US has more resources and capability? Personally I don't buy the "it's difficult, so we shouldn't even bother trying" argument. The government would have to change 2 amendments. The 2nd and the 4th in order to have a total ban. That's extremely difficult. Having government enter your home without warrants. You think people are going to go for that? I don't understand what you mean by "government enter your home without warrants"? But yeah, I know it would be difficult. Still, I think they should give it a go. Doing nothing (their current plan) is resulting in 100s of mass shootings and school shootings etc. To me, I think it's worth being arsed trying. kicking people's doors in to confiscate weapons ? That's a breach of the 4th amendment. That go will never happen. Why do they have to kick the door in? There is presumably a more civilised way of doing it. Ok what is it? Alot will not comply. Can't help your thoughts because you can't grasp the magnitude of that task. the 26 states are constitutional carry for reason. Those people in those states want it. What is the punishment for having a gun without a license? That doesn't seem to be a deterrent. If it was a very harsh penalty, that was enforced with rigor, that should help people who have guns illegally to think twice. Here it's 5-7 years. Every other country in the world manages not to have this problem. Think of our states as separate countries. Laws are different from state to state according to what those people in those states agree upon.My state laws differ from others. I can own a AR here I cannot in Massachusetts as a example. If I transport mine to Massachusetts it's considered a felony. Here it is not. I think you highlight a general misunderstanding about the USA. It is not a single country but the member states have agreed on a range of areas where they cede control to the Federal govt (such as foreign policy)." Bit like the EU? (sorry, couldn't help myself) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this just now... “Ron DeSantis has signed a permitless carry bill into law that will abolish all gun training and safety requirements to carry a gun in Florida. No background checks, no gun safety classes, no questions” Just fucking mad! @Blu I get why YOU would want guns...because all the crazy MFs got guns. You feel the need to defend yourself against the bad people who are tooled up. If I lived in the USA I would want a gun(s) too. THAT is the problem. Too many fucking guns and yep it is too late. Govt changing constitution and banning guns would be impossible to enforce without civil war! Why is it too late? Albania had a similar issue, not as bad, they had a gun amnesty. They fixed it. @Blu gave one answer. My Charlton Heston quotes are another indicator of mindset. Plus amongst some groups in USA there is a mistrust of the Federal Govt. It is also a question of scale. The population of Albania is minuscule compared to the USA. Last stat I saw was there were 120 civilian owned guns for every 100 people in the USA! Personally don't really understand how the mindset to want guns, overrides the desire to not live in a society of common mass shootings. I also don't understand the mistrust of the government being an element. Anyone here I know doesn't trust the government as far as they can throw them. But we're not all heavily armed ready to open fire on them if they up taxes? I understand Albania is much smaller. But surely the US has more resources and capability? Personally I don't buy the "it's difficult, so we shouldn't even bother trying" argument. The government would have to change 2 amendments. The 2nd and the 4th in order to have a total ban. That's extremely difficult. Having government enter your home without warrants. You think people are going to go for that? I don't understand what you mean by "government enter your home without warrants"? But yeah, I know it would be difficult. Still, I think they should give it a go. Doing nothing (their current plan) is resulting in 100s of mass shootings and school shootings etc. To me, I think it's worth being arsed trying. kicking people's doors in to confiscate weapons ? That's a breach of the 4th amendment. That go will never happen. Why do they have to kick the door in? There is presumably a more civilised way of doing it. Ok what is it? Alot will not comply. Can't help your thoughts because you can't grasp the magnitude of that task. the 26 states are constitutional carry for reason. Those people in those states want it. What is the punishment for having a gun without a license? That doesn't seem to be a deterrent. If it was a very harsh penalty, that was enforced with rigor, that should help people who have guns illegally to think twice. Here it's 5-7 years. Every other country in the world manages not to have this problem. Think of our states as separate countries. Laws are different from state to state according to what those people in those states agree upon.My state laws differ from others. I can own a AR here I cannot in Massachusetts as a example. If I transport mine to Massachusetts it's considered a felony. Here it is not. I think you highlight a general misunderstanding about the USA. It is not a single country but the member states have agreed on a range of areas where they cede control to the Federal govt (such as foreign policy). Bit like the EU? (sorry, couldn't help myself)"oddly yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this just now... “Ron DeSantis has signed a permitless carry bill into law that will abolish all gun training and safety requirements to carry a gun in Florida. No background checks, no gun safety classes, no questions” Just fucking mad! @Blu I get why YOU would want guns...because all the crazy MFs got guns. You feel the need to defend yourself against the bad people who are tooled up. If I lived in the USA I would want a gun(s) too. THAT is the problem. Too many fucking guns and yep it is too late. Govt changing constitution and banning guns would be impossible to enforce without civil war! Why is it too late? Albania had a similar issue, not as bad, they had a gun amnesty. They fixed it. @Blu gave one answer. My Charlton Heston quotes are another indicator of mindset. Plus amongst some groups in USA there is a mistrust of the Federal Govt. It is also a question of scale. The population of Albania is minuscule compared to the USA. Last stat I saw was there were 120 civilian owned guns for every 100 people in the USA! Personally don't really understand how the mindset to want guns, overrides the desire to not live in a society of common mass shootings. I also don't understand the mistrust of the government being an element. Anyone here I know doesn't trust the government as far as they can throw them. But we're not all heavily armed ready to open fire on them if they up taxes? I understand Albania is much smaller. But surely the US has more resources and capability? Personally I don't buy the "it's difficult, so we shouldn't even bother trying" argument. The government would have to change 2 amendments. The 2nd and the 4th in order to have a total ban. That's extremely difficult. Having government enter your home without warrants. You think people are going to go for that? I don't understand what you mean by "government enter your home without warrants"? But yeah, I know it would be difficult. Still, I think they should give it a go. Doing nothing (their current plan) is resulting in 100s of mass shootings and school shootings etc. To me, I think it's worth being arsed trying. kicking people's doors in to confiscate weapons ? That's a breach of the 4th amendment. That go will never happen. Why do they have to kick the door in? There is presumably a more civilised way of doing it. Ok what is it? Alot will not comply. Can't help your thoughts because you can't grasp the magnitude of that task. the 26 states are constitutional carry for reason. Those people in those states want it. What is the punishment for having a gun without a license? That doesn't seem to be a deterrent. If it was a very harsh penalty, that was enforced with rigor, that should help people who have guns illegally to think twice. Here it's 5-7 years. Every other country in the world manages not to have this problem. Think of our states as separate countries. Laws are different from state to state according to what those people in those states agree upon.My state laws differ from others. I can own a AR here I cannot in Massachusetts as a example. If I transport mine to Massachusetts it's considered a felony. Here it is not. I think you highlight a general misunderstanding about the USA. It is not a single country but the member states have agreed on a range of areas where they cede control to the Federal govt (such as foreign policy). Bit like the EU? (sorry, couldn't help myself)"Only if it evolves into a USE rather than the EU. The USA has closer integration than the EU but it may happen eventually. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Like I said those 26 states that believe in constitutional carry will squash any attempt to override the second amendment. They have the same rights written in their state constitutions." What do these people suggest is the solution to all the mass shootings? I'm assuming they want them to stop right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Like I said those 26 states that believe in constitutional carry will squash any attempt to override the second amendment. They have the same rights written in their state constitutions. What do these people suggest is the solution to all the mass shootings? I'm assuming they want them to stop right?" Did Florida just become a constitutional carry state? What do you think on a state level happened. Since Washington can't pass anything substantial it's up to the individual to protect themselves. Hence the permitless carry law there now. So if you go to Florida on holiday don't be surprised you see people open carrying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Like I said those 26 states that believe in constitutional carry will squash any attempt to override the second amendment. They have the same rights written in their state constitutions. What do these people suggest is the solution to all the mass shootings? I'm assuming they want them to stop right? Did Florida just become a constitutional carry state? What do you think on a state level happened. Since Washington can't pass anything substantial it's up to the individual to protect themselves. Hence the permitless carry law there now. So if you go to Florida on holiday don't be surprised you see people open carrying. " To me that is so fucking scary and alien. People in the supermarket with a handgun in a holster! I get why that is the case but surely even pro-gun people can see it is fucked up? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Like I said those 26 states that believe in constitutional carry will squash any attempt to override the second amendment. They have the same rights written in their state constitutions. What do these people suggest is the solution to all the mass shootings? I'm assuming they want them to stop right? Did Florida just become a constitutional carry state? What do you think on a state level happened. Since Washington can't pass anything substantial it's up to the individual to protect themselves. Hence the permitless carry law there now. So if you go to Florida on holiday don't be surprised you see people open carrying. To me that is so fucking scary and alien. People in the supermarket with a handgun in a holster! I get why that is the case but surely even pro-gun people can see it is fucked up?" Most county line markers are shot up, the natives just hate the place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Like I said those 26 states that believe in constitutional carry will squash any attempt to override the second amendment. They have the same rights written in their state constitutions. What do these people suggest is the solution to all the mass shootings? I'm assuming they want them to stop right? Did Florida just become a constitutional carry state? What do you think on a state level happened. Since Washington can't pass anything substantial it's up to the individual to protect themselves. Hence the permitless carry law there now. So if you go to Florida on holiday don't be surprised you see people open carrying. To me that is so fucking scary and alien. People in the supermarket with a handgun in a holster! I get why that is the case but surely even pro-gun people can see it is fucked up?" It's mad, isn't it? I think it's the end result of media convincing a chunk of the population to be permanently scared. And that the only solution if for people to have their own guns. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Like I said those 26 states that believe in constitutional carry will squash any attempt to override the second amendment. They have the same rights written in their state constitutions. What do these people suggest is the solution to all the mass shootings? I'm assuming they want them to stop right? Did Florida just become a constitutional carry state? What do you think on a state level happened. Since Washington can't pass anything substantial it's up to the individual to protect themselves. Hence the permitless carry law there now. So if you go to Florida on holiday don't be surprised you see people open carrying. To me that is so fucking scary and alien. People in the supermarket with a handgun in a holster! I get why that is the case but surely even pro-gun people can see it is fucked up?" Honestly it doesn't bother me. If it bothered the people in Florida they would have fought against it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Like I said those 26 states that believe in constitutional carry will squash any attempt to override the second amendment. They have the same rights written in their state constitutions. What do these people suggest is the solution to all the mass shootings? I'm assuming they want them to stop right? Did Florida just become a constitutional carry state? What do you think on a state level happened. Since Washington can't pass anything substantial it's up to the individual to protect themselves. Hence the permitless carry law there now. So if you go to Florida on holiday don't be surprised you see people open carrying. To me that is so fucking scary and alien. People in the supermarket with a handgun in a holster! I get why that is the case but surely even pro-gun people can see it is fucked up? Honestly it doesn't bother me. If it bothered the people in Florida they would have fought against it." Blu you have been brought up in a totally different mindset to us Brits. Guns are part of your culture. In addition you are ex-military so there is no mystery about weapons. Personally I prefer to live in a country where guns are rare and gun related crime is even rarer. But as I said above, if I lived in the USA I would want a gun cos all the crazy MFs have got guns. It is an arms race. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I understand it the USA have a amendment that allows their people to carry arms. I understand this right is given as a tool to keep the government in check if said government began or attempted to take control or trash peoples rights. So to remove this law would be seen as an attempt to circumvent the amendment, the government trying to take control, without the hassle of American people trying to set up a militia. So I cannot see the USA ever changing, and as it would never affect me why would I care. I think we should keep our eyes set firmly on these jokers here running the country, I only wish we could bare arms against them. Do they though, can't they just vote out a party they don't like, that seems more sensible than an armed uprising over tax hikes." It is a safeguard against tyranny and injustice made against the people. It is a right of direct action against their government if the people believe they are not acting in their interest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Like I said those 26 states that believe in constitutional carry will squash any attempt to override the second amendment. They have the same rights written in their state constitutions. What do these people suggest is the solution to all the mass shootings? I'm assuming they want them to stop right? Did Florida just become a constitutional carry state? What do you think on a state level happened. Since Washington can't pass anything substantial it's up to the individual to protect themselves. Hence the permitless carry law there now. So if you go to Florida on holiday don't be surprised you see people open carrying. To me that is so fucking scary and alien. People in the supermarket with a handgun in a holster! I get why that is the case but surely even pro-gun people can see it is fucked up? Honestly it doesn't bother me. If it bothered the people in Florida they would have fought against it. Blu you have been brought up in a totally different mindset to us Brits. Guns are part of your culture. In addition you are ex-military so there is no mystery about weapons. Personally I prefer to live in a country where guns are rare and gun related crime is even rarer. But as I said above, if I lived in the USA I would want a gun cos all the crazy MFs have got guns. It is an arms race." I know it's odd but guns are a social normality. You either accept that fact here or you don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I understand it the USA have a amendment that allows their people to carry arms. I understand this right is given as a tool to keep the government in check if said government began or attempted to take control or trash peoples rights. So to remove this law would be seen as an attempt to circumvent the amendment, the government trying to take control, without the hassle of American people trying to set up a militia. So I cannot see the USA ever changing, and as it would never affect me why would I care. I think we should keep our eyes set firmly on these jokers here running the country, I only wish we could bare arms against them. Do they though, can't they just vote out a party they don't like, that seems more sensible than an armed uprising over tax hikes. It is a safeguard against tyranny and injustice made against the people. It is a right of direct action against their government if the people believe they are not acting in their interest. " I beg to differ, so you mean the people can walk, march to the capitol with their guns? . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Like I said those 26 states that believe in constitutional carry will squash any attempt to override the second amendment. They have the same rights written in their state constitutions. What do these people suggest is the solution to all the mass shootings? I'm assuming they want them to stop right? Did Florida just become a constitutional carry state? What do you think on a state level happened. Since Washington can't pass anything substantial it's up to the individual to protect themselves. Hence the permitless carry law there now. So if you go to Florida on holiday don't be surprised you see people open carrying. To me that is so fucking scary and alien. People in the supermarket with a handgun in a holster! I get why that is the case but surely even pro-gun people can see it is fucked up? Honestly it doesn't bother me. If it bothered the people in Florida they would have fought against it. Blu you have been brought up in a totally different mindset to us Brits. Guns are part of your culture. In addition you are ex-military so there is no mystery about weapons. Personally I prefer to live in a country where guns are rare and gun related crime is even rarer. But as I said above, if I lived in the USA I would want a gun cos all the crazy MFs have got guns. It is an arms race. I know it's odd but guns are a social normality. You either accept that fact here or you don't." I have spent quite a lot of time in the USA. When I was younger I wanted to live there. Not anymore. Beautiful place but I cannot get my head around the guns. Not for me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Like I said those 26 states that believe in constitutional carry will squash any attempt to override the second amendment. They have the same rights written in their state constitutions. What do these people suggest is the solution to all the mass shootings? I'm assuming they want them to stop right? Did Florida just become a constitutional carry state? What do you think on a state level happened. Since Washington can't pass anything substantial it's up to the individual to protect themselves. Hence the permitless carry law there now. So if you go to Florida on holiday don't be surprised you see people open carrying. To me that is so fucking scary and alien. People in the supermarket with a handgun in a holster! I get why that is the case but surely even pro-gun people can see it is fucked up? Honestly it doesn't bother me. If it bothered the people in Florida they would have fought against it. Blu you have been brought up in a totally different mindset to us Brits. Guns are part of your culture. In addition you are ex-military so there is no mystery about weapons. Personally I prefer to live in a country where guns are rare and gun related crime is even rarer. But as I said above, if I lived in the USA I would want a gun cos all the crazy MFs have got guns. It is an arms race. I know it's odd but guns are a social normality. You either accept that fact here or you don't. I have spent quite a lot of time in the USA. When I was younger I wanted to live there. Not anymore. Beautiful place but I cannot get my head around the guns. Not for me. " It's the same for me when I was there I didn't like and I wouldn't want to live there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Like I said those 26 states that believe in constitutional carry will squash any attempt to override the second amendment. They have the same rights written in their state constitutions. What do these people suggest is the solution to all the mass shootings? I'm assuming they want them to stop right? Did Florida just become a constitutional carry state? What do you think on a state level happened. Since Washington can't pass anything substantial it's up to the individual to protect themselves. Hence the permitless carry law there now. So if you go to Florida on holiday don't be surprised you see people open carrying. " Yeah, but what do they suggest is the solution to all the mass shootings? I am assuming they do care? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I understand it the USA have a amendment that allows their people to carry arms. I understand this right is given as a tool to keep the government in check if said government began or attempted to take control or trash peoples rights. So to remove this law would be seen as an attempt to circumvent the amendment, the government trying to take control, without the hassle of American people trying to set up a militia. So I cannot see the USA ever changing, and as it would never affect me why would I care. I think we should keep our eyes set firmly on these jokers here running the country, I only wish we could bare arms against them. Do they though, can't they just vote out a party they don't like, that seems more sensible than an armed uprising over tax hikes. It is a safeguard against tyranny and injustice made against the people. It is a right of direct action against their government if the people believe they are not acting in their interest. " Really? What are they going to do though, go to war against their army, shoot at the sky while they get droned? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I understand it the USA have a amendment that allows their people to carry arms. I understand this right is given as a tool to keep the government in check if said government began or attempted to take control or trash peoples rights. So to remove this law would be seen as an attempt to circumvent the amendment, the government trying to take control, without the hassle of American people trying to set up a militia. So I cannot see the USA ever changing, and as it would never affect me why would I care. I think we should keep our eyes set firmly on these jokers here running the country, I only wish we could bare arms against them. Do they though, can't they just vote out a party they don't like, that seems more sensible than an armed uprising over tax hikes. It is a safeguard against tyranny and injustice made against the people. It is a right of direct action against their government if the people believe they are not acting in their interest. Really? What are they going to do though, go to war against their army, shoot at the sky while they get droned? " I have no idea all I know it is there amendment , their country and their rights, and like FAB they can go about their lives as they see fit. All the people who needlessly die in this country due to the cost of living, health policies, homelessness etc, I think we should be keeping our eyes here and not be distracted from what is going on for us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I understand it the USA have a amendment that allows their people to carry arms. I understand this right is given as a tool to keep the government in check if said government began or attempted to take control or trash peoples rights. So to remove this law would be seen as an attempt to circumvent the amendment, the government trying to take control, without the hassle of American people trying to set up a militia. So I cannot see the USA ever changing, and as it would never affect me why would I care. I think we should keep our eyes set firmly on these jokers here running the country, I only wish we could bare arms against them. Do they though, can't they just vote out a party they don't like, that seems more sensible than an armed uprising over tax hikes. It is a safeguard against tyranny and injustice made against the people. It is a right of direct action against their government if the people believe they are not acting in their interest. Really? What are they going to do though, go to war against their army, shoot at the sky while they get droned? I have no idea all I know it is there amendment , their country and their rights, and like FAB they can go about their lives as they see fit. All the people who needlessly die in this country due to the cost of living, health policies, homelessness etc, I think we should be keeping our eyes here and not be distracted from what is going on for us." Why? It seems fine to discuss any topic. Obviously, of course all the tens of thousands of people shot to death each year can't "go about their lives as they see fit" due to being dead. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I understand it the USA have a amendment that allows their people to carry arms. I understand this right is given as a tool to keep the government in check if said government began or attempted to take control or trash peoples rights. So to remove this law would be seen as an attempt to circumvent the amendment, the government trying to take control, without the hassle of American people trying to set up a militia. So I cannot see the USA ever changing, and as it would never affect me why would I care. I think we should keep our eyes set firmly on these jokers here running the country, I only wish we could bare arms against them. Do they though, can't they just vote out a party they don't like, that seems more sensible than an armed uprising over tax hikes. It is a safeguard against tyranny and injustice made against the people. It is a right of direct action against their government if the people believe they are not acting in their interest. Really? What are they going to do though, go to war against their army, shoot at the sky while they get droned? I have no idea all I know it is there amendment , their country and their rights, and like FAB they can go about their lives as they see fit. All the people who needlessly die in this country due to the cost of living, health policies, homelessness etc, I think we should be keeping our eyes here and not be distracted from what is going on for us. Why? It seems fine to discuss any topic. Obviously, of course all the tens of thousands of people shot to death each year can't "go about their lives as they see fit" due to being dead. " There are 10s 0f thousand of people who died every year not through gun crime but poverty, bad health care, bad social care. death through being shot is very low compared to other means of death I have mentioned. Yes please feel free to discuss whatever I realise there are other threads for different discussions on here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I understand it the USA have a amendment that allows their people to carry arms. I understand this right is given as a tool to keep the government in check if said government began or attempted to take control or trash peoples rights. So to remove this law would be seen as an attempt to circumvent the amendment, the government trying to take control, without the hassle of American people trying to set up a militia. So I cannot see the USA ever changing, and as it would never affect me why would I care. I think we should keep our eyes set firmly on these jokers here running the country, I only wish we could bare arms against them. Do they though, can't they just vote out a party they don't like, that seems more sensible than an armed uprising over tax hikes. It is a safeguard against tyranny and injustice made against the people. It is a right of direct action against their government if the people believe they are not acting in their interest. Really? What are they going to do though, go to war against their army, shoot at the sky while they get droned? " Do you know anything about Waco? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I understand it the USA have a amendment that allows their people to carry arms. I understand this right is given as a tool to keep the government in check if said government began or attempted to take control or trash peoples rights. So to remove this law would be seen as an attempt to circumvent the amendment, the government trying to take control, without the hassle of American people trying to set up a militia. So I cannot see the USA ever changing, and as it would never affect me why would I care. I think we should keep our eyes set firmly on these jokers here running the country, I only wish we could bare arms against them. Do they though, can't they just vote out a party they don't like, that seems more sensible than an armed uprising over tax hikes. It is a safeguard against tyranny and injustice made against the people. It is a right of direct action against their government if the people believe they are not acting in their interest. Really? What are they going to do though, go to war against their army, shoot at the sky while they get droned? I have no idea all I know it is there amendment , their country and their rights, and like FAB they can go about their lives as they see fit. All the people who needlessly die in this country due to the cost of living, health policies, homelessness etc, I think we should be keeping our eyes here and not be distracted from what is going on for us. Why? It seems fine to discuss any topic. Obviously, of course all the tens of thousands of people shot to death each year can't "go about their lives as they see fit" due to being dead. There are 10s 0f thousand of people who died every year not through gun crime but poverty, bad health care, bad social care. death through being shot is very low compared to other means of death I have mentioned. Yes please feel free to discuss whatever I realise there are other threads for different discussions on here."
Ace.
Still, I think it's okay to be against people dying needlessly from all these things.
Personally, I don't think it's great that their government doesn't give enough of a fuck about kids being mass shot to death in schools to be arsed to do anything about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I understand it the USA have a amendment that allows their people to carry arms. I understand this right is given as a tool to keep the government in check if said government began or attempted to take control or trash peoples rights. So to remove this law would be seen as an attempt to circumvent the amendment, the government trying to take control, without the hassle of American people trying to set up a militia. So I cannot see the USA ever changing, and as it would never affect me why would I care. I think we should keep our eyes set firmly on these jokers here running the country, I only wish we could bare arms against them. Do they though, can't they just vote out a party they don't like, that seems more sensible than an armed uprising over tax hikes. It is a safeguard against tyranny and injustice made against the people. It is a right of direct action against their government if the people believe they are not acting in their interest. Really? What are they going to do though, go to war against their army, shoot at the sky while they get droned? Do you know anything about Waco? " Yes, good example of how ridiculous gun ownership contributed to so many needless deaths. This is 2023. If Dave from Ohio thinks he can take on the US army with whatever guns he can buy at Walmart, I'd suggest Dave probably doesn't have an accurate view of the situation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I understand it the USA have a amendment that allows their people to carry arms. I understand this right is given as a tool to keep the government in check if said government began or attempted to take control or trash peoples rights. So to remove this law would be seen as an attempt to circumvent the amendment, the government trying to take control, without the hassle of American people trying to set up a militia. So I cannot see the USA ever changing, and as it would never affect me why would I care. I think we should keep our eyes set firmly on these jokers here running the country, I only wish we could bare arms against them. Do they though, can't they just vote out a party they don't like, that seems more sensible than an armed uprising over tax hikes. It is a safeguard against tyranny and injustice made against the people. It is a right of direct action against their government if the people believe they are not acting in their interest. Really? What are they going to do though, go to war against their army, shoot at the sky while they get droned? Do you know anything about Waco? Yes, good example of how ridiculous gun ownership contributed to so many needless deaths. This is 2023. If Dave from Ohio thinks he can take on the US army with whatever guns he can buy at Walmart, I'd suggest Dave probably doesn't have an accurate view of the situation." And yet they did in Waco and took them on for days, ended with tanks and setting fire to the building. 80 dead, so I think the answer to your original question is yes people in America would put up a fight against the authorities. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I understand it the USA have a amendment that allows their people to carry arms. I understand this right is given as a tool to keep the government in check if said government began or attempted to take control or trash peoples rights. So to remove this law would be seen as an attempt to circumvent the amendment, the government trying to take control, without the hassle of American people trying to set up a militia. So I cannot see the USA ever changing, and as it would never affect me why would I care. I think we should keep our eyes set firmly on these jokers here running the country, I only wish we could bare arms against them. Do they though, can't they just vote out a party they don't like, that seems more sensible than an armed uprising over tax hikes. It is a safeguard against tyranny and injustice made against the people. It is a right of direct action against their government if the people believe they are not acting in their interest. Really? What are they going to do though, go to war against their army, shoot at the sky while they get droned? Do you know anything about Waco? Yes, good example of how ridiculous gun ownership contributed to so many needless deaths. This is 2023. If Dave from Ohio thinks he can take on the US army with whatever guns he can buy at Walmart, I'd suggest Dave probably doesn't have an accurate view of the situation. And yet they did in Waco and took them on for days, ended with tanks and setting fire to the building. 80 dead, so I think the answer to your original question is yes people in America would put up a fight against the authorities. " Indeed. Didn't end well though. I think we'd all agree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I understand it the USA have a amendment that allows their people to carry arms. I understand this right is given as a tool to keep the government in check if said government began or attempted to take control or trash peoples rights. So to remove this law would be seen as an attempt to circumvent the amendment, the government trying to take control, without the hassle of American people trying to set up a militia. So I cannot see the USA ever changing, and as it would never affect me why would I care. I think we should keep our eyes set firmly on these jokers here running the country, I only wish we could bare arms against them. Do they though, can't they just vote out a party they don't like, that seems more sensible than an armed uprising over tax hikes. It is a safeguard against tyranny and injustice made against the people. It is a right of direct action against their government if the people believe they are not acting in their interest. Really? What are they going to do though, go to war against their army, shoot at the sky while they get droned? Do you know anything about Waco? Yes, good example of how ridiculous gun ownership contributed to so many needless deaths. This is 2023. If Dave from Ohio thinks he can take on the US army with whatever guns he can buy at Walmart, I'd suggest Dave probably doesn't have an accurate view of the situation. And yet they did in Waco and took them on for days, ended with tanks and setting fire to the building. 80 dead, so I think the answer to your original question is yes people in America would put up a fight against the authorities. Indeed. Didn't end well though. I think we'd all agree." Throughout history large professional armies have been held at bay or severely hampered but untrained, lightly armed, but passionate “freedom fighters” (interchangeable with guerrillas, terrorists, rebels etc). With over 400m guns in civilian hands, it would still be some prolonged civil war. I doubt any President, Congressman, Senator, or Governor would want that to be their legacy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I understand it the USA have a amendment that allows their people to carry arms. I understand this right is given as a tool to keep the government in check if said government began or attempted to take control or trash peoples rights. So to remove this law would be seen as an attempt to circumvent the amendment, the government trying to take control, without the hassle of American people trying to set up a militia. So I cannot see the USA ever changing, and as it would never affect me why would I care. I think we should keep our eyes set firmly on these jokers here running the country, I only wish we could bare arms against them. Do they though, can't they just vote out a party they don't like, that seems more sensible than an armed uprising over tax hikes. It is a safeguard against tyranny and injustice made against the people. It is a right of direct action against their government if the people believe they are not acting in their interest. Really? What are they going to do though, go to war against their army, shoot at the sky while they get droned? Do you know anything about Waco? Yes, good example of how ridiculous gun ownership contributed to so many needless deaths. This is 2023. If Dave from Ohio thinks he can take on the US army with whatever guns he can buy at Walmart, I'd suggest Dave probably doesn't have an accurate view of the situation. And yet they did in Waco and took them on for days, ended with tanks and setting fire to the building. 80 dead, so I think the answer to your original question is yes people in America would put up a fight against the authorities. Indeed. Didn't end well though. I think we'd all agree. Throughout history large professional armies have been held at bay or severely hampered but untrained, lightly armed, but passionate “freedom fighters” (interchangeable with guerrillas, terrorists, rebels etc). With over 400m guns in civilian hands, it would still be some prolonged civil war. I doubt any President, Congressman, Senator, or Governor would want that to be their legacy. " Is this realistic though! How would they all organise themselves, why wouldn't they just vote for another government. And I'm sure they army could just drone the shit out of anyone they wanted to. In any case. Aside from this bizarre madmax scenario. Probably better they try to stop the mass shootings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I understand it the USA have a amendment that allows their people to carry arms. I understand this right is given as a tool to keep the government in check if said government began or attempted to take control or trash peoples rights. So to remove this law would be seen as an attempt to circumvent the amendment, the government trying to take control, without the hassle of American people trying to set up a militia. So I cannot see the USA ever changing, and as it would never affect me why would I care. I think we should keep our eyes set firmly on these jokers here running the country, I only wish we could bare arms against them. Do they though, can't they just vote out a party they don't like, that seems more sensible than an armed uprising over tax hikes. It is a safeguard against tyranny and injustice made against the people. It is a right of direct action against their government if the people believe they are not acting in their interest. Really? What are they going to do though, go to war against their army, shoot at the sky while they get droned? Do you know anything about Waco? Yes, good example of how ridiculous gun ownership contributed to so many needless deaths. This is 2023. If Dave from Ohio thinks he can take on the US army with whatever guns he can buy at Walmart, I'd suggest Dave probably doesn't have an accurate view of the situation. And yet they did in Waco and took them on for days, ended with tanks and setting fire to the building. 80 dead, so I think the answer to your original question is yes people in America would put up a fight against the authorities. Indeed. Didn't end well though. I think we'd all agree. Throughout history large professional armies have been held at bay or severely hampered but untrained, lightly armed, but passionate “freedom fighters” (interchangeable with guerrillas, terrorists, rebels etc). With over 400m guns in civilian hands, it would still be some prolonged civil war. I doubt any President, Congressman, Senator, or Governor would want that to be their legacy. Is this realistic though! How would they all organise themselves, why wouldn't they just vote for another government. And I'm sure they army could just drone the shit out of anyone they wanted to. In any case. Aside from this bizarre madmax scenario. Probably better they try to stop the mass shootings." you do realize each state has their own military. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I understand it the USA have a amendment that allows their people to carry arms. I understand this right is given as a tool to keep the government in check if said government began or attempted to take control or trash peoples rights. So to remove this law would be seen as an attempt to circumvent the amendment, the government trying to take control, without the hassle of American people trying to set up a militia. So I cannot see the USA ever changing, and as it would never affect me why would I care. I think we should keep our eyes set firmly on these jokers here running the country, I only wish we could bare arms against them. Do they though, can't they just vote out a party they don't like, that seems more sensible than an armed uprising over tax hikes. It is a safeguard against tyranny and injustice made against the people. It is a right of direct action against their government if the people believe they are not acting in their interest. Really? What are they going to do though, go to war against their army, shoot at the sky while they get droned? Do you know anything about Waco? Yes, good example of how ridiculous gun ownership contributed to so many needless deaths. This is 2023. If Dave from Ohio thinks he can take on the US army with whatever guns he can buy at Walmart, I'd suggest Dave probably doesn't have an accurate view of the situation. And yet they did in Waco and took them on for days, ended with tanks and setting fire to the building. 80 dead, so I think the answer to your original question is yes people in America would put up a fight against the authorities. Indeed. Didn't end well though. I think we'd all agree. Throughout history large professional armies have been held at bay or severely hampered but untrained, lightly armed, but passionate “freedom fighters” (interchangeable with guerrillas, terrorists, rebels etc). With over 400m guns in civilian hands, it would still be some prolonged civil war. I doubt any President, Congressman, Senator, or Governor would want that to be their legacy. Is this realistic though! How would they all organise themselves, why wouldn't they just vote for another government. And I'm sure they army could just drone the shit out of anyone they wanted to. In any case. Aside from this bizarre madmax scenario. Probably better they try to stop the mass shootings. you do realize each state has their own military." The governor is in charge of state militaries that is how they would organize. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I understand it the USA have a amendment that allows their people to carry arms. I understand this right is given as a tool to keep the government in check if said government began or attempted to take control or trash peoples rights. So to remove this law would be seen as an attempt to circumvent the amendment, the government trying to take control, without the hassle of American people trying to set up a militia. So I cannot see the USA ever changing, and as it would never affect me why would I care. I think we should keep our eyes set firmly on these jokers here running the country, I only wish we could bare arms against them. Do they though, can't they just vote out a party they don't like, that seems more sensible than an armed uprising over tax hikes. It is a safeguard against tyranny and injustice made against the people. It is a right of direct action against their government if the people believe they are not acting in their interest. Really? What are they going to do though, go to war against their army, shoot at the sky while they get droned? Do you know anything about Waco? Yes, good example of how ridiculous gun ownership contributed to so many needless deaths. This is 2023. If Dave from Ohio thinks he can take on the US army with whatever guns he can buy at Walmart, I'd suggest Dave probably doesn't have an accurate view of the situation. And yet they did in Waco and took them on for days, ended with tanks and setting fire to the building. 80 dead, so I think the answer to your original question is yes people in America would put up a fight against the authorities. Indeed. Didn't end well though. I think we'd all agree. Throughout history large professional armies have been held at bay or severely hampered but untrained, lightly armed, but passionate “freedom fighters” (interchangeable with guerrillas, terrorists, rebels etc). With over 400m guns in civilian hands, it would still be some prolonged civil war. I doubt any President, Congressman, Senator, or Governor would want that to be their legacy. Is this realistic though! How would they all organise themselves, why wouldn't they just vote for another government. And I'm sure they army could just drone the shit out of anyone they wanted to. In any case. Aside from this bizarre madmax scenario. Probably better they try to stop the mass shootings. you do realize each state has their own military. The governor is in charge of state militaries that is how they would organize." To fight against the loonies with guns? You're correct, I don't understand how your military is organised. In any case I'm imaging the army with drones and whatnot, would probably win easily against citizens. Either way, it doesn't seem like a valid excuse to allow the mass shootings to continue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In any case I'm imaging the army with drones and whatnot, would probably win easily against citizens. Either way, it doesn't seem like a valid excuse to allow the mass shootings to continue. " So your solution to mass shootings, is to send the army in to shoot the masses? Very civilised. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In any case I'm imaging the army with drones and whatnot, would probably win easily against citizens. Either way, it doesn't seem like a valid excuse to allow the mass shootings to continue. So your solution to mass shootings, is to send the army in to shoot the masses? Very civilised." Nope. I'm arguing that the excuse "we might need to go to war as private citizens against our owner government/army", is a poor excuse for not being arsed to tackle the mass shootings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In any case I'm imaging the army with drones and whatnot, would probably win easily against citizens. Either way, it doesn't seem like a valid excuse to allow the mass shootings to continue. So your solution to mass shootings, is to send the army in to shoot the masses? Very civilised. Nope. I'm arguing that the excuse "we might need to go to war as private citizens against our owner government/army", is a poor excuse for not being arsed to tackle the mass shootings. " 26 states agree to owning guns. The governor's of those state have their own militaries. Get the picture? You can't just go against the will of the people in those states. If the federal government decided to enforce its own will without consent. They will lose. Each state has its own military like a little country. I keep repeating you are not grasping that magnitude. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In any case I'm imaging the army with drones and whatnot, would probably win easily against citizens. Either way, it doesn't seem like a valid excuse to allow the mass shootings to continue. So your solution to mass shootings, is to send the army in to shoot the masses? Very civilised. Nope. I'm arguing that the excuse "we might need to go to war as private citizens against our owner government/army", is a poor excuse for not being arsed to tackle the mass shootings. 26 states agree to owning guns. The governor's of those state have their own militaries. Get the picture? You can't just go against the will of the people in those states. If the federal government decided to enforce its own will without consent. They will lose. Each state has its own military like a little country. I keep repeating you are not grasping that magnitude." You're right. I do not understand the point you're making. A bunch of different armies fight against the citizens. Or are you saying some of these armies will be fighting other US armies from different states alongside some citizens? And I honestly do not understand why this bizarre scenario is an excuse not to bother trying to stop the mass shootings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In any case I'm imaging the army with drones and whatnot, would probably win easily against citizens. Either way, it doesn't seem like a valid excuse to allow the mass shootings to continue. So your solution to mass shootings, is to send the army in to shoot the masses? Very civilised. Nope. I'm arguing that the excuse "we might need to go to war as private citizens against our owner government/army", is a poor excuse for not being arsed to tackle the mass shootings. 26 states agree to owning guns. The governor's of those state have their own militaries. Get the picture? You can't just go against the will of the people in those states. If the federal government decided to enforce its own will without consent. They will lose. Each state has its own military like a little country. I keep repeating you are not grasping that magnitude. You're right. I do not understand the point you're making. A bunch of different armies fight against the citizens. Or are you saying some of these armies will be fighting other US armies from different states alongside some citizens? And I honestly do not understand why this bizarre scenario is an excuse not to bother trying to stop the mass shootings. " Your right you don't understand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In any case I'm imaging the army with drones and whatnot, would probably win easily against citizens. Either way, it doesn't seem like a valid excuse to allow the mass shootings to continue. So your solution to mass shootings, is to send the army in to shoot the masses? Very civilised. Nope. I'm arguing that the excuse "we might need to go to war as private citizens against our owner government/army", is a poor excuse for not being arsed to tackle the mass shootings. 26 states agree to owning guns. The governor's of those state have their own militaries. Get the picture? You can't just go against the will of the people in those states. If the federal government decided to enforce its own will without consent. They will lose. Each state has its own military like a little country. I keep repeating you are not grasping that magnitude. You're right. I do not understand the point you're making. A bunch of different armies fight against the citizens. Or are you saying some of these armies will be fighting other US armies from different states alongside some citizens? And I honestly do not understand why this bizarre scenario is an excuse not to bother trying to stop the mass shootings. Your right you don't understand." Correct. I definitely think that something should be done about the mass shootings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In any case I'm imaging the army with drones and whatnot, would probably win easily against citizens. Either way, it doesn't seem like a valid excuse to allow the mass shootings to continue. So your solution to mass shootings, is to send the army in to shoot the masses? Very civilised. Nope. I'm arguing that the excuse "we might need to go to war as private citizens against our owner government/army", is a poor excuse for not being arsed to tackle the mass shootings. 26 states agree to owning guns. The governor's of those state have their own militaries. Get the picture? You can't just go against the will of the people in those states. If the federal government decided to enforce its own will without consent. They will lose. Each state has its own military like a little country. I keep repeating you are not grasping that magnitude. You're right. I do not understand the point you're making. A bunch of different armies fight against the citizens. Or are you saying some of these armies will be fighting other US armies from different states alongside some citizens? And I honestly do not understand why this bizarre scenario is an excuse not to bother trying to stop the mass shootings. Your right you don't understand. Correct. I definitely think that something should be done about the mass shootings. " Like what oh the government will buy back all guns and ammo. You think some one how loves guns won't keep what they all ready have when it's going to get harder to get a new one. The black market will be full of used fire arms.. It to late to stop it now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In any case I'm imaging the army with drones and whatnot, would probably win easily against citizens. Either way, it doesn't seem like a valid excuse to allow the mass shootings to continue. So your solution to mass shootings, is to send the army in to shoot the masses? Very civilised. Nope. I'm arguing that the excuse "we might need to go to war as private citizens against our owner government/army", is a poor excuse for not being arsed to tackle the mass shootings. 26 states agree to owning guns. The governor's of those state have their own militaries. Get the picture? You can't just go against the will of the people in those states. If the federal government decided to enforce its own will without consent. They will lose. Each state has its own military like a little country. I keep repeating you are not grasping that magnitude. You're right. I do not understand the point you're making. A bunch of different armies fight against the citizens. Or are you saying some of these armies will be fighting other US armies from different states alongside some citizens? And I honestly do not understand why this bizarre scenario is an excuse not to bother trying to stop the mass shootings. Your right you don't understand. Correct. I definitely think that something should be done about the mass shootings. Like what oh the government will buy back all guns and ammo. You think some one how loves guns won't keep what they all ready have when it's going to get harder to get a new one. The black market will be full of used fire arms.. It to late to stop it now " I don't think it would be easy. But I think they should give it a go. The current plan of doing fuck all isn't working. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a highly political subject? ..FFS go and post on The Guardian, this is a swingers site..escapism,etc. x fun , etc. Why do people misuse site, and post such utter irrelevant bollocks!" Scroll up. Keep going. All the way to the top. See that bit that says: politics? That's why this thread is here. Happy to help. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Thanks interesting stuff. Supports my view that all gun ownership should be stopped. You say checks are the same as UK but there has to be more to it than that? We don’t have anywhere near the level of gun ownership in the UK so what is different? The UK is different in the way checks are carried out. The possession of firearms and ammunition in Great Britain is regulated mainly by the Firearms Act 1968. In order to be granted a firearms licence, individuals must be assessed by their local police force and judged not to pose a threat to public safety, and to have “good reason” to own the firearm. The age at which a person can possess a firearm differs across the UK’s regions. In England, Wales and Scotland, anyone aged 14 and above may own and use a section 1 firearm if they hold a valid firearms certificate for it. In Northern Ireland, a person must be 18 and above to possess a firearm, though over-16s can use one in the company of an adult who holds a licence. People who have been given a prison sentence of three years or more are banned from possessing a firearm or ammunition. The Police decide whether to grant an individual a firearm after judging whether the applicant is fit to own one. This follows a number of checks, which typically include interviews, visits to the person’s property, criminal records checks and references from friends. They should be able to demonstrate that “they require their firearm on a regular, legitimate basis for work, sport or leisure (including collections or research)”, although police are able to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis of what merits a “good reason” to own a firearm. In renewing a certificate, individuals are required by law to disclose their mental health history. Applicants’ GPs may be contacted during the vetting process, and GPs are informed once a certificate has been granted. This all has to happen prior to any firearm purchase. Some firearms are completely prohibited, making it an offence to possess, buy or acquire them without the authority of the home secretary. Handguns were in effect outlawed in the UK after the 1996 Dunblane massacre, Britain’s deadliest mass shooting, which killed 16 schoolchildren and one teacher. " Wild Oats; you need to go and revise these comments, although your intentions may be for the good, you are totally out of date with everything you have said above. You are on the right track but not upto date with the exact procedure on either applying for a section 1 firearm certificate or renewal. also; both AR 15's and Hand guns are legal in the UK, I possess both. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I definitely think that something should be done about the mass shootings. Like what oh the government will buy back all guns and ammo. You think some one how loves guns won't keep what they all ready have when it's going to get harder to get a new one. The black market will be full of used fire arms.. It to late to stop it now " This worked in the UK after Dunblane simply because the police had all details of handgun ownership including make and serial number of handguns owned . Most owners handing back made a small profit on each handgun as well as reloading gear and all accessories as the government simply wanted them off the streets. This would be impossible in the usa as there is no realistic tracking on any firearm. You can still buy and own handguns in the UK, as well as semi auto handguns but the regulations have been extremely tightened up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In any case I'm imaging the army with drones and whatnot, would probably win easily against citizens. Either way, it doesn't seem like a valid excuse to allow the mass shootings to continue. So your solution to mass shootings, is to send the army in to shoot the masses? Very civilised. Nope. I'm arguing that the excuse "we might need to go to war as private citizens against our owner government/army", is a poor excuse for not being arsed to tackle the mass shootings. 26 states agree to owning guns. The governor's of those state have their own militaries. Get the picture? You can't just go against the will of the people in those states. If the federal government decided to enforce its own will without consent. They will lose. Each state has its own military like a little country. I keep repeating you are not grasping that magnitude. You're right. I do not understand the point you're making. A bunch of different armies fight against the citizens. Or are you saying some of these armies will be fighting other US armies from different states alongside some citizens? And I honestly do not understand why this bizarre scenario is an excuse not to bother trying to stop the mass shootings. " This bizarre situation that has never happened before? The US civil war was only 162 years ago, there were many reasons it began, one reason is attributed to the amount of control the federal government had. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In any case I'm imaging the army with drones and whatnot, would probably win easily against citizens. Either way, it doesn't seem like a valid excuse to allow the mass shootings to continue. So your solution to mass shootings, is to send the army in to shoot the masses? Very civilised. Nope. I'm arguing that the excuse "we might need to go to war as private citizens against our owner government/army", is a poor excuse for not being arsed to tackle the mass shootings. 26 states agree to owning guns. The governor's of those state have their own militaries. Get the picture? You can't just go against the will of the people in those states. If the federal government decided to enforce its own will without consent. They will lose. Each state has its own military like a little country. I keep repeating you are not grasping that magnitude. You're right. I do not understand the point you're making. A bunch of different armies fight against the citizens. Or are you saying some of these armies will be fighting other US armies from different states alongside some citizens? And I honestly do not understand why this bizarre scenario is an excuse not to bother trying to stop the mass shootings. This bizarre situation that has never happened before? The US civil war was only 162 years ago, there were many reasons it began, one reason is attributed to the amount of control the federal government had. " 162 years ago! Still, even this "recent" seems like a poor excuse to not bother your arses to try to stop the mass shootings. The rest of the world manages. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" but the regulations have been extremely tightened up. " I'm interested in learning more about this. Do we have a governing body or is there something I can Google that gives me all the info on the regulations here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In any case I'm imaging the army with drones and whatnot, would probably win easily against citizens. Either way, it doesn't seem like a valid excuse to allow the mass shootings to continue. So your solution to mass shootings, is to send the army in to shoot the masses? Very civilised. Nope. I'm arguing that the excuse "we might need to go to war as private citizens against our owner government/army", is a poor excuse for not being arsed to tackle the mass shootings. 26 states agree to owning guns. The governor's of those state have their own militaries. Get the picture? You can't just go against the will of the people in those states. If the federal government decided to enforce its own will without consent. They will lose. Each state has its own military like a little country. I keep repeating you are not grasping that magnitude. You're right. I do not understand the point you're making. A bunch of different armies fight against the citizens. Or are you saying some of these armies will be fighting other US armies from different states alongside some citizens? And I honestly do not understand why this bizarre scenario is an excuse not to bother trying to stop the mass shootings. This bizarre situation that has never happened before? The US civil war was only 162 years ago, there were many reasons it began, one reason is attributed to the amount of control the federal government had. 162 years ago! Still, even this "recent" seems like a poor excuse to not bother your arses to try to stop the mass shootings. The rest of the world manages. " Nobody on here has said they don't want to see an end to mass shootings, you have put forward your views and you have been given counter arguments to outline why it is so difficult. Instead of acknowledging the issues put forward by those that live there too, you simply keep saying, "excuses" and the "rest of the world manages". The US is a complex country in structure and history, you should know this, it is in their history and constitution for all to see.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In any case I'm imaging the army with drones and whatnot, would probably win easily against citizens. Either way, it doesn't seem like a valid excuse to allow the mass shootings to continue. So your solution to mass shootings, is to send the army in to shoot the masses? Very civilised. Nope. I'm arguing that the excuse "we might need to go to war as private citizens against our owner government/army", is a poor excuse for not being arsed to tackle the mass shootings. 26 states agree to owning guns. The governor's of those state have their own militaries. Get the picture? You can't just go against the will of the people in those states. If the federal government decided to enforce its own will without consent. They will lose. Each state has its own military like a little country. I keep repeating you are not grasping that magnitude. You're right. I do not understand the point you're making. A bunch of different armies fight against the citizens. Or are you saying some of these armies will be fighting other US armies from different states alongside some citizens? And I honestly do not understand why this bizarre scenario is an excuse not to bother trying to stop the mass shootings. This bizarre situation that has never happened before? The US civil war was only 162 years ago, there were many reasons it began, one reason is attributed to the amount of control the federal government had. 162 years ago! Still, even this "recent" seems like a poor excuse to not bother your arses to try to stop the mass shootings. The rest of the world manages. Nobody on here has said they don't want to see an end to mass shootings, you have put forward your views and you have been given counter arguments to outline why it is so difficult. Instead of acknowledging the issues put forward by those that live there too, you simply keep saying, "excuses" and the "rest of the world manages". The US is a complex country in structure and history, you should know this, it is in their history and constitution for all to see...." It is indeed. The argument from the pro gun people seems to be "it's too difficult, we shouldn't even bother trying". I realise it's difficult. I think they should try. I'm interested their ideas what could/should be done. In reality, we all know that the NRA will never allow any meaningful change. But I am still interested in the pro gun people's ideas what to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In any case I'm imaging the army with drones and whatnot, would probably win easily against citizens. Either way, it doesn't seem like a valid excuse to allow the mass shootings to continue. So your solution to mass shootings, is to send the army in to shoot the masses? Very civilised. Nope. I'm arguing that the excuse "we might need to go to war as private citizens against our owner government/army", is a poor excuse for not being arsed to tackle the mass shootings. 26 states agree to owning guns. The governor's of those state have their own militaries. Get the picture? You can't just go against the will of the people in those states. If the federal government decided to enforce its own will without consent. They will lose. Each state has its own military like a little country. I keep repeating you are not grasping that magnitude. You're right. I do not understand the point you're making. A bunch of different armies fight against the citizens. Or are you saying some of these armies will be fighting other US armies from different states alongside some citizens? And I honestly do not understand why this bizarre scenario is an excuse not to bother trying to stop the mass shootings. This bizarre situation that has never happened before? The US civil war was only 162 years ago, there were many reasons it began, one reason is attributed to the amount of control the federal government had. 162 years ago! Still, even this "recent" seems like a poor excuse to not bother your arses to try to stop the mass shootings. The rest of the world manages. Nobody on here has said they don't want to see an end to mass shootings, you have put forward your views and you have been given counter arguments to outline why it is so difficult. Instead of acknowledging the issues put forward by those that live there too, you simply keep saying, "excuses" and the "rest of the world manages". The US is a complex country in structure and history, you should know this, it is in their history and constitution for all to see.... It is indeed. The argument from the pro gun people seems to be "it's too difficult, we shouldn't even bother trying". I realise it's difficult. I think they should try. I'm interested their ideas what could/should be done. In reality, we all know that the NRA will never allow any meaningful change. But I am still interested in the pro gun people's ideas what to do." Online or in person mental / capability assessment tests for every gun owner, every 12 months. Fail or don't take it and your guns are taken away. I know there would be ways of bypassing an online test and pushback would come that illegally held firearm owners would not be tested, but it would be a start of taking guns off people who really should be nowhere near them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In any case I'm imaging the army with drones and whatnot, would probably win easily against citizens. Either way, it doesn't seem like a valid excuse to allow the mass shootings to continue. So your solution to mass shootings, is to send the army in to shoot the masses? Very civilised. Nope. I'm arguing that the excuse "we might need to go to war as private citizens against our owner government/army", is a poor excuse for not being arsed to tackle the mass shootings. 26 states agree to owning guns. The governor's of those state have their own militaries. Get the picture? You can't just go against the will of the people in those states. If the federal government decided to enforce its own will without consent. They will lose. Each state has its own military like a little country. I keep repeating you are not grasping that magnitude. You're right. I do not understand the point you're making. A bunch of different armies fight against the citizens. Or are you saying some of these armies will be fighting other US armies from different states alongside some citizens? And I honestly do not understand why this bizarre scenario is an excuse not to bother trying to stop the mass shootings. This bizarre situation that has never happened before? The US civil war was only 162 years ago, there were many reasons it began, one reason is attributed to the amount of control the federal government had. 162 years ago! Still, even this "recent" seems like a poor excuse to not bother your arses to try to stop the mass shootings. The rest of the world manages. Nobody on here has said they don't want to see an end to mass shootings, you have put forward your views and you have been given counter arguments to outline why it is so difficult. Instead of acknowledging the issues put forward by those that live there too, you simply keep saying, "excuses" and the "rest of the world manages". The US is a complex country in structure and history, you should know this, it is in their history and constitution for all to see.... It is indeed. The argument from the pro gun people seems to be "it's too difficult, we shouldn't even bother trying". I realise it's difficult. I think they should try. I'm interested their ideas what could/should be done. In reality, we all know that the NRA will never allow any meaningful change. But I am still interested in the pro gun people's ideas what to do. Online or in person mental / capability assessment tests for every gun owner, every 12 months. Fail or don't take it and your guns are taken away. I know there would be ways of bypassing an online test and pushback would come that illegally held firearm owners would not be tested, but it would be a start of taking guns off people who really should be nowhere near them. " That sounds like a good step. Maybe harsh punishment for people who own unlicensed weapons? As we have here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In any case I'm imaging the army with drones and whatnot, would probably win easily against citizens. Either way, it doesn't seem like a valid excuse to allow the mass shootings to continue. So your solution to mass shootings, is to send the army in to shoot the masses? Very civilised. Nope. I'm arguing that the excuse "we might need to go to war as private citizens against our owner government/army", is a poor excuse for not being arsed to tackle the mass shootings. 26 states agree to owning guns. The governor's of those state have their own militaries. Get the picture? You can't just go against the will of the people in those states. If the federal government decided to enforce its own will without consent. They will lose. Each state has its own military like a little country. I keep repeating you are not grasping that magnitude. You're right. I do not understand the point you're making. A bunch of different armies fight against the citizens. Or are you saying some of these armies will be fighting other US armies from different states alongside some citizens? And I honestly do not understand why this bizarre scenario is an excuse not to bother trying to stop the mass shootings. This bizarre situation that has never happened before? The US civil war was only 162 years ago, there were many reasons it began, one reason is attributed to the amount of control the federal government had. 162 years ago! Still, even this "recent" seems like a poor excuse to not bother your arses to try to stop the mass shootings. The rest of the world manages. Nobody on here has said they don't want to see an end to mass shootings, you have put forward your views and you have been given counter arguments to outline why it is so difficult. Instead of acknowledging the issues put forward by those that live there too, you simply keep saying, "excuses" and the "rest of the world manages". The US is a complex country in structure and history, you should know this, it is in their history and constitution for all to see.... It is indeed. The argument from the pro gun people seems to be "it's too difficult, we shouldn't even bother trying". I realise it's difficult. I think they should try. I'm interested their ideas what could/should be done. In reality, we all know that the NRA will never allow any meaningful change. But I am still interested in the pro gun people's ideas what to do." I think most of us on this side of the pond agree with your sentiments. But we all look at this from a Britcentric or Eurocentric cultural pov. For most of us (unless you are Andorran it seems) mass gun ownership is plain weird culturally. Openly carrying even more so. The American psyche is different. Vastly different. The binary politics in the USA pretty much presents a choice between centre-right and right wing parties. There is no truly left wing or socialist major political movement in the USA. The vast sums involved (and allowed to be involved) in presidential campaigning means there are huge indebtedness to big business and lobby groups. They simply won’t support a candidate who will cause election suicide due to a gun ban/amnesty policy. There may be a tipping point. For us Europeans we cannot believe it has not already been reached but over there, seems not for many/most! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Thanks interesting stuff. Supports my view that all gun ownership should be stopped. You say checks are the same as UK but there has to be more to it than that? We don’t have anywhere near the level of gun ownership in the UK so what is different? The UK is different in the way checks are carried out. The possession of firearms and ammunition in Great Britain is regulated mainly by the Firearms Act 1968. In order to be granted a firearms licence, individuals must be assessed by their local police force and judged not to pose a threat to public safety, and to have “good reason” to own the firearm. The age at which a person can possess a firearm differs across the UK’s regions. In England, Wales and Scotland, anyone aged 14 and above may own and use a section 1 firearm if they hold a valid firearms certificate for it. In Northern Ireland, a person must be 18 and above to possess a firearm, though over-16s can use one in the company of an adult who holds a licence. People who have been given a prison sentence of three years or more are banned from possessing a firearm or ammunition. The Police decide whether to grant an individual a firearm after judging whether the applicant is fit to own one. This follows a number of checks, which typically include interviews, visits to the person’s property, criminal records checks and references from friends. They should be able to demonstrate that “they require their firearm on a regular, legitimate basis for work, sport or leisure (including collections or research)”, although police are able to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis of what merits a “good reason” to own a firearm. In renewing a certificate, individuals are required by law to disclose their mental health history. Applicants’ GPs may be contacted during the vetting process, and GPs are informed once a certificate has been granted. This all has to happen prior to any firearm purchase. Some firearms are completely prohibited, making it an offence to possess, buy or acquire them without the authority of the home secretary. Handguns were in effect outlawed in the UK after the 1996 Dunblane massacre, Britain’s deadliest mass shooting, which killed 16 schoolchildren and one teacher. Wild Oats; you need to go and revise these comments, although your intentions may be for the good, you are totally out of date with everything you have said above. You are on the right track but not upto date with the exact procedure on either applying for a section 1 firearm certificate or renewal. also; both AR 15's and Hand guns are legal in the UK, I possess both." I did not actually mention AR15’s. Section 5 handguns are permitted with "good reason". One such good reason is Humane Animal Dispatch (HAD) Fully automatic and submachine-guns are "prohibited weapons" and require explicit permission from central government to own. Generally, such permits are not made available to private citizens. Semi-automatic rifles over .22 in (5.6 mm) and pistols are similarly "prohibited" with the exception of section 5 as mentioned above and section 7 which covers pistols and firearms of historic or technical interest. So yes effectively possession of handguns is prohibited outside of section 5 & 7. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Online or in person mental / capability assessment tests for every gun owner, every 12 months. Fail or don't take it and your guns are taken away. I know there would be ways of bypassing an online test and pushback would come that illegally held firearm owners would not be tested, but it would be a start of taking guns off people who really should be nowhere near them. " That sounds sensible from a UK perspective, but it won't work in the US. Firstly, many states don't have a register of gun ownership. How will you confiscate people's guns if you don't know who has them? Secondly, many (possibly most) Americans believe that they have a right to own guns, and the government don't have the right to take them away. They would be horrified at the idea of losing one of their fundamental rights. Imagine if the UK government decided that they would do yearly assessments of car drivers, and anyone that failed the test, or was considered to be driving 'too aggressively', would have their licence taken away. What do you think would happen to that government? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Online or in person mental / capability assessment tests for every gun owner, every 12 months. Fail or don't take it and your guns are taken away. I know there would be ways of bypassing an online test and pushback would come that illegally held firearm owners would not be tested, but it would be a start of taking guns off people who really should be nowhere near them. That sounds sensible from a UK perspective, but it won't work in the US. Firstly, many states don't have a register of gun ownership. How will you confiscate people's guns if you don't know who has them? Secondly, many (possibly most) Americans believe that they have a right to own guns, and the government don't have the right to take them away. They would be horrified at the idea of losing one of their fundamental rights. Imagine if the UK government decided that they would do yearly assessments of car drivers, and anyone that failed the test, or was considered to be driving 'too aggressively', would have their licence taken away. What do you think would happen to that government?" You are right it would be considered government overreach. Owning a firearm is a right. Driving a car is a privilege. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Online or in person mental / capability assessment tests for every gun owner, every 12 months. Fail or don't take it and your guns are taken away. I know there would be ways of bypassing an online test and pushback would come that illegally held firearm owners would not be tested, but it would be a start of taking guns off people who really should be nowhere near them. That sounds sensible from a UK perspective, but it won't work in the US. Firstly, many states don't have a register of gun ownership. How will you confiscate people's guns if you don't know who has them? Secondly, many (possibly most) Americans believe that they have a right to own guns, and the government don't have the right to take them away. They would be horrified at the idea of losing one of their fundamental rights. Imagine if the UK government decided that they would do yearly assessments of car drivers, and anyone that failed the test, or was considered to be driving 'too aggressively', would have their licence taken away. What do you think would happen to that government? You are right it would be considered government overreach. Owning a firearm is a right. Driving a car is a privilege." And that sums this up brilliantly. Unless there is a fundamental shift in US public opinion nothing will change and why would it if that is what the majority of US citizens want. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Online or in person mental / capability assessment tests for every gun owner, every 12 months. Fail or don't take it and your guns are taken away. I know there would be ways of bypassing an online test and pushback would come that illegally held firearm owners would not be tested, but it would be a start of taking guns off people who really should be nowhere near them. That sounds sensible from a UK perspective, but it won't work in the US. Firstly, many states don't have a register of gun ownership. How will you confiscate people's guns if you don't know who has them? Secondly, many (possibly most) Americans believe that they have a right to own guns, and the government don't have the right to take them away. They would be horrified at the idea of losing one of their fundamental rights. Imagine if the UK government decided that they would do yearly assessments of car drivers, and anyone that failed the test, or was considered to be driving 'too aggressively', would have their licence taken away. What do you think would happen to that government? You are right it would be considered government overreach. Owning a firearm is a right. Driving a car is a privilege." Just make owning bullets illegal, turns a gun into a blunt instrument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
