PDA

View Full Version : NRA & profiling


Pages : [1] 2

RAT 5
23rd Feb 2018, 19:05
All the shooters and militia in USA were home grown nutters. USA demands all pax information be fed to them before pax board a/c towards USA. (Don't know about ships, trains or buses.) A/c have even been turned around in flight, or pax refused entry based on profiling and wrongful identification. Profiling profiling profiling of foreigners.
Yet their risk is within and innocent alien pax are considered greater risk than all the muppet macho muppets who can buy an arsenal with no profiling.
The lack of balanced logic defeats me. It is such a simple argument to pose. Why do the TV anchors not do so.
I watched a USA history program and the 2nd amendment was a check and glance inserted so that the populace could take up arms against a government that might attempt to by-pass democracy. If that was true, and why not in a documentary, then the NRA has its wires crossed and so does everybody else.

The debate needs transparency and honesty.

ATNotts
23rd Feb 2018, 19:17
All the shooters and militia in USA were home grown nutters. USA demands all pax information be fed to them before pax board a/c towards USA. (Don't know about ships, trains or buses.) A/c have even been turned around in flight, or pax refused entry based on profiling and wrongful identification. Profiling profiling profiling of foreigners.
Yet their risk is within and innocent alien pax are considered greater risk than all the muppet macho muppets who can buy an arsenal with no profiling.
The lack of balanced logic defeats me. It is such a simple argument to pose. Why do the TV anchors not do so.
I watched a USA history program and the 2nd amendment was a check and glance inserted so that the populace could take up arms against a government that might attempt to by-pass democracy. If that was true, and why not in a documentary, then the NRA has its wires crossed and so does everybody else.

The debate needs transparency and honesty.

The NRA doesn't want the truth to get in the way of a good story; as is the case with many political lobbyists, and not just in the USA. You'll find a similar deliberate ignorance of truth and logic somewhat closer to home.

RAT 5
23rd Feb 2018, 19:23
But my case is the NRA is being targeted with emotional bullets by the anti-brigade. They need some irrefutable logic bullets that can open the eyes of the blind and the ears of the deaf. KISS.

Mostly Harmless
23rd Feb 2018, 19:25
Sorry.

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2015/12/20/how-canadians-helped-create-the-nra.html

Dr Jekyll
23rd Feb 2018, 19:43
I watched a USA history program and the 2nd amendment was a check and glance inserted so that the populace could take up arms against a government that might attempt to by-pass democracy. If that was true, and why not in a documentary, then the NRA has its wires crossed and so does everybody else.



Not quite. The idea was that if 'the people' had arms and could form a 'well regulated militia' there would be less need for the government to have a full time standing army that they might use to threaten the individual states or the people.

vapilot2004
23rd Feb 2018, 20:02
One is a terrorist threat, related, among other things, to our misdeeds in the Middle East, the other, a domestic issue. The two are unrelated.

Using actual logic, the 2nd amendment arguments are easily dispatched, academically. Any ideas of deposing a tyrant are monumentally naive, and we've long since gone from living in a frontier to a dystopian Wild West of sorts, the latter, thanks largely to the gun lobby and our failed "war" on drugs.

I agree with you RAT 5, in that the real problem exists in the rhetoric that keeps both sides of the "gun debate" from having an actual, logical conversation, one without broad agendas and unwavering positions set in stone, fed by past histories and current fears, both of which come with attendant misplaced anger.

MG23
23rd Feb 2018, 20:08
But my case is the NRA is being targeted with emotional bullets by the anti-brigade. They need some irrefutable logic bullets that can open the eyes of the blind and the ears of the deaf. KISS.

Actual criminology says that gun ownership by law-abiding Americans reduces crime, and the only change in the law that might have some beneficial impact on crime is a system similar to Canada's, where we have to pass a safety course and background check before buying a gun. It does little to stop criminals, but does reduce the odds of crazy people getting guns.

Needless to say, actual science, facts and logic have no effect on the anti-gunners.

And I saw a report today that the kid who shot up the school had previously been reported to the police for holding a gun to someone's head. If that was true, the police should have arrested him and sent him to jail for years for felony assault... in which case the shooting would never have happened.

But that would have required them to do their job.

galaxy flyer
23rd Feb 2018, 20:19
Any ideas of deposing a tyrant are monumentally naive

Ignoring centuries of history including such as the American Revolution; the First and Second Afghan Wars; Irish Rebellion of 1916; elements of Vietnam War for starters. Wars and revolutions are not fought by weapons but by Men, Morals and Materiel, in that order.

We didn’t need to profile this killer or most of the earlier, just had to act, but we lack the political will to stop them. These guys usually have a parade of flags flying as to how dangerous they are, which makes the Paddock in Las Vegas stand out—no indications.

MG23, is it true the only crimes associated with the Canadian registration scheme were for not complying with the scheme—a self-licking ice cream cone. And, no crime was ever stopped by it.

GF

Trossie
23rd Feb 2018, 20:24
One is a terrorist threat, related, among other things, to our misdeeds in the Middle East, the other, a domestic issue. The two are unrelated. Both are related: they kill innocent civilians.

"A well regulated militia" would not be the sort of threat to the country's own citizens the way that "... people to keep[ing] and bear[ing] arms" in the USA are such a clearly demonstrated threat. If the "well regulated" part of that sentence is not seriously addressed, then "... people to keep[ing] and bear[ing] arms" will continue to be the biggest day-to-day threat to the security of the citizens of the free State.

MG23
23rd Feb 2018, 20:25
MG23, is it true the only crimes associated with the Canadian registration scheme were for not complying with the scheme—a self-licking ice cream cone. And, no crime was ever stopped by it.

I don't know, but I'd expect that to be the case. Simple fact is, if you're criminally-minded, you're not likely to get a gun license here in the first place, so a registry is just a list of guns owned by some of the most law-abiding people in the country. And a great way for criminals to find out who to rob for the guns they want ('Hey, Bob on 23rd St has an AK47!'*).

If that kid had been Canadian, there's no way he'd legally have had a gun, because a psycho like that wouldn't have passed the safety course, he'd have a hard time finding two people to vouch for him on his application, and the police reports would have failed the background check.

* - As an amusing side-note, I believe Canada has more ungelded, full-auto AK47s than America. We're just not allowed to shoot them any more because scary (and, no, I don't have one).

vapilot2004
23rd Feb 2018, 20:27
Both are related: they kill innocent civilians.


I cannot argue with that, Trossie.

we lack the political will to stop them

That will is currently being carried forward on the backs of those brave kids and survivors of Parkland. We should all be very, very proud of these kids for standing up and saying, "Enough!" in the face of the NRA funded conservatives that drag out the same old tired, "now is not the time to talk about guns".

These guys usually have a parade of flags flying as to how dangerous they are

Can you imagine the shrieking wails from the right if national intelligence and law enforcement were to start scrutinizing gun owners for signs of mental instability?

As an amusing side-note, I believe Canada has more ungelded, full-auto AK47s than America. We're just not allowed to shoot them any more because scary.

We've got tens of millions of AR-15s here. You have a number for your AKs by chance?

http://i66.tinypic.com/aw2web.png

MG23
23rd Feb 2018, 20:35
Can you imagine the shrieking wails from the right if national intelligence and law enforcement were to start scrutinizing gun owners for signs of mental instability?

They don't really have to. They just have to, you know, do their job when someone reports the gun-toting loony for being a violent nutter.

From what I've seen online, the police had made an agreement with this school to not arrest kids for committing crimes because it made the school look bad. So instead of a bad crime rating, they got a bunch of dead kids.

We've got tens of millions of AR-15s here. You have a number for your AKs by chance?No, but I've seen comparison numbers quoted online which may or may not be true. Note that I was specifically referring to real AK47s, and not the ones converted to sporting use (or the cheap Chinese clones that we're still allowed to buy here).

vapilot2004
23rd Feb 2018, 20:39
They don't really have to. They just have to, you know, do their job when someone reports the gun-toting loony for being a violent nutter.

To think that "we will always see them coming" is a valid argument is a perfect illustration of the problem RAT 5 posits. The gun debate in its current form is bereft of logic.

Highway1
23rd Feb 2018, 21:03
http://i66.tinypic.com/aw2web.png


Well going by that chart the biggest danger to America was the election of Obama..

Trossie
23rd Feb 2018, 21:06
This is a bit of a black comedy:

"If you have a gun fire problem, add more guns".

"If you have a petrol fire problem, add more petrol".

galaxy flyer
23rd Feb 2018, 21:07
Can you imagine the shrieking wails from the right if national intelligence and law enforcement were to start scrutinizing gun owners for signs of mental instability?

Nobody, you or l, is saying we need to go around scrutinizing law-abiding, functioning people for mental instability. Just get a court order, obtained by police or family, restricting known problem people from bearing dangerous weapons. Show a judge that there exists cause for concern. Everyone of these killers displayed ample reason for concern. Heck Lanza’s mother was scared of her own son. The police had ample evidence in Parkland, San Bernardino, Boston.

If the police won’t act in these blatant cases, how do you suppose they’ll act in less obvious ones?

Straw man arguments only weaken your case.


GF

vapilot2004
23rd Feb 2018, 21:12
Straw man arguments only weaken your case.


Assuring public safety by thinking that we will "always see them coming" is an argument based upon a fallacy.

Well going by that chart the biggest danger to America was the election of Obama..


No doubt, he was good for gun sales* as is, apparently, the mass slaughter of school children.

*Mainly by ginned up NRA conservative's fallacious arguments that Obama was "gonna take our guns away!".

galaxy flyer
23rd Feb 2018, 21:18
Assuring public safety by thinking that we will "always see them coming" is an argument based upon a fallacy.


We’ll never see all of them coming. Both of us know that’s a pipe dream. The public might want “assured safety”, but it’s impossible.



gf

Gertrude the Wombat
23rd Feb 2018, 21:47
Can you imagine the shrieking wails from the right if national intelligence and law enforcement were to start scrutinizing gun owners for signs of mental instability?
Me Sir! Please Sir! I know that one!

Anyone who wants a gun is de facto mentally unstable and shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. Simples - there are some real life lessons to learn from Catch 22, you know.

galaxy flyer
23rd Feb 2018, 21:54
Try applying your cockamamie idea, GtW. Do you plan on declaring 40% of the population nuts? On what basis? I suspect you’re just projecting.

GF

galaxy flyer
23rd Feb 2018, 22:00
Can you imagine the shrieking wails from the right if national intelligence and law enforcement were to start scrutinizing gun owners for signs of mental instability?

Not to mention from the Left—ACLU, health privacy fanatics, rights activists, in general. My very liberal state refuses to report mental health cases to NICS due to squeamishness about declaring someone “insane” thus ineligible for gun ownership.

GF

Ascend Charlie
23rd Feb 2018, 22:06
Why aren't the teachers protesting to Prez Thump??

If they are to have guns in the classroom, then the 2nd Amendment Loony student will shoot the teacher first, from behind, before taking on the rest of the class. Brilliant.

And the next school shooting is due in a few days.

RAT 5
23rd Feb 2018, 22:14
Assuring public safety by thinking that we will "always see them coming" is an argument based upon a fallacy.

Even without background checks, if there was a gun licence and a national register, then a teenager with 10 rifles bought legitimately would sure have rung some alarm bells and may be seen him coming. A visit from law enforcement; "excuse me sir, will you please explain why you have 10 rifles? And 'because I can is not a reason."

Add in background checks and no over the counter gun sales at gun shows with out a licence would not take away the right, just try to make you justify it. You could have a category licence in the same way as cars, trucks, motor bikes etc. It's too dangerous for you to drive an HGV on a car licence, but with no training or justification you can buy a military grade automatic rifle.

The debate will continue to be circular and be filibustered until someone starts asking the correct questions.

vapilot2004
23rd Feb 2018, 22:14
Agreed, RAT 5. :ok:

The debate will continue to be circular and be filibustered until someone starts asking the correct questions.

...and someone brings out the national talking stick, so the Q & A session can actually be heard and thoughtfully engaged. There's another problem however, most of the science required for these questions and answers has been defunded thanks to GOP budget constraints and agency gag rules.

Me Sir! Please Sir! I know that one!

Anyone who wants a gun is de facto mentally unstable and shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. Simples - there are some real life lessons to learn from Catch 22, you know.

Replace "gun" with high-powered, repeating assault rifle, and you might find more agreement, although I admire your paring it down to the core issue, GtW, which is something we refer to as "gun culture".

This once, mainly innocuous American tradition (unless you are a game animal, bottle on a fencepost, or paper target) is being overshadowed by another, far more deadly and emerging tradition - mass shootings by deranged killers with easy access to assault style weapons. Weapons that are freely available thanks largely to NRA funded Congressmen who are in turn enabled by a misinformed and distracted electorate.

RAT 5
23rd Feb 2018, 22:25
I admire your paring it down to the core issue, GtW, which is something we refer to as "gun culture".

Gun culture and dumb-ass owners. Does anyone remember the eminent US surgeon/doctor who published his photo having gone to Africa, spent U$-000's and shot an old elephant/lion/giraffe. I forget. But the wave of revulsion that spread around the world at this display of wanton gun culture in what he considered a supposed legitimate & acceptable manner was a real demonstration of the difference between us and them.

The stirring speech by a senator this week, that these mass shootings are happening only in USA; no where else. That shows the sickness of our society that everywhere else in the world has avoided, and the internal problem is not being acknowledged or addressed. Straight talking common sense, at last; but fallen off the radar.

galaxy flyer
23rd Feb 2018, 22:26
And 'because I can is not a reason."

More than sufficient reason, IF you are not posting death threats on the web, causing people you work or school with to call the police repeatedly, not if the FBI has you on radar.

I know dozens of people with multiples of dozens of firearms, who don’t rise to anyone’s interest.

GF

Lonewolf_50
24th Feb 2018, 01:13
The debate needs transparency and honesty. It sure won't get it from you, RAT. Having read the bile filled tripe that you have spit into this thread, had I not known from PPRuNe that you are an aviation professional, I'd have assessed your intellect is about like that of the US Congresswoman who stated that homicide is the leading cause of murder. (Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas).

But I know better, and I am disappointed that you are willfully ignorant, and choose to remain so. Why do you think that you can throw insults at Americans and not be held to account for being an insulting ignoramous?

You don't know the US, at all. Here's a clue for you, my friend.
The US is not homogenous. It isn't a small place like Belgium, which even being small has its internal tensions and conflicts. When places get bigger some problems scale up unevenly. We are a melting pot, and that makes it harder, not easier, to resolve things as issues scale up. Democratic processes and freedoms, and rights, are messy. That's a feature, not a bug.

There are at least 3 (and I'll say a few more) political realities in the US:
Cities
Suburbs
Towns/Rural areas.

Aside: Since about the 1980's, I have become dismayed at the continued balkanization of our polity here. I see evidence of it everywhere, and it manifests itself in weird ways. The pretense that guns are the root cause of a shooting spree is beyond myopic. It's like claiming that the root cause of cancer is sunshine.

Back to the separate political realities in America. Each has a different place to fit into our weird mixture and melting pot of a country, and each has unique problems to solve. The overlap is uneven. It isn't a smooth transition. I personally split cities into "where the rich people live" and "no go zones" so we have four political realities, but in cities you also have a particular synergy that is what makes any civilization prosper. They are also the centers of some of our worst corruption, graft, and crime.

Our current political problem is that the heads-up-their-asses city folks, both liberal and conservative, pretend that their citified version of life is the only political reality. That is similar to the blinkered perspective that you bring to this topic. You can't see outside your own assumptions. The debate that the now and again shooting stirs up gets trampled on by those same assumptions.

One of the reasons that the mighty rectal orifice Trump got elected is that people in the other American political realities got sick and disgusted of the citified liberals and conservatives, and their urban corruption, driving the train. That's why Trump is in the White House. Which is sort of ironic, since he's a standard corrupt citified sort, though whether he's conservative or liberal is an open question. He's an opportunist, at best.

GF has posted a few times a cogent analysis (in a link) of how the alienation of men has grown in the past 50 years here, and I will guess that you can't be arsed to read something outside your own assumptions. Sadly, that's a piece of why these idiots who go on shooting sprees. The information age feeds the copy cats, go and take a look at Columbine and see what has happened since.

An attempt to change the constitution -- which is the kind of crap that your family of argument boils down to -- has an impact on ALL Americans, see Prohibition. That is why the NRA will fight, and why I rejoined the NRA a few years ago after 20 years of not being a member, because I refuse to accept the wrong headed "solutions" from the headsupasses brigade. A solution for St Paul or Kansas City or Miami is a crappy fit for someone living in a small town in any of the 50 states.

Beyond that, as usual this morning, 25 million legal gun owners, to include me, woke up yesterday and didn't kill anyone. I refuse to agree with the premise that I am to be punished for what .00001% of the population might do.

Your PoV accepts that. Your point of view is so blinkered that is doesn't even deserve the appellation of wrong. It's willfully misinformed, and thus beyond stupid. Our political system was designed from the beginning to be decentralized, inefficient, and messy. That is why some refer to what we do over here as the American experiment in self government. We are living in a petri dish. What isn't an appropriate solution is more centralization. That isn't who and what America is. The Constitution was built on a different model, on a different set of assumptions.

One can fix ignorance. One cannot fix the willful ignorance that is stubbornly determined to never open its mind.
In aviation, that will get you killed, and you know that as well as I do.

In the future, I will recommend that you not pretend to know what you are talking about on this topic. You don't, and your insult of Americans in this thread is a great disappointment, coming from you. I'd have thought that you know better.

PS: as far as I am concerned, the bump stock ban should have already taken effect, and I've written my Congressman about how pissed I am at him about it not having taken effect. I do not find the casual and recreational use of machine guns in the least bit amusing, nor the private ownership thereof without significant oversight as the Federal Gun Control Laws already in place have. A loophole around them I am utterly against.

We already have a crap ton of laws on the books regarding fire arms. That has yet to stop murder, as far back as Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton engaging in a duel that was illegal at the time. Burr was the effing vice president for Thomas Jefferson, among other things.

Stop pretending that you have a clue. You don't. I at least have the humility to not post on a brain surgeon's forum pretending that I know how to do brain surgery. Maybe on some topics, following my example would be a good idea.

The world has gotten more chaotic.

The modern industrial, technical, and information age has empowered individuals in ways that were never before possible. With that comes the empowerment of the sick and twisted, and the terrorists who drive car bombs into market places in Iraq for the past 15 years. In a free society, The Criminal Has The Advantage of The Initiative! Always has, or Al Capone would never had made a dime.

All of the above is a piece of how the world has changed. Individuals, whether good or evil, have the belief that their situation belongs on TV, or on Youtube, and that somehow their "going down in flames" publicly will change something. But it usually doesn't.

What surprises me is that it doesn't happen a lot more often. There's a lot of frustration, anger, and alienation in the modern world and it isn't all in our 50 states. It spreads at the speed of electricity, all over the globe. All that the now and again random shooting sprees in our nation of over 300 million people do is, in the macro sense, signal that the social sickness is still virulent.

The disease is in the human heart and in the human mind, not in any inanimate collection of finely machined steel parts.
You want to cure cancer by putting on sun glasses.

megan
24th Feb 2018, 04:59
It's like claiming that the root cause of cancer is sunshineSunshine is the main cause of melanoma, a cancer prolific in Oz, 3.9% of all cancer deaths, and 4th most diagnosed cancer.

With that out of the way, I don't see you offering any answer to your country's predicament, particularly as you saidI know better

I thought RAT's contributions a credible point of view and well put, postulating them to be ""rants" indicated a little thinness of skin on your part. Your post seemed to be an incoherent rant in comparison.

galaxy flyer
24th Feb 2018, 05:11
well, it’s a certainty, no one on Pprune has offered a solution. I’d be okay with a gun violence restraining order signed by a judge after probable cause the target of the order has demonstrated he or she is a danger to society. Would have worked in most these cases, as plenty of witnesses showed the individual was a hazard. Take their weapons away, put them custody for medical evaluation. I’d bet I would get a reaction that would make the NRA look tame.

Look, just about all the posters here just are afraid of guns and want them confiscated. You can dress up your talk, but that’s your bottom line. Well, sorry, Sunshine, not happening.

The profiling and broad brush attacks are just beyond belief. If you replaced “gun owner” with “Muslim” you would banned, but as guns are not subject to PC rules, it’s just fine.

GF

IBMJunkman
24th Feb 2018, 05:13
Thank you.

It sure won't get it from you, RAT. Having read the bile filled tripe that you have spit into this thread, had I not known from PPRuNe that you are an aviation professional, I'd have assessed your intellect is about like that of the US Congresswoman who stated that homicide is the leading cause of murder. (Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas).

But I know better, and I am disappointed that you are willfully ignorant, and choose to remain so. Why do you think that you can throw insults at Americans and not be held to account for being an insulting ignoramous?

You don't know the US, at all. Here's a clue for you, my friend.
The US is not homogenous. It isn't a small place like Belgium, which even being small has its internal tensions and conflicts. When places get bigger some problems scale up unevenly. We are a melting pot, and that makes it harder, not easier, to resolve things as issues scale up. Democratic processes and freedoms, and rights, are messy. That's a feature, not a bug.

There are at least 3 (and I'll say a few more) political realities in the US:
Cities
Suburbs
Towns/Rural areas.

Aside: Since about the 1980's, I have become dismayed at the continued balkanization of our polity here. I see evidence of it everywhere, and it manifests itself in weird ways. The pretense that guns are the root cause of a shooting spree is beyond myopic. It's like claiming that the root cause of cancer is sunshine.

Back to the separate political realities in America. Each has a different place to fit into our weird mixture and melting pot of a country, and each has unique problems to solve. The overlap is uneven. It isn't a smooth transition. I personally split cities into "where the rich people live" and "no go zones" so we have four political realities, but in cities you also have a particular synergy that is what makes any civilization prosper. They are also the centers of some of our worst corruption, graft, and crime.

Our current political problem is that the heads-up-their-asses city folks, both liberal and conservative, pretend that their citified version of life is the only political reality. That is similar to the blinkered perspective that you bring to this topic. You can't see outside your own assumptions. The debate that the now and again shooting stirs up gets trampled on by those same assumptions.

One of the reasons that the mighty rectal orifice Trump got elected is that people in the other American political realities got sick and disgusted of the citified liberals and conservatives, and their urban corruption, driving the train. That's why Trump is in the White House. Which is sort of ironic, since he's a standard corrupt citified sort, though whether he's conservative or liberal is an open question. He's an opportunist, at best.

GF has posted a few times a cogent analysis (in a link) of how the alienation of men has grown in the past 50 years here, and I will guess that you can't be arsed to read something outside your own assumptions. Sadly, that's a piece of why these idiots who go on shooting sprees. The information age feeds the copy cats, go and take a look at Columbine and see what has happened since.

An attempt to change the constitution -- which is the kind of crap that your family of argument boils down to -- has an impact on ALL Americans, see Prohibition. That is why the NRA will fight, and why I rejoined the NRA a few years ago after 20 years of not being a member, because I refuse to accept the wrong headed "solutions" from the headsupasses brigade. A solution for St Paul or Kansas City or Miami is a crappy fit for someone living in a small town in any of the 50 states.

Beyond that, as usual this morning, 25 million legal gun owners, to include me, woke up yesterday and didn't kill anyone. I refuse to agree with the premise that I am to be punished for what .00001% of the population might do.

Your PoV accepts that. Your point of view is so blinkered that is doesn't even deserve the appellation of wrong. It's willfully misinformed, and thus beyond stupid. Our political system was designed from the beginning to be decentralized, inefficient, and messy. That is why some refer to what we do over here as the American experiment in self government. We are living in a petri dish. What isn't an appropriate solution is more centralization. That isn't who and what America is. The Constitution was built on a different model, on a different set of assumptions.

One can fix ignorance. One cannot fix the willful ignorance that is stubbornly determined to never open its mind.
In aviation, that will get you killed, and you know that as well as I do.

In the future, I will recommend that you not pretend to know what you are talking about on this topic. You don't, and your insult of Americans in this thread is a great disappointment, coming from you. I'd have thought that you know better.

PS: as far as I am concerned, the bump stock ban should have already taken effect, and I've written my Congressman about how pissed I am at him about it not having taken effect. I do not find the casual and recreational use of machine guns in the least bit amusing, nor the private ownership thereof without significant oversight as the Federal Gun Control Laws already in place have. A loophole around them I am utterly against.

We already have a crap ton of laws on the books regarding fire arms. That has yet to stop murder, as far back as Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton engaging in a duel that was illegal at the time. Burr was the effing vice president for Thomas Jefferson, among other things.

Stop pretending that you have a clue. You don't. I at least have the humility to not post on a brain surgeon's forum pretending that I know how to do brain surgery. Maybe on some topics, following my example would be a good idea.

The world has gotten more chaotic.

The modern industrial, technical, and information age has empowered individuals in ways that were never before possible. With that comes the empowerment of the sick and twisted, and the terrorists who drive car bombs into market places in Iraq for the past 15 years. In a free society, The Criminal Has The Advantage of The Initiative! Always has, or Al Capone would never had made a dime.

All of the above is a piece of how the world has changed. Individuals, whether good or evil, have the belief that their situation belongs on TV, or on Youtube, and that somehow their "going down in flames" publicly will change something. But it usually doesn't.

What surprises me is that it doesn't happen a lot more often. There's a lot of frustration, anger, and alienation in the modern world and it isn't all in our 50 states. It spreads at the speed of electricity, all over the globe. All that the now and again random shooting sprees in our nation of over 300 million people do is, in the macro sense, signal that the social sickness is still virulent.

The disease is in the human heart and in the human mind, not in any inanimate collection of finely machined steel parts.
You want to cure cancer by putting on sun glasses.

Jetex_Jim
24th Feb 2018, 07:03
It sure won't get it from you, RAT. Having read the bile filled tripe that you have spit into this thread, had I not known from PPRuNe that you are an aviation professional, I'd have assessed your intellect is about like that of the US Congresswoman who stated that homicide is the leading cause of murder. (Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas).

But I know better, and I am disappointed that you are willfully ignorant, and choose to remain so. Why do you think that you can throw insults at Americans and not be held to account for being an insulting ignoramous?

You don't know the US, at all. Here's a clue for you, my friend.
The US is not homogenous. It isn't a small place like Belgium, which even being small has its internal tensions and conflicts. When places get bigger some problems scale up unevenly. We are a melting pot, and that makes it harder, not easier, to resolve things as issues scale up. Democratic processes and freedoms, and rights, are messy. That's a feature, not a bug.

There are at least 3 (and I'll say a few more) political realities in the US:
Cities
Suburbs
Towns/Rural areas.

Aside: Since about the 1980's, I have become dismayed at the continued balkanization of our polity here. I see evidence of it everywhere, and it manifests itself in weird ways. The pretense that guns are the root cause of a shooting spree is beyond myopic. It's like claiming that the root cause of cancer is sunshine.

Back to the separate political realities in America. Each has a different place to fit into our weird mixture and melting pot of a country, and each has unique problems to solve. The overlap is uneven. It isn't a smooth transition. I personally split cities into "where the rich people live" and "no go zones" so we have four political realities, but in cities you also have a particular synergy that is what makes any civilization prosper. They are also the centers of some of our worst corruption, graft, and crime.

Our current political problem is that the heads-up-their-asses city folks, both liberal and conservative, pretend that their citified version of life is the only political reality. That is similar to the blinkered perspective that you bring to this topic. You can't see outside your own assumptions. The debate that the now and again shooting stirs up gets trampled on by those same assumptions.

One of the reasons that the mighty rectal orifice Trump got elected is that people in the other American political realities got sick and disgusted of the citified liberals and conservatives, and their urban corruption, driving the train. That's why Trump is in the White House. Which is sort of ironic, since he's a standard corrupt citified sort, though whether he's conservative or liberal is an open question. He's an opportunist, at best.

GF has posted a few times a cogent analysis (in a link) of how the alienation of men has grown in the past 50 years here, and I will guess that you can't be arsed to read something outside your own assumptions. Sadly, that's a piece of why these idiots who go on shooting sprees. The information age feeds the copy cats, go and take a look at Columbine and see what has happened since.

An attempt to change the constitution -- which is the kind of crap that your family of argument boils down to -- has an impact on ALL Americans, see Prohibition. That is why the NRA will fight, and why I rejoined the NRA a few years ago after 20 years of not being a member, because I refuse to accept the wrong headed "solutions" from the headsupasses brigade. A solution for St Paul or Kansas City or Miami is a crappy fit for someone living in a small town in any of the 50 states.

Beyond that, as usual this morning, 25 million legal gun owners, to include me, woke up yesterday and didn't kill anyone. I refuse to agree with the premise that I am to be punished for what .00001% of the population might do.

Your PoV accepts that. Your point of view is so blinkered that is doesn't even deserve the appellation of wrong. It's willfully misinformed, and thus beyond stupid. Our political system was designed from the beginning to be decentralized, inefficient, and messy. That is why some refer to what we do over here as the American experiment in self government. We are living in a petri dish. What isn't an appropriate solution is more centralization. That isn't who and what America is. The Constitution was built on a different model, on a different set of assumptions.

One can fix ignorance. One cannot fix the willful ignorance that is stubbornly determined to never open its mind.
In aviation, that will get you killed, and you know that as well as I do.

In the future, I will recommend that you not pretend to know what you are talking about on this topic. You don't, and your insult of Americans in this thread is a great disappointment, coming from you. I'd have thought that you know better.

PS: as far as I am concerned, the bump stock ban should have already taken effect, and I've written my Congressman about how pissed I am at him about it not having taken effect. I do not find the casual and recreational use of machine guns in the least bit amusing, nor the private ownership thereof without significant oversight as the Federal Gun Control Laws already in place have. A loophole around them I am utterly against.

We already have a crap ton of laws on the books regarding fire arms. That has yet to stop murder, as far back as Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton engaging in a duel that was illegal at the time. Burr was the effing vice president for Thomas Jefferson, among other things.

Stop pretending that you have a clue. You don't. I at least have the humility to not post on a brain surgeon's forum pretending that I know how to do brain surgery. Maybe on some topics, following my example would be a good idea.

The world has gotten more chaotic.

The modern industrial, technical, and information age has empowered individuals in ways that were never before possible. With that comes the empowerment of the sick and twisted, and the terrorists who drive car bombs into market places in Iraq for the past 15 years. In a free society, The Criminal Has The Advantage of The Initiative! Always has, or Al Capone would never had made a dime.

All of the above is a piece of how the world has changed. Individuals, whether good or evil, have the belief that their situation belongs on TV, or on Youtube, and that somehow their "going down in flames" publicly will change something. But it usually doesn't.

What surprises me is that it doesn't happen a lot more often. There's a lot of frustration, anger, and alienation in the modern world and it isn't all in our 50 states. It spreads at the speed of electricity, all over the globe. All that the now and again random shooting sprees in our nation of over 300 million people do is, in the macro sense, signal that the social sickness is still virulent.

The disease is in the human heart and in the human mind, not in any inanimate collection of finely machined steel parts.
You want to cure cancer by putting on sun glasses.

Let me rephrase that for you.

The whole world is sick and I don't know what the answer is. But you are not taking our guns.

sfm818
24th Feb 2018, 09:18
Grown men who indulge in rail fanning or climbing a stepladder to photograph airliners might present
signs of obsessive behaviour, but the worst that could happen as a result of their obsession is they
stray too close to the tracks or worse, fall off their step ladder and break a $3,000 DSLR. At least
they are harmless.

On the other hand. Grown men who obsess about firearms need to be more carefully monitored.
There is nothing harmless about an out of control gun culture which glorifies this kind of bullshit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_jkPhrddc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAHgGsrdXyM

Bravo Zulu to the students who are calling BS on the God, Family and Guns brigade. These kids
were around 12 years old at the time of Sandy Hook and have grown into a culture shaped by NRA
lobbyists pushing for more armed people in the US school system than are serving in the US military.

Have any of the student generation planning to march on Washington had an opportunity to see the
film ' Handgun ' (a.k.a. Deep in the Heart) or is that censored on American tv.

funfly
24th Feb 2018, 10:04
You get the impression that Lonewolf is just the sort of person who will feel more macho owning a number of guns.
Would he be persuaded otherwide - never.
some interesting comments on the previous thread on this subject that, for some reason, has been closed.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
24th Feb 2018, 11:06
just about all the posters here just are afraid of guns and want them confiscated. You can dress up your talk, but that’s your bottom line.
If that is is your take on the outside world, then you truly do not have any idea.

BehindBlueEyes
24th Feb 2018, 12:19
Not a solution, just an observation.

The high price of freedom is the liberty to make choices about arming oneself. I know that’s no comfort to the victims (and I’m no advocate of gun ownership either) Because they're already out there, the US will never get all the weapons back - even if they had a moratorium.

The only way any nation will clamp down on these lone renegades is to have a police state where we are all stopped and searched at any time and in any place. None of us want that, look at the strong resistance in the UK to ID cards and we’ve got our own issues with home grown suicide bombers.

Sadly, we all pay the price for a minority of loonies. As Lonewolf 50 said - very eloquently - why should we all be punished for a 0.000001% of idiots that can’t handle the privilege and prerogative of enfranchisement.

D SQDRN 97th IOTC
24th Feb 2018, 12:33
Plenty of countries have loads of guns
None have the same scale problem as the USA

Plenty of countries still allow hand guns. Including in Europe.
In the UK, we banned hand guns.
As a general statement, the only people in the UK that now have hand guns are the criminals.
According to recent crime statistics, the vast majority of gun crime in the UK involves the use of handguns, imitation hand guns, or air guns.

USA. Listen up.
You don’t need semi automatic aussault rifles. You don’t need bump stocks. You do need a proper licensing system. You do need a vetting system.

ehwatezedoing
24th Feb 2018, 12:35
Beyond that, as usual this morning, 25 million legal gun owners, to include me, woke up yesterday and didn't kill anyone. I refuse to agree with the premise that I am to be punished for what .00001% of the population might do.

This .00001% can do that sort of sh!t mainly because of NRA lobbying.
They are so afraid/worried of having their guns removed that any form of legal action against it is stopped right on its track.
Simply with the idea in mind that if so, it will snowball to more and more gun’s restrictions, up to total annihilation of them in private ownership (the punishment!)



Kind of a catch 22....

D SQDRN 97th IOTC
24th Feb 2018, 12:46
When they are aware there is a 0.000001%

You don’t close your eyes and behave ostrich like with head in sand and arse in the air.
You control ownership so the 0.00001% do not present a rlsk.

RobsonCanolo
24th Feb 2018, 12:51
Doubt if they would know the development back in the days it would still be allowed to the same extent as today.

Freedom can also be about not having to be unsure about someone, at their worst ,having a gun nearby...

Toadstool
24th Feb 2018, 12:54
It's plain to see that, with the oldies, views are too entrenched.

The young ones, those that are getting slaughtered in schools, have the power, vision and willingness to do something when others can't.

Firms are stopping funding for the NRA.

Times (possibly) are a changin'.

Lonewolf_50
24th Feb 2018, 13:21
Let me rephrase that for you.
Not if you are going to be wrong.
The whole world is sick and I don't know what the answer is. But you are not taking our guns. You don't get it either. Gee, there's no surprise.
When they are aware there is a 0.000001%

You don’t close your eyes and behave ostrich like with head in sand and arse in the air.
You control ownership so the 0.00001% do not present a rlsk. You really don't understand the fundamental principles of the American political philosophy. The concentration of power in the hands of the government is an evil, the sovereign citizen is where political power belongs, and government must be limited. It's something that had not been tried before, and for a great many people it is simply not something they get. Welcome to that population of not getting it.
When people disagree, and there is significant disagreement here on the issue of what's an acceptable threshold for firearms and what isn't, and other issues, there is a messy process of building a consensus, not some "easy button" like the foolishness you assert. That kind of "easy button" attitude brought us the Prohibition, which needless to say didn't work.

Put differently, using your attempt at logic nobody should ever be allowed to be involved in an investment trust, because someone might (like Madoff did) defraud them. Therefore, ban them.
Your draconian solutions attitude is broken in a dozen different places.

D SQDRN 97th IOTC
24th Feb 2018, 18:10
Sounds like your views are entrenched tea party views...

The mass unemployment in the rust belt has shown how individuals (unemployed individuals) have been shafted by government politics and companies.
These people are powerless and feel powerless.
Trump promised a better government for these people. One that would provide them with jobs again.
There are some in USA, that believe government is too big.
Republicans.

Democrats believe in bigger government.
The NRA gives money to the republicans. Freedom of the individual. The power to kill your neighbour.

The foolishness I assert. Good one.

Investment advisors need a licence. Investment advisors act and all that..
Let me repeat my foolishness.
Yo don’t need semi auto assault rifles. You don’t need bump stocks.
You do need a licensing system. You do need a vetting system.

A major responsibility of any government is to maintain law and order, and to provide safety for its citizens.
The USA military serve around the world to protect its citizens from terrorists.
And for what? So your children can be shot up in schools?
Your Military puts itself on the line time after time, and with some success - not many people die at the hands of terrorists.
But school shooters...they are terrorists in my view. There needs to be a war on these people and those who would be school shooters every bit as much.
School shooters are terrorists. Period.

Did you see the TV footage when Trump was meeting with the families and victims of the latest shooting. A father...described himself as ‘pissed’. His daughter was shot 9 times by the shooter. His immediate desire was to make schools harder targets to hit.

So you tell me. Why do you want semi auto assault rifles?

And before you accuse me of being anti-gun, I am not. Nearly a million people in the UK have shotgun certificates and a hundred thousand or so have firearms certificates.

RAT 5
24th Feb 2018, 19:29
KISS. You need licence and insurance for a car, and a motor bike, and a plane etc. No discussion. You are free to buy as many as you want, as powerful as you want. Nobody bitches at the rules.
But if you are caught in your 'wheels' with an open alcoholic container, and even worse a joint as well, you are deemed the greatest threat to society and there are not enough books to throw at you.
If you develop epilepsy, semi-blindness, senility, have any medical condition that might render you a risk to society on the roads or the air your licence is suspended. Nobody bitches.
But, anyone with any off the above can buy, via mail order or at a gun fair, unlimited weaponry. You are not safe to drive a car, but hey, AK47 rules, man.

The lack of logic is lost on me. The other comment we hear is the reply to any suggestion at debate. We hear in Florida they've even refused to discuss the issue. How can that be democratic in the world's 'greatest democracy'. Is it an 'inconvenient truth'?
But the reply from hard-liners always seems to be, without absorbing the question, "they are not going to take away my guns." No-one has said take away your guns. Everyone has a right to have a gun, no problem. Justify it's need, back ground check the owner, register & licence both etc. You can have what you want. They idea is to stop the nutters getting their hands on them. It has nothing to do with criminal ownership. They will get what they want. The OK guys can have their guns; it's the non-OK guys that need to be vetted out.

galaxy flyer
24th Feb 2018, 21:28
If you develop epilepsy, semi-blindness, senility, have any medical condition that might render you a risk to society on the roads or the air your licence is suspended. Nobody bitches.
But, anyone with any off the above can buy, via mail order or at a gun fair, unlimited weaponry. You are not safe to drive a car, but hey, AK47 rules, man.

To the first, you haven’t driven in much of America, have you? I have yet hear of any licenses being suspended for those reasons. Doctors certainly don’t report these illnesses to DMV.

No, you can’t mail order a firearm in the US, not since 1968, anyway. Has to be sent to an FFL for legal transfer to ultimate buyer. Buyer has to file STF Form 4474, if I remember form number. FFL has to have transfer approved by FBI thru NICS system. Stop making things up.

GF

Highway1
24th Feb 2018, 21:47
But the reply from hard-liners always seems to be, without absorbing the question, "they are not going to take away my guns." No-one has said take away your guns. Everyone has a right to have a gun, no problem. Justify it's need, back ground check the owner, register & licence both etc. You can have what you want. They idea is to stop the nutters getting their hands on them. It has nothing to do with criminal ownership. They will get what they want. The OK guys can have their guns; it's the non-OK guys that need to be vetted out.


What do you mean by 'justify its need' - are you saying that some bureaucrat will have the final say over whether you can own a firearm?

As far as background checks go you already have that for the sale of most legal firearms. In fact that was precisely the part of the system that failed to work in the mass shooting in Sutherland Springs. There are already many Laws and restrictions in place but as we saw in Sutherland Springs and only last week in Florida, the system too easily fails.

galaxy flyer
24th Feb 2018, 22:04
Both Sutherland Springs and Parkland are epic fails of a system most gun controllers tell us to rely to be “safe”. Cognitive Dissonance or what. Devin Kelly had a domestic assault Federal conviction with one year confinement. The USAF, and every court in the land is required to inform the FBI of violent convictions. This is a disqualifying life event for gun possession or purchase. How’d the system work. It didn’t! Just as every level of government from county sheriff to FBI HQ failed in this case.

Until we can identify how the current system, hold accountable the those who failed and fix that can go ahead. I believe a thorough overall is needed, but we need to understand how our current system failed. These shooters should have been caught as everyone had a trail of police reports or family knowledge of threats. Only the Las Vegas guy seems to have been completely invisible to authorities.

GF

Turbine D
24th Feb 2018, 22:20
Originally posted by galaxy flyer:
To the first, you haven’t driven in much of America, have you? I have yet hear of any licenses being suspended for those reasons. Doctors certainly don’t report these illnesses to DMV.
Er, I suspect you haven't kept completely up to date on license suspensions due to medical conditions, have you?
In Ohio:
State of Ohio BMV (http://www.bmv.ohio.gov/susp-other-medical.aspx)

In California:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eAUYcHAVnQ

Impress to inflate
24th Feb 2018, 23:23
I think your all missing the point. The second amendment was written before the county had a full military complement run by the federal state (1791). It relied on it citizens to "Bear Arms". The US now has a full Army, Navy, Airforce and Marines so it DOES NOT NEED it's citizens to be armed to the teeth. If they want to play this game then they can have as many flint lock muskets as they want. Who the hell needs an assault rifle with half a dozen 30 round clips ??

Don't get me wrong. I was bought up with a rifle then 2 shotguns BUT only for the purpose of hunting habits, pigeons etc in the rural country side. I had background checks every 3 years, the guns were kept in steel cabinet with 2 independent locks and the room was alarmed. I had to produce written evidence by a land owner every three years proving I had the right to shoot on his land.

sfm818
24th Feb 2018, 23:33
In one week, MSD students have accomplished the following on behalf of their dead classmates:

1/ Organized themselves into a movement for gun reform.

2/ Planned a march on Washington for gun reform.

3/ Questioned lawmakers on gun reform.

4/ Challenged an NRA spokesperson on gun reform (viewed by a global television audience).

5/ Convinced a growing list of commercial sponsors to terminate their links with the NRA.

6/ Received a gift of $500,000 from one sponsor alone to support their march for gun reform.

7/ Established more followers on social media than the NRA.

8/ Forced a former presidential candidate to concede the NRA buys into his agenda.

9/ Exposed the current president’s position on gun reform (He buys into Wayne’s agenda)

10/ Addressed the AR-15 massacres that have occurred since the AWB sunset clause expired.

Lonewolf_50
25th Feb 2018, 00:03
Sounds like your views are entrenched tea party views...

Nope, you are so wrong that it is risible. From where I sit, the Tea Party was part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Maybe you should not pretend to know what you don't.
Not to mention your other errors of fact already addressed.
PS, as a veteran of the US Navy, your insults directed at the US military are not appreciated.
Stay in your own lane. Fix your own problems. Each back yard is mowed and tended by its owner. (Well, it is in a perfect world, in which none of us live).

galaxy flyer
25th Feb 2018, 00:11
When they are aware there is a 0.000001%

You don’t close your eyes and behave ostrich like with head in sand and arse in the air.
You control ownership so the 0.00001% do not present a rlsk.

So, the rules are made for the .00001%. Got it.

GF

galaxy flyer
25th Feb 2018, 01:50
I think your all missing the point. The second amendment was written before the county had a full military complement run by the federal state (1791). It relied on it citizens to "Bear Arms". The US now has a full Army, Navy, Airforce and Marines so it DOES NOT NEED it's citizens to be armed to the teeth. If they want to play this game then they can have as many flint lock muskets as they want. Who the hell needs an assault rifle with half a dozen 30 round clips ??

Don't get me wrong. I was bought up with a rifle then 2 shotguns BUT only for the purpose of hunting habits, pigeons etc in the rural country side. I had background checks every 3 years, the guns were kept in steel cabinet with 2 independent locks and the room was alarmed. I had to produce written evidence by a land owner every three years proving I had the right to shoot on his land.


While we’re on the subject, here’s my wasted childhood. I grew up within 30 miles of NYC. My father was always a fisherman, shooter and hunter. At 14, over my bed was a rack holding a Ruger M77 in 7x57, a FN Browning Auto 5 and a Bernadelli SxS. Three guns just in the open. Dad’s were in an unlocked cabinet, probably about 15 or so, in the den. I’d grown up with them around, thought nothing about it, but respect was drilled into my brother and I. We wouldn’t have thought of disappointing him by breaking his house rules. We both attended an NRA Safety Course. At 21, I passed the local police chief’s handgun licensing test. To this day, neither can be handed a firearm without reflexively opening it to check for being loaded. It’s entirely automatic.

Dad had a friend Ray, old guy hard of hearing and weak of eyes, who literally upholstered his old Victorian house with guns of every description. I mean hundreds, not a chair or bed or table wasn’t covered. Some valuable, some trash. I loved going to visit and hear stories of Prohibition and old guns, an amazing education in some ways.

As a teen, Dad and I would go duck hunting at the local park. In the early dawn, 5-15 hunters walked across the public park, hunting wasn’t allowed in the park but carrying a gun was perfectly legal. Once on the spit, we’d stand below the high water mark and pass shoot ducks. Being below the high water line, we were legally on Federal land. It’d be like standing on Watson’s Bay shooting ducks over the harbor at Mosman. The locals hated us, but cops couldn’t do anything because we were on Federal land, some of the hunters were cops, too. If too many calls to the police came in, they’d stop by just let us know. Nearby, a guy named William F. Buckley Jr. resided. He didn’t care, apparently.

We shot Skeet and trap most weekends; pistol competitions in Greenwich during winter evenings. That’s life two generations ago in the New York area. We didn’t have to answer to anyone for licensing or purchase (except handgun carry); no proof of reason of ownership or access to hunting; no storage requirements. Now, today, the value of my guns makes a safe a good investment, but it is required in my state. Every five years, I renew my state license with a short visit to the local police, pay ‘em a $100. Only if I were to give probable cause of violation would I get a police visit. Big difference, I’d say.

galaxy flyer
25th Feb 2018, 01:58
Here’s an Australian’s view on America and guns in yesterday’s NY Times,



SYDNEY, Australia — The rampage at a high school in Parkland, Fla., has prompted calls for an Australian-style response, as have previous massacres in the United States. Australia introduced a comprehensive gun control regime after a massacre in Tasmania 22 years ago, and mass shootings here dropped to zero. Some experts regard it as the most effective gun control system in the world.

But the Australian model won’t work in the United States. Here’s why: We Australians have a profoundly different relationship with weapons. Americans love guns. We’re scared of them.

This difference explains why a conservative prime minister was able to confiscate some 650,000 privately owned firearms and ban semiautomatic weapons without a single reported act of violence.

That wasn’t all. Twenty-eight-day waiting times were introduced for firearm purchases. All gun buyers were required to have a genuine reason to qualify for a license (self-protection didn’t count). A national gun registry was created.

Australians, on the whole, were happy to give up their guns and accept the new restrictions. They understood that semiautomatic guns, which reload themselves each time fired, increase exponentially the lethality of a firearm.

No mass gun rights movement existed to articulate an opposing view. The sport-shooting organizations, which might have fought the changes, were apolitical. The elected representatives of rural communities where guns were most common were co-opted by the government’s urban-dominated leadership.

When explaining how Australia accomplished such a big change so quickly, analysts and commentators home in on the traumatic effect of what is known as the Port Arthur Massacre, in which 35 people were shot dead in and near a historic township in Tasmania. “It took one massacre,” a headline in The Guardian said on the 20th anniversary of the deaths.

Deeper reasons explain why worse mass killings in the United States don’t trigger similar changes in gun laws.

Australians’ and Americans’ different relationship with firearms stems from the role that armed struggle played in their histories. In Australia, we didn’t have one.

We never had a revolution. We never fought foreign troops on our soil. There was no antipodean civil war. From the moment the First Fleet arrived in Botany Bay in 1788 in what is now Sydney, security was provided by the British Army.

The indigenous population was displaced by force of arms, disease and appropriation of land, crimes for which many Australians still feel guilty. Prosperity, universal health care and unemployment benefits helped suppress crime. The few race riots that took place didn’t involve shooting.

Australia’s founding fathers, attempting to unify six colonies, didn’t mention guns in the Constitution. They weren’t worried about government oppression.

Over time, Australians came to view firearms with suspicion. Most Australians have never held one. Recreational shooting is regarded as a fringe sport. Unlike many Americans, who might proudly show off their latest pistol or rifle, Australians who own and enjoy using firearms, like me, try to be discreet.

After working in the same office for almost a decade, I’ve never admitted to colleagues that I enjoy hunting, although I’m always happy to discuss my last beach vacation. My preteen children don’t know that I own a small-caliber hunting rifle. Only a few close friends have seen it.

I am legally obliged to store the rifle in a gun safe. Bullets must be kept in a separate compartment. A police officer visited my home to ensure that the safe was bolted into my garage’s brick wall. I gave a vague answer when a neighbor asked why there was a patrol car in the driveway.

This ingrown cultural hostility toward firearms explains why there was no fear and only isolated anger at the government, even among owners, when it took away people’s guns in 1996. In the United States, even if the political opposition could be overcome, such widespread appropriation of private property and limits on personal liberties would most likely be met with fierce, even physical, resistance.

Australian political leaders are rightly proud of our tight gun laws, which have also reduced criminal homicides and suicides. But it is unfair to grieving and distressed Americans to pretend that the Australian solution to mass shootings can be carried out in the United States. A homegrown plan is needed.

neila83
25th Feb 2018, 02:23
The pretense that guns are the root cause of a shooting spree is beyond myopic. It's like claiming that the root cause of cancer is sunshine.


The disease is in the human heart and in the human mind, not in any inanimate collection of finely machined steel parts.
You want to cure cancer by putting on sun glasses.

Erm, I hate to point out the obvious, but, no, it's not. A little quiz

1. Can cancer occur for reasons other than sunshine?
a) Yes.
b) No.

2. Can a shooting spree occur without a gun?
a) Yes.
b) No.

Sunglasses might I suppose help with eye disease but won't solve the vast majority of cancers. If this is genuinely the logic of those against gun control, well, Jesus Christ it's embarrassing to be a fellow human at times.

neila83
25th Feb 2018, 02:28
Any gun control folk want to explain their spokesperson telling a student who had watched her friends die, that this was a chance to make a star of herself? The mask rather slipped there didn't it? You are represented by, at least a sociopath, possibly a psychopath.

I know America prides itself on its incredible individualism and the convenient lie that anyone lesser is in the place they are because they deserve to be, but you are all putting yourselves and your kids at greater risk for the sake of some molded metal. So you can some on an internet forum and boast about how you are ready to rise up against the government, even though its never happened and never will. Really?

America: the least Christian Christian country on earth, where people proudly demean the suffering of others.

Trossie
25th Feb 2018, 08:08
NRA & profiling?

It look very much that the NRA is now being 'profiled':
Florida shooting: US airlines join other firms in dropping NRA - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43181337)

Toadstool
25th Feb 2018, 08:15
Nope, you are so wrong that it is risible. From where I sit, the Tea Party was part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Maybe you should not pretend to know what you don't.
Not to mention your other errors of fact already addressed.
PS, as a veteran of the US Navy, your insults directed at the US military are not appreciated.
Stay in your own lane. Fix your own problems. Each back yard is mowed and tended by its owner. (Well, it is in a perfect world, in which none of us live).


Come on Lonewolf, as a current serving (over 30 years) member of the military I saw no insults. You need to stop taking offence at the slightest thing. He just pointed out, based on your oath, that the military was there to support and defend ....against all enemies both foreign and domestic. In his opinion, these guys in the USA shooting school kids are terrorists. They just happen to be, in the main, white Americans.

I would be very interested to hear your solution to this "problem".

RAT 5
25th Feb 2018, 16:08
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.


In which category does this debate fall? I suspect the answers will be tribal. But hey.....In a god fearing country why not ask.

galaxy flyer
25th Feb 2018, 16:23
Neila83,

Consider replacing your blanket condemnation of gun owners as all having blood in their hands, child killers; what if one proposed all Muslims are terrorists with blood on their hands or all immigrants are worthless malingerers or other such bigoted opinions?

GF

ShotOne
25th Feb 2018, 16:24
“I’d be interested to hear your solution to this problem..”. I’d be interested to hear yours. Even with the most stringent gun control that still leaves more guns than people, except with the law abiding ones disarmed. What’s your plan?

galaxy flyer
25th Feb 2018, 16:47
"911, what's your emergency?"

"There's someone breaking into my house. Could you send the Broward County Sheriff's Department to water my garden while I kill the intruder?"

https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/23/broward-county-sheriff-scott-israel-accu


GF

neila83
25th Feb 2018, 18:08
Apparently you live in fear. That's a shame. I genuinely feel for you, I've never known that.

Well, OK, I live in Mexico so sometimes the earthquake alarms wake me up at night - technology the USA still doesn't have much to the chagrin of people in California from what I read. But I have never met anyone outside of this forum - and I've lived in lived in Rwanda, Colombia, Mexico - who feels the need to own a gun. And I have never felt unsafe without one. Worth thinking on.

neila83
25th Feb 2018, 18:15
Neila83,

Consider replacing your blanket condemnation of gun owners as all having blood in their hands, child killers; what if one proposed all Muslims are terrorists with blood on their hands or all immigrants are worthless malingerers or other such bigoted opinions?

GF

Guns are the problem. It's not bigoted,if it's making you feel uncomfortable that you contributed to these kids dying, I'm glad. That may move us closer to the solution.

Interesting you bring up Muslims. Perhaps sheds a light on your mindset. Again,the critical thinking abilities of gun owners seem somewhat lacking. People who oppose any change in gun laws contribute to these kids dying. Muslims don't in any way I can see? Though personally I consider pretty much all religions vile so I wouldn't disagree with you so much there. A lot of death for no reason. Much like gun ownership. If you are religious though, I'd suggest having a brush up on that Jesus guy.

Trossie
25th Feb 2018, 19:02
There is no solution. There are too many guns in the US for there to be a solution. More kids are going to get shot and killed in schools. Just get used to it.

And what is the ethnic/racial/religious group of those doing the killing? Which group is the biggest threat to the safety/lives of American school kids in their schools? I'm glad that my kids have grown up in a society that didn't have that fear.

sfm818
25th Feb 2018, 19:03
On the subject of NRA & Profiling. Does the NRA pay tax. Do they contribute. Or are they exempt.

Talk from the NRA about red flags being missed are an appalling tactic. But not one word from them
about amber flags being regularly missed due to a flawed system. Would it infringe civil liberties if
gun owners were subject to a medical evaluation and firearms proficiency review every 12 months.

When gun owners experience changes to their personal circumstances, are they required by law in
the US to declare themselves temporarily unfit to exercise the privileges of a firearms licence? Or do
they escape undetected. Pressures at work. Relationships. Health issues. Stress impairs judgement,
hence the urgent need to assess these people on a regular basis. Those unwilling to prove their
competence with a firearm every 12 months, or refuse to cooperate with psychological assessment,
should be immediately Red flagged.

Students who survived the latest mass shooting are standing their ground and it is pitiful to see the
NRA try every method to silence their voice. Has there been a judicial inquiry into any of the mass
shootings on school premises since Bush 43 looked the other way on the AWB? In relation to the
most recent gun violence. Hold the firearms industry liable to cover the victims medical expenses.
It is the least they can do to compensate schoolchildren hunted down by a legally purchased AR-15.

G-CPTN
25th Feb 2018, 19:33
How about requiring every gun owner to undergo a medical every year?

Turbine D
25th Feb 2018, 20:23
A reality check letter:

I Was a Marine. I Don’t Want a Gun in My Classroom.
By ANTHONY SWOFFORD
FEB. 24, 2018

Before the United States Marine Corps allowed me to carry a live M-16 assault rifle, I went through hundreds of hours of firearms training. Classroom sessions devoted to nomenclature, maintenance and basic operation accounted for more than two weeks of study before I even set eyes on ammunition. For weeks, I carried an M-16 without a magazine — a dummy weapon, basically. I secured it with a padlock overnight while I slept in the barracks, and unlocked it each morning before chow.

Only at the shooting range was I allowed to check out magazines and ammo from the armory. The first day at the range I spent 12 hours disassembling, cleaning and reassembling the weapon. I had to do this blindfolded. I had to do this while a drill instructor hurried me, yelling that enemies were at the gate. I had to do this while fellow Marines wept nearby from doing hundreds of burpees as punishment for not being able to reassemble their weapons fast enough.

The military issue M-16 is the model for the AR-15 assault rifle that the accused shooter used to kill 17 people this month at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. The shooter bought the weapon lawfully. He received zero hours of mandated training. There is no reason that any civilian, of any age, should possess this rifle.

At the White House on Wednesday, President Trump suggested that if a football coach at the high school, Aaron Feis, had been armed, he would have saved even more lives than he did, perhaps even his own, because rather than simply shielding students from gunfire, he could have drawn his weapon, fired and killed the assailant — putting a tidy end to the rampage.

This is absurd. More likely, had Mr. Feis been armed, he would not have been able to draw his weapon (a side arm, presumably) quickly enough to stop the shooter, who with an AR-15 would have had the coach outgunned. Even if the coach had been able to draw his weapon — from where? his athletic shorts? — any shots he managed to fire would have risked being errant, possibly injuring or killing additional students. As some studies have shown, even police officers have missed their targets more than 50 percent of the time. In firing a weapon, Mr. Feis would have only added to the carnage and confusion.

What if a history teacher had also been armed? And an English teacher, and a math teacher, and the janitorial staff members? In this National Rifle Association fever dream, a high school would concentrate so much firepower in the hands of its employees that no deranged individual with a weapon would dare enter the premises.

This sort of thinking also has no grounding in reality. People attack heavily armed institutions all too often, as with the mass shootings in 2009 at Fort Hood in Texas and in 2013 at the Washington Navy Yard. Assailants in such cases aren’t typically worried about losing their lives in the process. Usually, losing their lives is part of the plan.

A few days ago, the lunacy of the suggestion to arm teachers was driven home to me as I prepared to teach my undergraduate creative writing class. I arrived uncharacteristically early and sat down with a few students to banter about this and that.

Suddenly, there was a loud bang outside. Everyone froze, until we realized it was a campus utility truck backing up to a loading dock. Then the students relaxed again.

But I spent the next few minutes before class thinking about whether the windows opened fully and would enable 20 kids to escape an active shooter. I checked: They did not open at all. I noticed to my dismay that the door to the classroom opened out, not in, which thwarted my plan to throw my heavy table up against the door in case a shooter blasted his way down the hall. Even after class began, I found myself fantasizing about inventing a bulletproof Kevlar curtain that I could have at the ready to affix to the door frame if the need arose.

Here is something I didn’t think about: I did not think about arming myself to protect my students. President Trump on Thursday specified that he wants only certain teachers — “highly adept people, people that understand weaponry” — to be armed. I will immodestly state that among professors in the United States, I am almost certainly one of the best shooters. But I would never bring a weapon into a classroom. The presence of a firearm is always an invitation to violence. Weapons have no place in a learning environment.

Last month, the State Legislature in West Virginia, where my university is located, introduced the Campus Self-Defense Act. This would prohibit colleges and universities from designating their campuses as gun-free zones. If this act becomes law, I will resign my professorship. I will not work in an environment where professors and students pack heat.

When I was a young Marine, I had to learn how to use many weapons. It was part of my mission to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” My mission these days is to write books and teach literature and creative writing. It’s a noble calling, too. But no one should be asked to put his life on the line for it.

Highway1
25th Feb 2018, 20:36
How about requiring every gun owner to undergo a medical every year?

And then what? - apparently everyone knew that the kid in Parkland was nuts so how would that help. If someone is willing to go out and murder 17 people then being prohibited from buying weapons legally is hardly going to stop him - only 10% of gun crime is carried with legal weapons anyway.

I cant see any sensible alternative to hardening schools and that unfortunately means more people being armed (whether they are security guards or teachers)

galaxy flyer
25th Feb 2018, 20:42
People who oppose any change in gun laws contribute to these kids dying.

Can you back that up with facts? The lack of action by the police, the FBI and school authorities in Florida contributed more to the deaths than any NRA or legal, law-abiding gun owners ever did.

I proposed a change in the law—a restraining order, based on direct evidence or testimony, restricting access or ownership of deadly weapons. Florida and several other states already have them. If one’s liberty or property is going to be taken, the least government should have is due process. But, apparently, the law goes away for some cases.

Muslims don't in any way I can see?

You claim my inaction on gun laws makes me responsible for death committed by nutters. But, inaction by law abiding Muslims isn’t responsible for terrorists actions. You are profiling people’s actions and responsibilities based solely on one characteristic—ownership of firearms. A wee bit of leaping to conclusions—that’s bigotry and profiling. And that’s wrong!

It's not bigoted,if it's making you feel uncomfortable that you contributed to these kids dying, I'm glad..

Did I have any, as in ANY, contribution to any of shootings, NO; so why should I be uncomfortable? I am not, in the least. Am I saddened, yes; am I culpable, emphatically not.

GF

galaxy flyer
25th Feb 2018, 21:29
Read the FBI transcript of the tip called in on Cruz and tell me the FBI is exempt from blame. They didn’t even pass it on to the local field office.

https://www.scribd.com/document/372252990/FBI-Transcript

G-CPTN
25th Feb 2018, 22:51
Apart from the obvious, Cruz acted irrationally.
It seems that he had a substantial income from his mother's life insurance (cash sum and then ongoing legacy) yet he chose a course of action which would deprive him of that income.
He wasn't intent on suicide, as he discarded his rifle and 'escaped', merging himself with other students:- How the Parkland school shooting unfolded (https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/17/minute-minute-how-parkland-school-shooting-unfolded/345817002/).

Did he expect to remain unidentified?

The FBI transcript suggests that he has a mental age of 12/13, so maybe he convinced himself that his 'escape' would work?

Will he be found unfit to stand trial?

galaxy flyer
25th Feb 2018, 23:25
In Florida, tried as a adult and the death penalty will be on the table. Lawyers already trying to negotiate it away.

GF

galaxy flyer
25th Feb 2018, 23:32
sfm818,

Why is it appalling to ask for competence from those who sanctimoniously declare their job is “to protect and to serve” when they, in fact, act with cowardice or incompetence? We don’t have to prove our fitness to drive except every 10 years in my state and that’s only a 20/40 vision test.


GF

Sallyann1234
25th Feb 2018, 23:41
You claim my inaction on gun laws makes me responsible for death committed by nutters. But, inaction by law abiding Muslims isn’t responsible for terrorists actions.
You do seem to have a fixation on Muslims. Keep to the point please. How many Muslims have committed mass murder with firearms in US schools?


You are profiling people’s actions and responsibilities based solely on one characteristic—ownership of firearms. A wee bit of leaping to conclusions—that’s bigotry and profiling. And that’s wrong!
No leaping needed. It's self evident that everyone committing these shootings has possessed firearms. People without firearms have shot no-one. :ugh:

Planemike
25th Feb 2018, 23:46
And then what? - apparently everyone knew that the kid in Parkland was nuts so how would that help. If someone is willing to go out and murder 17 people then being prohibited from buying weapons legally is hardly going to stop him - only 10% of gun crime is carried with legal weapons anyway.

I cant see any sensible alternative to hardening schools and that unfortunately means more people being armed (whether they are security guards or teachers)



......and you want to live like that ???????

WingNut60
25th Feb 2018, 23:54
.....Would it infringe civil liberties if gun owners were subject to a medical evaluation and firearms proficiency review every 12 months. ....


How about requiring every gun owner to undergo a medical every year?

Not that I am opposed to initial, or even recurrent, proficiency testing, or even a psychological evaluation, but a medical every 12 months? I think that you're expecting a bit much in terms of results.
When was the last time that a mass killing occurred as the result of kidney stones or because the gun owner forgot how to use it safely?
What is it that you actually hope (expect) to achieve?

And what is it with the British and 12 months testing. Do you REALLY have so much of a problem with un-roadworthy cars that the MOT inspections actually achieve a discernible result.
Maybe you should just pass laws prohibiting vehicles over 12 months old, since you seem to be well inured to draconian legislation.

Trossie
26th Feb 2018, 00:05
There is no solution. There are too many guns in the US for there to be a solution. More kids are going to get shot and killed in schools. Just get used to it.

And what is the ethnic/racial/religious group of those doing the killing? Which group is the biggest threat to the safety/lives of American school kids in their schools? I'm glad that my kids have grown up in a society that didn't have that fear.
After all the posts since I posted the above, I really feel that I need to repeat it.

I feel to sad that there are so many kids that don't grow up in a life without a significant threat of gun death. Mine grew up without that threat. And the only time that it did happen, decades ago, it was tramped on so hard that it has never happened again.

(But then, we don't have any dodgy, abused 'Amendments'.)

galaxy flyer
26th Feb 2018, 00:17
You do seem to have a fixation on Muslims. Keep to the point please. How many Muslims have committed mass murder with firearms in US schools?


No leaping needed. It's self evident that everyone committing these shootings has possessed firearms. People without firearms have shot no-one. :ugh:

And, about 80 MILLION legal gun owners haven’t shot anyone! Just about 1 billion Muslims haven’t committed terror attacks and 12 million illegal immigrants in the US are peaceable residents..To restate my point, stop leaping to conclude all gun owners are psychopathic killers, which a few here seem to believe.

GF

sfm818
26th Feb 2018, 00:34
sfm818,

Why is it appalling to ask for competence from those who sanctimoniously declare their job is “to protect and to serve” when they, in fact, act with cowardice or incompetence? We don’t have to prove our fitness to drive except every 10 years in my state and that’s only a 20/40 vision test.


GF

Say again? Not clear what point you are trying to make there.

I am advocating annual proficiency checks in addition to medical examinations. This should be a
minimum regulatory requirement for issue/renewal of a firearms licence. These are reasonable
measures and any opposition from existing gun owners should be flagged as non compliance and
dealt with accordingly.

Is there a unification of gun laws across the US. If the answer is no. Why? Is there a national
digital register of gun ownership. If the answer is no. Why? Given the frequency of ASW mass
shootings, the current system does not seem to be fit for purpose, and is in need of reform.

WingNut60
26th Feb 2018, 01:02
........I am advocating annual proficiency checks in addition to medical examinations. This should be a
minimum regulatory requirement for issue/renewal of a firearms licence.......


To what end? Do you really think that your sacred 12 months renewals will achieve anything?
12 months proficiency testing? Do the British have a problem with memory?
Even a stringent proficiency test for safe firearms usage is not that hard you know.
Unlike for armed forces, proficiency for a private user does not require that they be able to hit anything.

Other than creating a massive bureaucracy and another opportunity to queue for very indifferent governmental services (another hair shirt enjoyed by the British), the only benefactors from that process would be the AMA - an additional 300,000 medical exams per week day.

sfm818
26th Feb 2018, 01:29
Nothing sacred about it. Twelve months is a long enough interval before gun owners can potentially
slip through the net. I would go further and limit the amount of firearms that can be purchased to
one item each six months - after reviewing how much the sale of firearms can be taxed to the hilt.
Thank you for bringing the prohibitive costs of administration to our attention. That would be a user
pays issue. Look on the positive. You will have the comfort of knowing your right to bear arms has
generated revenue to help fund schools and hospitals. By the way. I’m not British.

WingNut60
26th Feb 2018, 01:50
....Twelve months is a long enough interval before gun owners can potentially slip through the net....

I have no idea what that means.
A person acquires a firearm (legal and licensed) and within that 12 month period he does what? Flips his lid and commits a massacre?
What, exactly, are you aiming to intercept? What is this net that he's going to slip through?

Not British?
Despises firearms. Thinks no one in their right mind would ever want to touch a firearm. Loves bureaucracy.
You're British alright. You just don't know it.

vapilot2004
26th Feb 2018, 02:01
The core of the mass shooting problem is easy access by madmen to assault style firearms with high capacity magazines. At the core of the widespread gun violence in the US lies the overabundance of handguns in the hands of criminals, druggies and drunks, wife abusers, and the emotionally unstable.

The twin genies of death and destruction have escaped their bottles, so we clearly need to round them up. Our nearest anglo cousins down under have managed to bring a national gun problem under control, so why can't we?

Politics, money, and a misinformed, distracted, and divided electorate is the answer. Instead of carping at each other, why not, in contrast to the dysfunctional political arena of debate, pursue a logical and reasonable conversation to see how close we can get to a general consensus? What say you fine folks?

I'm inclined to start a new thread and see where this might lead.

WingNut60
26th Feb 2018, 02:10
Agree VApilot.

The danger for American gun owners is that they need to be part of the solution and they just can't see that.

Continued belligerence on their part may end up with the problem being taken out of their hands.
Not by the government cause that's not going to happen, but by the upcoming generation of potential victims.

vapilot2004
26th Feb 2018, 02:35
The debate in the states appears to have two unwavering prongs. Gun culture and gun violence.

Gun Culture:
First, there is a misunderstanding of what American gun culture is. The people who own guns in the US are by and large law-abiding citizens. This is an accepted fact of reality. Rural and suburban America is steeped in the tradition of gun ownership, hunting, and marksmanship. An inbred level of respect generally exists regarding the care and responsible use of firearms. I should know, I am a product of a family that owns guns, primarily for sport, and we were taught at an early age of the importance of safety and respect for the power of a firearm and disciplined in a near-military manner (father is USN, retired) on the proper use.

There is an overly broad brush being used to characterize mass murderers and common criminals as being equal to law abiding gun owners. Many of the wielders of this brush have come by it through an understandable need to reduce gun violence and eliminate mass shootings. The problem comes when some of those same people with good intentions cast aspersions towards law abiding gun owners. They clearly do not like guns, possibly fearing even the mere sight of one, but the truly divisive sentiment happens when they apply their fears to the owners. Succinctly, they don't just hate guns, they hate the people that own guns. That kind of attitude is not going to bring anyone together in the debate over the need to reduce gun violence in the US.

Gun Violence:
On a typical American day, nearly 100 people die by gun. Of those, 60% are suicides. Every day and a half, seven children are killed by a gun. Over four dozen women are killed by their spouses with a gun each month, the presence of a gun increases a woman's chance of being killed fivefold in a domestic squabble. American citizens (323 million) own about half of the firearms in global civilian population of nearly 8 billion. Americans represent 1 in 20 people in the world, but our society hosts 1 in 3 mass shooting events. Gun homicide rates are 25 times higher in the US compared to other, more regulated wealthy countries around the globe.

Clearly there is a gun violence problem in the US. This should be an inarguable fact of reality. There is also the tradition of gun culture, where the great majority of gun owners are indeed non-violent, law-abiding citizens. Another obvious as the nose on one's face fact is too many criminals and madmen have access to firearms.

We need to set aside partisan differences and emotional arguments, both for and against action on gun regulation and talk about what can be done to rectify this problem. With the inarguably massive proliferation of guns in the US, we have gone a bit too far round the bend in having any meaningful effect with mere restrictions on new ownership, although that certainly needs addressing.

Wing Nut, I believe I have addressed part of your post above.

West Coast
26th Feb 2018, 05:45
The danger for American gun owners is that they need to be part of the solution and they just can't see that.

You’re really sucking off the CNN info teet. You speak as if the millions of legal gun owners are of one mind set. I know of no weapons owners that aren’t aware that one level or another that they'll be part of the conversation. Be that a voice in an advocacy group, one that is at peace banning entire classes of weapons (which they can’t define) but don’t take mine to the rest of us still looking at the options.

Don’t take the acrimony here or the ratings generated tripe on the telly as representative of the what weapons owners think.

WingNut60
26th Feb 2018, 06:23
You’re really sucking off the CNN info teet. You speak as if the millions of legal gun owners are of one mind set. I know of no weapons owners that aren’t aware that one level or another that they'll be part of the conversation. Be that a voice in an advocacy group, one that is at peace banning entire classes of weapons (which they can’t define) but don’t take mine to the rest of us still looking at the options.

Don’t take the acrimony here or the ratings generated tripe on the telly as representative of the what weapons owners think.

Have not knowingly watched any CNN for years.
That is my conclusion. Have a look at some of my previous posts.

I don't know what magnitude of atrocity is required to cause an American Dunblane or Port Arthur, but if they don't start leading the argument towards sensible reform then eventually an incident will occur that will swing opinion right against them.

And then they'll get stuck with a "John Howard" solution.

That's what I mean by "a danger to gun owners".

maggot
26th Feb 2018, 06:33
Here’s an Australian’s view on America and guns in yesterday’s NY Times,

Interesting letter. I'll add that there was actually substantial pushback to the gun buy back plan, just not from the 2 major parties. There were also some rather serious threats made, with John Howard famously wearing a bulletproof vest whilst addressing the public.
But yeah, Australians are baffled by the gun culture of the states, mostly by ignorance at a guess. I grew up rural with rifles & shotguns being a normal thing, respected etc. I don't see why a healthy gun culture needs to include semi/auto weapons. Change is ok.

West Coast
26th Feb 2018, 06:59
That’s all fine wingnut, just won’t let you shove gun owners into a convenient box that fits your lack of awareness narrative without comment.

D SQDRN 97th IOTC
26th Feb 2018, 07:17
Nope, you are so wrong that it is risible. From where I sit, the Tea Party was part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Maybe you should not pretend to know what you don't.
Not to mention your other errors of fact already addressed.
PS, as a veteran of the US Navy, your insults directed at the US military are not appreciated.
Stay in your own lane. Fix your own problems. Each back yard is mowed and tended by its owner. (Well, it is in a perfect world, in which none of us live).
Lonewolf. You post is long on bluster. Short on FACT.
So where am I wrong?
What errors of FACT?
How have I insulted your military.
You are ex Navy. Welll done. I am ex UK military.
What problems does the UK have with guns?

But let’s come back to my statements.....you don’t need semi auto assault rifles. You don’t need bump stocks. You do need a licensing system. You do need a vetting system.
Please explain to the father whose daughter was shot 9 times why you need semi auto assault rifles.

Gove N.T.
26th Feb 2018, 07:37
The debate in the states appears to have two unwavering prongs. Gun culture and gun violence.

Gun Culture:
First, there is a misunderstanding of what American gun culture is. The people who own guns in the US are by and large law-abiding citizens. This is an accepted fact of reality. Rural and suburban America is steeped in the tradition of gun ownership, hunting, and marksmanship. An inbred level of respect generally exists regarding the care and responsible use of firearms. I should know, I am a product of a family that owns guns, primarily for sport, and we were taught at an early age of the importance of safety and respect for the power of a firearm and disciplined in a near-military manner (father is USN, retired) on the proper use.

There is an overly broad brush being used to characterize mass murderers and common criminals as being equal to law abiding gun owners. Many of the wielders of this brush have come by it through an understandable need to reduce gun violence and eliminate mass shootings. The problem comes when some of those same people with good intentions cast aspersions towards law abiding gun owners. They clearly do not like guns, possibly fearing even the mere sight of one, but the truly divisive sentiment happens when they apply their fears to the owners. Succinctly, they don't just hate guns, they hate the people that own guns. That kind of attitude is not going to bring anyone together in the debate over the need to reduce gun violence in the US.

Gun Violence:
On a typical American day, nearly 100 people die by gun. Of those, 60% are suicides. Every day and a half, seven children are killed by a gun. Over four dozen women are killed by their spouses with a gun each month, the presence of a gun increases a woman's chance of being killed fivefold in a domestic squabble. American citizens (323 million) own about half of the firearms in global civilian population of nearly 8 billion. Americans represent 1 in 20 people in the world, but our society hosts 1 in 3 mass shooting events. Gun homicide rates are 25 times higher in the US compared to other, more regulated wealthy countries around the globe.

Clearly there is a gun violence problem in the US. This should be an inarguable fact of reality. There is also the tradition of gun culture, where the great majority of gun owners are indeed non-violent, law-abiding citizens. Another obvious as the nose on one's face fact is too many criminals and madmen have access to firearms.

We need to set aside partisan differences and emotional arguments, both for and against action on gun regulation and talk about what can be done to rectify this problem. With the inarguably massive proliferation of guns in the US, we have gone a bit too far round the bend in having any meaningful effect with mere restrictions on new ownership, although that certainly needs addressing.

Wing Nut, I believe I have addressed part of your post above.

My US family have guns, 1 more bought as a result of Sandy Hook. Not sure what the rationale was but it is his right.
So when I I read that the top man at the NRA says the right to carry is bestowed, not by man but by God, I have to question his sanity.
You’re right of course, the majority of gun owners are responsible but there are many who are not. Why the “good” don’t protect their status as “responsible” and lobby en masse for stronger background checks is beyond me.
The genie is out of the bottle. It will never change, killings will go on, empty words of sympathy and action from politicians (“I hear you”) and the next mass killing is just a day away.

maggot
26th Feb 2018, 07:44
Thoughts and prayers

West Coast
26th Feb 2018, 07:45
So when I I read that the top man at the NRA says the right to carry is bestowed, not by man but by God, I have to question his sanity.

It’s called playing to your base, nothing more, nothing less.

ShotOne
26th Feb 2018, 10:04
Would those demanding heavy restrictions. Or even an outright ban please lay out the rest of their plan. What about the 250 million (or so!) already out there? And what happens when just one of them is brought into a “gun-free”zone with evil intent?

le Pingouin
26th Feb 2018, 11:29
What happens now when just one is brought into a zone which isn't gun free with evil intent? Lots of people die.

RAT 5
26th Feb 2018, 11:44
Interesting to hear the difference in the states regs. Some more free & easy than others. An Osama bin Laden look alike walks into a free rolling state gun shop. He has a US passport, Wants to buy an AK47 or similar. There it is, on the rack, priced up. Would anyone sell it to him? He has the right, after all.

sfm818
26th Feb 2018, 12:51
#82
Back with you. It was getting late this end (GMT+1) Not sure which time zone you live in. Sounds
like 1791. The relevance of health/proficiency checks on gun owners at 12 month intervals is to add
a layer of protection where, although a person may not be aware they have an underlying condition,
it can be diagnosed in a controlled environment - before deterioration affects their competence to
handle a firearm. I’ve already referenced three potential stress factors. Work. Relationships. Health.

I will try another approach to explain this for you wingNut. A hypothetical situation of course. In
the space of not 12, but 6 months, your personal circumstances change dramatically. It all started
with a gathering of family and friends on New Years Eve. Cousin Waylon and the boys were out in
the backyard, target shooting, and you were in the kitchen with Daisy Duke. His wife. Your cousin.

With inhibitions dampened and judgement clouded by alcohol you embraced Daisy Duke to herald in
the new year - except that embrace lasted it a little too long - a line had been crossed. Within the
space of 3 months this became a source of tension until your wife left you to live with another man.

But the worst was yet to come. Adapting to life as a single man, holding down a stressful job, and
coming home to an empty house (all in the space of 3 months) was a huge pressure. Then came
the fateful day you tried to drive home from the bowling club after consuming too much alcohol.
You were caught, your vehicle impounded, and your driving licence suspended. There’s not much
point riding the bus into work when your occupation and only income rests on driving a tow truck.

After a succession of part-time jobs working as an unskilled manual labourer, you settle on trimming
hedges to pay the bills. It is only 6 months down the line but that New Years indiscretion is a distant
memory. It’s summer time and the living is easy. Then one day your boss, Rodrigo, drops you off at
your next job. Working on a high end private property. You’re too busy admiring the gun metal grey
muscle car in the driveway to notice at first the couple enjoying themselves on the tennis court. You
continue trimming the hedges. The sun is beating down, and it’s thirsty work. The adorable couple
finish their match and chill by the pool with iced drinks when you notice the woman seems familiar.
It’s the EX -WIFE!

Suddenly, the sun beating down starts to burn like a son of a bitch, and you forgot your MAGA hat.

The handsome couple finish their iced drinks, take a quick plunge in the swimming pool, then make
their way into the main house. There’s no need for either of them to acknowledge your presence -
they gave their instructions to your boss. Rodrigo. It’s lunchtime, and you hear sounds of laughter
from the kitchen, then all goes quiet. You climb higher up the ladder to see what’s what and find
the bedroom curtains have been drawn. Meanwhile. The sun is beating down. If you don’t trim these
hedges before Rodrigo returns, you’ll be out of a job. It’s hard to concentrate when your're outside,
roasting under the sun, and some rich guy is inside, giving your ex-wife a damned good seeing to.

That was the worst day of your life and when Rodrigo dropped you back at the motel you decided to
settle the score with your ex-wife. Dehydration & sunstroke are a poor combination but you thought
you were still in control when you went back to the rich guys property carrying a loaded gun. That
was mid-summer, and now you’re facing years of lock down in a pound-you-in-the-ass federal prison.

-------------------------


If the above sketch sounds implausible. It is not. The reality is worse. Cases of gun owners taking
revenge on work colleagues, former partners, family members, even their own children, are Legion.

Much can happen in 6 months. There's a higher probability of preventing such incidents if a trained
professional has the opportunity to assess the gun owner in person, at least once per year.

This position, introducing annual assessments, is based on the position being taken by the NRA in
regard to Red flags. A rising tide floats all boats and since Sandy Hook there has been a rising tide
of disbelief at the NRA response after each mass shooting. It does not stand up to examination
when La Pierre complains about government interference. Which is the greater threat to public safety.
Regulation, or resisting reasonable efforts to regulate gun sales. Even assault weapons.

What is the worst that could happen, apart from children being gunned down in their classrooms
because the gun lobby obstructs any attempt to avoid such massacres from being repeated. The
NRA is compounding the problem if their only solution is more firearms in the school environment.

Someone offered a statistic. 10% of gun crimes committed with a legally purchased firearm. We’re
focusing on the gun violence caused by firearms which were legally purchased. If the figure of 90%
related to illegal weapons is even halfway accurate, then America is in the grip of a major epidemic.

I would go further than a national digital register and restricting gun sales to one firearm per person
every 6 months, and assessing gun owners at least once per year.

Cultural influence

Commission an inquiry into every aspect of gun culture. Start with the entertainments industry and
establish guidelines to filter out portrayals of gun violence in film, television, and computer games.

Corporate liability

Pass legislation to deter gun manufacturers from using aggressive marketing to sell their products.
Make that a criminal offence. Hold executives personally responsible for their actions, then revoke
their man card and impose financial penalties that would make the US firearms industry fear the
consequences of pushing assault weapons like drugs into the hands of addicts.

Subversive elements

There can be no more subversive element in an advanced society than a faction which promotes an
agenda of armed resistance. In recent times the NRA have been pushing up against the boundaries
of rightful gun ownership, and facilitating domestic terrorism.

.

clareprop
26th Feb 2018, 13:46
It is pretty apparent that America will never give up the gun. The solution is obvious. More guns. If every child is given firearms training for hand guns from say 10 years old with a refresher at 12 years old to include semi automatic weapons, the problem goes away. The kids are sharp, quick witted with excellent reactions and they're going to be first on the scene. A hand gun should be seen no differently to a fountain pen for a kid at school. All are armed (with access to a semi auto for those who have been trained) and can deal instantly with any problem as it arises.

WingNut60
26th Feb 2018, 13:58
Approx. 600 women killed with firearms in the US per year in "domestic violence" situations.
A further 600 (approx.) were killed without aid of firearms.
Population - 350 odd million?

A total of 113 women were killed by men in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2016 — and 90 per cent of these victims were murdered by someone they knew, according to the latest Femicide Census report.

Seventy-eight of the women were murdered by their current or former intimate partner, with three quarters (77 per cent) of those killed by their ex-partner or ex-spouse taking place within the first year that followed the separation. Three quarters (75 per cent) of all femicides took place in the woman’s own home.Population approx. 65 million.
And those 113 predominantly without use of firearms.

Sounds like ALL British males need annual screening for mental stability.

arketip
26th Feb 2018, 14:35
Approx. 600 women killed with firearms in the US per year in "domestic violence" situations.
A further 600 (approx.) were killed without aid of firearms.
Population - 350 odd million?

Population approx. 65 million.
And those 113 predominantly without use of firearms.

Sounds like ALL British males need annual screening for mental stability.

Sounds like the British are still killing half of what their American counterpart do;)

TWT
26th Feb 2018, 15:08
The numbers of women murdered in domestic violence incidents by men worldwide is shocking and shameful.

A lot of the incidents are extremely violent, such as pouring fuel on them and setting them on fire :suspect:

WingNut60
26th Feb 2018, 15:22
Sounds like the British are still killing half of what their American counterpart do;)

Correct, but annual medical assessment, besides being completely impractical, is not going to change either the US or UK figures by any noticeable value.

That's why I have asked, twice now, what outcome is anticipated following implementation of annual medical assessment.

It seems that the UK solution is to initiate schemes that are such a pain in the butt that prospective, legitimate firearms users will simply give up trying.
And the justification for that approach is "it's what we did".

There are numerous, practical steps that could be taken to improve the situation in the US but the totalitarian solutions put forth by the UK contributors are never going to float in the US.

WingNut60
26th Feb 2018, 15:34
The numbers of women murdered in domestic violence incidents by men worldwide is shocking and shameful.

A lot of the incidents are extremely violent, such as pouring fuel on them and setting them on fire :suspect:

The majority of victims murdered in domestic violence incidents in Australia are male.
The most common methods of committing the murder is by stabbing (34%) with a further 30% beaten to death.

Citing : Australian Institute of Criminology Cussen T & Bryant W. 2015. Domestic/family homicide in Australia. Research in practice No. 38. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. https://aic.gov.au/publications/rip/rip38

PDR1
26th Feb 2018, 16:56
The consititution may guarantee the righ to bare arms, but is there any part of it that guarantees the right to buy/get ammunition?

PDR

ShotOne
26th Feb 2018, 17:49
The majority of UK murder victims are male, by two to one. Not that I can see that bringing in gender politics links to the thread, though

Lonewolf_50
26th Feb 2018, 18:37
You are ex Navy. Welll done. I am ex UK military. Fine. Howdy. Now, tell me, why did you think that dragging the military into this conversation was relevant? The USA military serve around the world to protect its citizens from terrorists.
And for what? So your children can be shot up in schools? I found that insulting.
What problems does the UK have with guns? I guess Dunblane never happened.
you don’t need semi auto assault rifles. You don't get to tell a free citizen what they need. That's not your place. Please tell me what an assault rifle is, while you are at it. I've had a Ruger Mini-14 (single shot) since about 1980. Last thing I shot with it was a deer.
You don’t need bump stocks. Did you bother to read my posts? Apparently not. I not only don't have one, I am against them and I believe that they are a loophole that needs closing.
You do need a licensing system. No, you all need one, so you have one.
You do need a vetting system. You appear to be ignorant of the fact that all fifty states and the federal government have volumes of gun laws. Loads of them. The last rifle I purchased was about 8 years ago. Before I could pick it up and take it home, the guy who has the federal firearms license who sold it to me, from this gun store, had me fill out the usual forms/background check and check my ID to make sure it was me.
In other words, you once again really don't know how this works over here.
Beyond that, when I lived in California, I could not buy a pistol I had ordered until a "cooling off period." Not sure if that law is still on the books, as I have not lived in CA for over 20 years. I thought that law made sense, given the context of where I lived, but I was not a fan of it.
Your appeal to emotion will remain lying where it lies: in the gutter. I'm not the one who shot anyone in Parkdale. I don't have to answer for that crime.

PDR1
26th Feb 2018, 19:18
I guess Dunblane never happened.


The thing is that when we had the Hungerford mass shooting we decided to treat it as an anomaly - a one-ff event. But when we had Dunblane nearly a decade later we recognised it wasn't, so we did something about it.

You have these shootings every other day - in fact you seem to consider them as little more than population control. So either you (American society) have completely lost touch with your sense of proportion or you actually do regard dozens of dead kids as an enjoyable hobby for dull week day afternoon. I used to think it was the former, but frankly I'm, no longer sure.

I accept the "guns don't kill people" thing, and if I saw my son beating another boy with a stick I wouldn't blame the stick. But I would still take it away from him.

PDR

Pali
26th Feb 2018, 19:27
Interesting thread.

As far I know Swiss men have military machine guns at home and I wonder why I don't hear a thing about mass shootings in this country.

What is the difference?

Lonewolf_50
26th Feb 2018, 19:32
You have these shootings every other day - That is a lie. School Shootings are an anomaly. They are an outlier that get a lot of attention because, quite frankly, they defy rational behavior.


The garden variety homicide stats, as has been explained over and over again, have according to the FBI been dropping a bit over the last decade.


We still live in a place where there are a lot of criminals. Within 400 yards of my front door in a fairly decent neighborhood, there have been in the past few years
(1) one gang hit (apparently, one of my neighbors was trying to slide into the drug trade and the local crooks visited his house one night. Three bullets in him ... and oddly, he did not die. That sure helped the local LE figure out what was behind all of that. Note: His wife and kids, hiding in the bedroom closet, were unharmed). Originally reported in the news as a "home invasion" I found out more details from a few law enforcement sorts with whom I do various hobbies.
(2) A man killing himself and his ex wife. (That one was less than a seven iron shot from my front door).
(3) A fire chief's wife killing him, and then herself. Their oldest son went to junior high school with my daughter. The two kids were taken in by their grandparents, so they changed school districts, and she never saw them again.

sfm818
26th Feb 2018, 20:00
A lot of stats flying around here. Don’t know about Brits homicide rates but agree they’re volatile.
Especially with a few drinks inside them. One stat that is hard to believe. Are there on average
20,000 gun related suicides each year across the US? That’s an extraordinary figure.

Coming back to NRA & Profiling. Their narrative is always the same. Home invasion. Home defence.
Fair enough. Keep pushing for a gun in the house to protect your family. How come we never hear
the NRA pushing for smart technology in guns to prevent children getting killed by negligent discharge.

arketip
26th Feb 2018, 20:04
Interesting thread.

As far I know Swiss men have military machine guns at home and I wonder why I don't hear a thing about mass shootings in this country.

What is the difference?

Easy, as the old saying goes:

"Guns don't kill people, Americans do"

;)

Lonewolf_50
26th Feb 2018, 20:13
How come we never hear the NRA pushing for smart technology in guns to prevent children getting killed by negligent discharge. Are you aware that the NRA runs firearms safety classes? (https://firearmtraining.nra.org/) All you had to do was go to their web site. No paywall.
(Full disclosure: I attended a hunter safety course in 1986. Good stuff).

This isn't a hardware issue, it's a wetware issue. The best way to keep kids from getting to a loaded gun and having an accident (and for that matter, any adult) doesn't need any fancy tools: it takes a bit of education, and the right attitude.

sfm818
26th Feb 2018, 20:42
What is the lower age limit for these safety classes. Your assurance that a bit of education and the
right attitude will be no consolation for parents who lose a five year old.

PDR1
26th Feb 2018, 20:49
That is a lie. School Shootings are an anomaly. They are an outlier that get a lot of attention because, quite frankly, they defy rational behavior.


An outlier? Who are you trying to kid!

How many mass-shooting incidents do you have per year in the USA? How many does any other country that has a nominally functional society have? The anomaly isn't the shootings - the anomaly is a country that regards it as a price worth paying. Is it that the sight of all those dead kids saves you spending money on viagra, or what?

PDR

Sallyann1234
26th Feb 2018, 21:31
What's with all the hunting, anyway?
You get pleasure out of killing wild animals with a high powered rifle and telescopic sights.
Not exactly a fair fight is it. :ugh:

Rosevidney1
26th Feb 2018, 22:47
Long bows, compounds and crossbows seem fairer? Not to me.

Turbine D
26th Feb 2018, 23:39
Lonewolf,
Are you aware that the NRA runs firearms safety classes? All you had to do was go to their web site. No paywall.
(Full disclosure: I attended a hunter safety course in 1986. Good stuff).
I agree, in 1986, 32 years ago, that was the main focus of the NRA, safety. But, now we are in 2018. Today, the main focus of the NRA under Wayne LaPierre has changed. It is now to sell more guns to whomever will buy them, the NRA is the "Front Organization" for the gun manufacturers. Even Bill Ruger, when he was alive, saw the transition happening and disagreed with the direction the NRA was going. Gun safety is no longer in the forefront as you suggest....

ricardian
26th Feb 2018, 23:45
Maybe restrict the purchase & ownership of weapons to those available at the time that the 2nd Amendment became law?

West Coast
27th Feb 2018, 00:22
You get pleasure out of killing wild animals with a high powered rifle and telescopic sights.

Less suffering by the animal as opposed to other less accurate means. Next.

Btw, are you a vegetarian?

West Coast
27th Feb 2018, 00:24
Today, the main focus of the NRA under Wayne LaPierre has changed.

Can you provide evidence of that beyond simply your opinion?

maggot
27th Feb 2018, 00:37
You don't get to tell a free citizen what they need. That's not your place.

Sure about that? That's the price of a civiliZed society, as a group you decide whether your 'god given gun rights' are worth the cost of dead school children etc. Choose wisely, the alternative is Lord of the flies.

maggot
27th Feb 2018, 00:40
What's with all the hunting, anyway?
You get pleasure out of killing wild animals with a high powered rifle and telescopic sights.
Not exactly a fair fight is it. :ugh:

Nothing wrong with it! I don't but respectful hunting is a worthy pursuit IMO. I reckon that means single shot bolt action rifle, well trained shooter going for a clean kill then butchering and eating the carcass.
Rare/endangered animals is another thing all together...

Highway1
27th Feb 2018, 01:22
What's with all the hunting, anyway?
You get pleasure out of killing wild animals with a high powered rifle and telescopic sights.
Not exactly a fair fight is it. :ugh:


You would prefer a bullfight?. Anyway shooting in the brain with a bolt gun or slitting its throat isn't exactly fair either.

galaxy flyer
27th Feb 2018, 01:52
Civilized society already says I, nor anyone other member, may commit violent crimes against other members of said society under pain of the judicial system, regardless of the weapons thus employed. As long as I, and other members abide by those laws, there’s no need to tell me what choices I make in life—with the legal fruits of my labor. My firearms are used in compliance with the law, I’m not legally or morally responsible for the acts of others. Civil society, indeed.

BTW, few are the single shot bolt actions, Mauser, Winchester or Blaser are all repeaters with 3-5 rounds in the magazine.

GF

2Bad2Sad
27th Feb 2018, 03:21
Here we go again another gun issue.
Many comments here, some good some not so good.
First of as USA citizen lets get something straight.
We have the right to own guns and that can never be changed.
Sorry if ones cannot understand this and gave up gun ownership even so called military style under force from your government.
We do not care if they ban bump stocks as its a useless device, waste ammo, only an idiot would want this.
Look at the real issue here, how did this kid was allowed to but this weapon.
Because long guns are allowed under 21, that should be changed.
Then look at the threats he made, many dropped the ball investigating this.
Mentaly ill people should not own guns period.
Guns kill people the same as that spoon you ate with made you fat!

Lonewolf_50
27th Feb 2018, 03:24
Sure about that? Yes I am sure, and the ACLU is on my side about that. So is HIPPA. To preserve the freedoms of our citizens is why the Bill of Rights exists as the first ten amendments to the constitution. All ten of those amendment were necessary or the attempt to form a new government dies in its tracks, as the Articles of Confederation were dying. I know this because I bothered to study the history of how the Constitution through a tortuous process got agreed ... and even then it had some known defects (3/5ths rule, anyone?) that the founders put a mechanism in to hopefully able to address later. Maybe.

I had a long and difficult discussion with a senior cop tonight in trying to understand his frustration with the system. His frustrations are many.

Nut jobs like that (censored) shooting up Parkdale are protected from at least three different levels. The result is that there isn't a nut job data base since there is nowhere to report it to, and the doctors who have the best data can't report to anywhere/nowhere in the first place.
1) doctor client privilege/privacy
2) you can't report a guy or gal arrested and sent to a medical evaluation. ACLU/HIPPA. Thus that report (of an arrest)can't get into a local/state data base, form which maybe the federal data base may or may not get a plug in. Convictions are a different matter.
3) The above exists as a protection for Normal Citizens. It does so in part is to protect people from family members who want to put them away for wrong reasons, as well as for right reasons. Two edged sword, that, but its intent is to protect the citizen.
4) The criminal behavior data base is fed by apparently 32 of 50 states. It isn't free. It costs money to contribute to it, though your PD gets to benefit from it if it contributes. That means that the small towns may not feed it, unless they get a state funding grant. Larger cities tend to be able to afford it. I am not sure why there are that many states not playing. Texas does contribute, based on my cop friends experience. He is glad we do, since it has helped him solve multiple homicides.
5) costs about 25K per year or so, to be plugged into the data base. For a medium or larger city, no worries. For a small town or municipality, a serious budget question for their info being fed to everyone else ... for what? Unknown benefit. Local LE takes care of local problems, as that's about all they can afford. He also noted that small towns and locales have crap for training budgets.
6) Background checks vary in depth. That part of it I had the hardest time with today in trying to grasp his many frustrations. A lot has to do with why any of your information is in the system, and we also go to ACLU (and other civil rights groups) acting to protect the citizen from overbearing government. That's A Good Thing (even if the ACLU sometimes annoys me, I get why they do what they do). And it is in accord with fundamental American political thought, as I discussed elsewhere: the citizen is to be protected from the government. That single, fundamental principle underwrites a great deal in our constitution, its articles and its amendments. You Don't Get It. Not a surprise, since you didn't grow up immersed in this system.

Bottom Line: In order to protect the freedoms of our citizens, there are a variety of things LE does not have access to for a whole host of reasons.
That's the price of a civiliZed society,
No, it isn't. I grew up in this civilized society. I know how it works, and how it's supposed to work. (Heh, there's a delta there ...)
Your ignorance-based assertion that you have an easy fix ignores our political reality. I utterly reject your premise that I or any other citizen must be treated like a nut job because nut jobs exist. (And the surely do). That is what your draconian view (the price being to give up freedoms and rights) advocates for. Sorry, no sale mister. Go back to my post about separate political reality.

Ask anyone about this simple axiom of American life: the rich can afford a better lawyer, so they can get away with more than the rest of us. That's part of the separate reality problem that most people can understand easily. But there are layers and layers of it that get a lot more nuanced. (What, you cousin's the sheriff? Ticket torn up, summons not issued ...)

"Easy button" solutions are dead in the water, and frequently are a case of bad policy following bad precedent. Chasing outliers to solve a systemic problem is Utter Crap from a systems perspective. W Edwards Deming called it tampering, wasteful, and a guaranteed way to make the wrong policy decision.

2Bad2Sad
27th Feb 2018, 03:49
Seems Delta airlines pulling the discounts from NRA members is backfiring now.
Tax cuts will be canceled soon for airline according state sources in Georgia.
Simplisafe home security did the same not endorsing NRA, just cancelled account with them.
United airlines same I would never buy a ticket on them any longer.
2 sides to this watch the cards fall as they may.

megan
27th Feb 2018, 05:25
I'd suggest Nth. Korea and Iran employ the NRA as their PR reps. Every nation should be entitled to have a nuke to protect their citizens. What place does an outsider have in telling a nation what defence options it may exercise?Tax cuts will be canceled soon for airline according state sources in GeorgiaSo they want to pay more for their tickets? Costs always get passed on, to guess who?

West Coast
27th Feb 2018, 06:34
Costs always get passed on, to guess who?

And budget conscious travelers will look elsewhere if that happens.

sfm818
27th Feb 2018, 07:23
...there isn't a nut job data base...

Which is unfortunate because the definition of mental instability is a grown man loitering outside a
school perimeter carrying an assault weapon for no other purpose than to claim his constitutional
right. I won’t post links to the relevant video because it was nothing more than a staged NRA stunt,
but not harmless. A person with issues has NO business standing in line of sight of school buildings.

Why was this man not reported to the authorities? Would law enforcement arriving to investigate be
able to distinguish a middle aged man, scruffy in appearance, with an assault weapon slung over his
shoulder, as a potential threat, or harmless. Obviously the police were notified in advance otherwise
nobody, not even someone with a single issue agenda, would risk being mistaken for a terrorist.

The NRA like to project an image of stability. The business suit, crisp white shirt and Washington tie.
But under the surface, when the lights and cameras are switched off, a darker side of the NRA base
crawls out from under it’s rock, and they’re not dressed like businessmen but do fit the profile of the
type of threatening individual who should be on a watch list and their details held on a data base.

RAT 5
27th Feb 2018, 13:10
There are some excellent posts and comments from the sensible and law abiding 'professional' gun owners of NRA. As with many things, it's not the regular sensible guy who is a problem, it is the 0.00001% that screw it up for the rest of us, no matter what it is. (just think how the airline 100ml liquid rules came about) That generates the emotional reaction because it was perceived as an attack on the innocent. Quite rightly.

Drinking: there are many who like the tipple, and when at parties, dinners etc, take sensible precautions. We get a bus. taxi, chauffeur friend etc. We do not drink drive. We like to imbibe and take steps to avoid problems to others. What we hate are the drunken louts on the streets every weekend, littering the parks, spray painting the gutters with vomit, being totally obnoxious to passers-by. Solution for many? Hammer drinking
We, as sensible drinkers, come out in strong condemnation of the louts. We do not want any association with them. We too would lock em up in the drunk tank every weekend, and boot camp them once a month. And we say so publicly. We stand up and promote sensible drinking, and are seen to be on the side of society.

The vast huge majority of NRA are similar. They too should want the nutters out of their pack. They do not want any association made between these gun-owning waco's and their professional association. By adopting the correct campaign the NRA could, perhaps, strengthen its hand by demonstrating strong and imaginative leadership. Could it be that the realistic gun control lobby and many in NRA might want much of the same thing? If they talk openly and together they might be surprised.

It might sound over simplified to some, certainly not standard USA, but it's a thought.

It is very easy to become entrenched in an opinion; then difficult to acknowledge the glimmer of a valid point form the other side.

As has been said; the mind is a wonderful thing, but like a parachute, it works better when it's open.

ShotOne
27th Feb 2018, 13:22
You're certainly right about the emotion, Rat. Several have suggested here that support for the NRA more or less equates to being a child-killer. Come on! I live in U.K. so don't have a cabinet full of guns. The majority of murders here are committed with knives. How do the knife-owners here feel about assuming the blame for those murders?

Turbine D
27th Feb 2018, 15:31
WC,
Can you provide evidence of that beyond simply your opinion?
From the man himself, Wayne LaPierre:
Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s executive vice president, addressed a packed ballroom at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday morning, where he staked out a terrifying new position for his pro-gun rights group: The NRA, LaPierre insisted, is essentially a police force.

“We’re one of the largest law enforcement organizations in the United States if you look at our membership. And we’re proud of that,” LaPierre told CPAC attendees, after a rambling preamble about the greatness of guns.
NRA lobbyist Chris Cox explained the organization’s position:

“The federal government has no business maintaining a database or a registration of Americans who are exercising a constitutional right. Just like they have no right and no authority to maintain a database of all Methodists, all Baptists, all people of different religious or ethnic backgrounds.”

The message on safety & training? There wasn't one...

Good enough for you?

galaxy flyer
27th Feb 2018, 16:30
Ya want truth, you can’t handle the truth. Northeastern is in BOS, not an NRA stronghold.

Schools are safer than they were in the 90s, and school shootings are not more common than they used to be, researchers say - News @ Northeastern (http://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02/schools-are-still-one-of-the-safest-places-for-children-researcher-says/)

West Coast
27th Feb 2018, 17:10
That’s weak TD, I was hoping for something along the lines of a mission statement change, not a fire and brimstone speech. A major change in the direction of an organization, any organization will have a paper trail following it. Go find it if you want to make your point.

megan
27th Feb 2018, 17:37
The federal government has no business maintaining a database or a registration of Americans who are exercising a constitutional rightWhy not? Other country's do just that, registration, and it should be no problem to a responsible gun owner. Look up the Swiss requirements, registration is required, but no one is prevented from gun ownership if they tick the required boxes. My "Swiss" son has high powered rifle and handgun - Glock I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland

Turbine D
27th Feb 2018, 18:47
WC,
That’s weak TD, I was hoping for something along the lines of a mission statement change, not a fire and brimstone speech. A major change in the direction of an organization, any organization will have a paper trail following it. Go find it if you want to make your point.
And here I thought you were an expert on the trappings of the NRA, apparently not. The NRA isn't just any organization it is a political organization and it doesn't have a mission statement other than the original one that dealt with gun safety and training which they bring up from time to time when the going gets tough. Why would they want to be tied down to a mission statement as a political organization? What they do have are the ever-changing political strategies to combat the perceived thought that their interpretation of 2nd Amendment could be challenged and lost. Currently they are burning the midnight oil to develop a new strategy to deal with the aftermath of Parkland.

So while you wait for the new NRA political strategy to emerge, you ought to do some research about the NRA other than what your membership propaganda might say. Here is a good place for you to gain additional insight:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a445384.pdf

West Coast
27th Feb 2018, 19:16
You’re offering opinion TD. You’re entitled to that but it doesn’t make it fact.

That a NRA spokesman offers a factually inaccurate statement about being a law enforcement agency shouldn’t be your eureka moment. Not sure who’s farther out there, him for saying it, or you for seizing on it as evidence of what the NRA is or isn’t.

Btw, I’m not a NRA member. Rather, a concerned, responsible, well trained gun owner.

FakePilot
27th Feb 2018, 19:28
First, I'm so sick of dead children. I think the NRA could have helped lead the way but they're idiots. What they say makes sense to them but no one else. They don't get that. You need to talk in a way your target audience can understand. They've forfeited their chance to prevent these killings.

There's ways to fix this and prevent crazies from buying guns, and get the guns locked up when somebody shows signs. But nobody wants to give up their pet political issue.
It's ok to blame the NRA as long as you blame the gun grabbers at the same time, cause they work together.

vapilot2004
27th Feb 2018, 21:01
For people that claim knives are equally dangerous as guns, specifically an AR-15, a good friend of mine has a way of short circuiting such a silly debate into a quick resolution.

How? He challenges such people to a duel. He asks them to bring their knife, while he brings an AR-15. Or if knives are not the thing, he suggests trying the same duel with a handgun vs an AR-15.

West Coast
27th Feb 2018, 21:05
Depends on the venue Vapa. At 50 yards your friend would be correct, while in physical contact, I’ll take a knife over an AR.

vapilot2004
27th Feb 2018, 21:07
While your choice sounds reasonable, I believe duels are traditionally done at so many paces.

Also, I'm just guessing, but I'm fairly sure the victims of the school shooting were not even within an arm's length of the killer with his legally purchased, quasi-military grade weapon.

PDR1
27th Feb 2018, 21:16
For people that claim knives are equally dangerous as guns, specifically an AR-15, a good friend of mine has a way of short circuiting such a silly debate into a quick resolution.

Easy - just ask how many successful massed drive-by knifings they can name...

PDR

West Coast
27th Feb 2018, 21:18
Vapa
We’re talking about your friends comparison, not the specifics of the school shooting. You should do him a favor and correct him about close quarters combat. I’m sure he’ll thank you.

vapilot2004
27th Feb 2018, 21:26
Good one, PDR1. :ok:

My friend grew up in Mexico City, so I'm pretty sure he knows how to take care of himself, but I'll be sure to pass it along.

Either way, I believe the classic duel, of which my friend was referring to, does not include close quarters combat techniques and his point, rather proudly and unwaveringly, stands.

The conversation brings forth the question, regarding lethality and firepower - where is that (reasonable) line in the sand?

West Coast
27th Feb 2018, 21:33
What sure what a “classic duel” is, but I proven my point that there’s tools appropriate to each task.

Turbine D
27th Feb 2018, 21:40
WC,
That a NRA spokesman offers a factually inaccurate statement about being a law enforcement agency shouldn’t be your eureka moment. Not sure who’s farther out there, him for saying it, or you for seizing on it as evidence of what the NRA is or isn’t.
Cm'on man! You gotta get real here. He isn't just some spokesman, He is the point man of the organization and has been for quite sometime, Wayne La Pierre is his name. And what he said he meant, it wasn't a slip of the tongue and it wasn't inaccurate in his mind, maybe yours.

Where is your evidence his statement was inaccurate or is that just your opinion?

vapilot2004
27th Feb 2018, 21:42
What sure what a “classic duel” is, but I proven my point that there’s tools appropriate to each task.

One thing we should have no trouble agreeing upon, there's a tool in the Oval Office.

West Coast
27th Feb 2018, 22:01
Cm'on man! You gotta get real here. He isn't just some spokesman, He is the point man of the organization and has been for quite sometime, Wayne La Pierre is his name. And what he said he meant, it wasn't a slip of the tongue and it wasn't inaccurate in his mind, maybe yours.

If you’re offering credibility to his statement about being a law enforcement entity, what laws do they enforce or what other police duties do they attend to?

If anything I’d hold up his statement as an indication that not all his dogs are barking, not as evidence that the NRA has morphed into a differing role as you’ve tried to paint it.

oicur12.again
27th Feb 2018, 22:04
“Actual criminology says that gun ownership by law-abiding Americans reduces crime”

Are you sure about that? Can you, or any of the pro gun folk on here, provide evidence that there is no link between the number of gun owners and the gun homicide rate in city, county or state?


“homicide is the leading cause of murder. (Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas)”

Care to provide a video or audio link to this comment?

West Coast
27th Feb 2018, 22:04
One thing we should have no trouble agreeing upon, there's a tool in the Oval Office.

A not so stealthy retreat from the specifics of gun v knife discussion, but we've belabored the point far enough so fair enough.

TWT
27th Feb 2018, 22:22
“homicide is the leading cause of murder. (Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas)”

Care to provide a video or audio link to this comment?She actually says " Homicide is the leading cause of death "

( as opposed to cancer, old age etc... )

At 00:53 here :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgJ4Mz3_Hj0

Highway1
27th Feb 2018, 22:35
“Actual criminology says that gun ownership by law-abiding Americans reduces crime”

Are you sure about that? Can you, or any of the pro gun folk on here, provide evidence that there is no link between the number of gun owners and the gun homicide rate in city, county or state?


Not sure if it is evidence of anything but..

https://bradcrofford.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/12086849_10153580517211638_1714805457_n.jpg

Sallyann1234
27th Feb 2018, 22:35
Comparison of guns with knives is just plain stupid.

Every home has a genuine need for knives, in the kitchen.
No home needs a gun, in any room.

oicur12.again
27th Feb 2018, 22:45
“She actually says " Homicide is the leading cause of death "”

Correct. She did not say that homicide is the leading cause of murder as Lonewolf suggested.


Highway 1, that’s a great chart, someone went to a lot of effort to provide that. Of course it is totally inadmissible for several reasons however can you please provide the original link, I suspect I know where it came from.

vapilot2004
27th Feb 2018, 22:48
Not sure if it is evidence of anything but..

https://bradcrofford.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/12086849_10153580517211638_1714805457_n.jpg

Evidence, '/'evədəns/, Noun
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Your chart might prove something if Chicago had something surrounding it, something we like to refer to as a border that requires some kind of inspection upon crossing.

Turns out fully stocked gun stores are within a few minute's drive of the city limits. If only all the criminals had access to something called a "car" or perhaps even a "truck", both generally known as conveyances that could carry such a person to their intended destination, be it a gun store, gun show, Trump rally, or the weekly meeting of the dipshit dumbass club.

Donnie Q Criminal thinks, "Gee whillikers, gosh darn it, I'd love to go on a shooting spree today, or maybe go rob the local liquor store downtown, since I'm all out of rotgut, but shoots and dad-blamit, this entire blasted city of big shoulders don't have no gun stores no more. F*ck you Obama and your liberal friends!"

Your chart indicates one thing, and one thing only; for gun control to work, we need tough, national laws.

vapilot2004
27th Feb 2018, 22:55
SFM818, your posts would be far more readable if you could kindly avoid hitting the "return" key on your keyboard, and allow PPruNe to format it for you.

A not so stealthy retreat from the specifics of gun v knife discussion, but we've belabored the point far enough so fair enough.


Actually, you dodged the original premise.

West Coast
27th Feb 2018, 22:57
Far from it, at certain distances and circumstances, a firearm is the preferred weapon. Not always however.

TWT
27th Feb 2018, 22:59
Highway 1, that’s a great chart, someone went to a lot of effort to provide that. Of course it is totally inadmissible for several reasons however can you please provide the original link, I suspect I know where it came from.
oicur12.again , that chart was included in this article :

https://bradcrofford.wordpress.com/2015/10/05/is-houstons-homicide-rate-really-lower-than-chicagos-because-of-gun-laws/

vapilot2004
27th Feb 2018, 23:29
TWT, that website is not the source, but instead, a blog that focuses on statistical analysis. One of the first things the guy dismissed as complete BS is the murder rate. Turns out the chart's original authors didn't just fiddle, fudge or jigger the data, they out and out lied.

Related analysis by the same gent ranked the US in gun violence. Turns out we lost the top spot to those great bastions of democracy and freedom, Brazil, India, Nigeria, Mexico, Democratic Republic of Congo, South Africa, and Venezuela.

This is why the GOP and NRA are against (and have prevented) even the mere study the problem, let alone doing something about it, because when we honestly run the numbers, their arguments based on statistics fall away as completely specious.

Lonewolf_50
27th Feb 2018, 23:38
As has been said; the mind is a wonderful thing, but like a parachute, it works better when it's open. That's rich, coming from you, who opened this thread with your mind already made up.
I have seen no evidence that you have an open mind on this topic. You have an attitude and have presented the position (dishonestly) that there is something to debate with you in the first place. The coded terms are in the last sentence of your opening post. Digested oats.

Lonewolf_50
27th Feb 2018, 23:39
She actually says " Homicide is the leading cause of death " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgJ4Mz3_Hj0
She's also wrong about that. But thanks for the correction. My source misquoted her.
As to the bemoaning the lack of a nut job data base ... Which is unfortunate because the definition of mental instability It is a feature, or even a side effect, of our system and our laws on privacy, and the rights of citizens.
Lonewolf,
I agree, in 1986, 32 years ago, that was the main focus of the NRA, safety. But, now we are in 2018. Today, the main focus of the NRA under Wayne LaPierre has changed. .Wrong my friend. It isn't either or, it's both. They have not stopped doing the gun safety courses. It is now to sell more guns to whomever will buy them, the NRA is the "Front Organization" for the gun manufacturers. Even Bill Ruger, when he was alive, saw the transition happening and disagreed with the direction the NRA was going. Gun safety is no longer in the forefront as you suggest... Gun safety is still alive and well, it's just that you seem to have only noticed increased role of political lobbying. The NRA-ILA was a response to the a political stimulus, which was over 20 years of attempts at gun grabbing. (I completely agree with your point on the larger role of gun sales and being more in bed with the manufacturers ... it comes across loud and clear in the monthly mag).

I'll be honest with you. The NRA - ILA annoys the hell out of me with their rhetoric. I don't send them money, because I see so much poison in the rhetoric. NRA-ILA is a separately funded organ from run of the mill member ship dues. They never stop sending out pleas for money or the world will come to an end as we know it.

Part of the problem I think is that no matter how the NRA used to promote gun safety and hunting, etc, and had a less vitriolic message when I joined in the 80's, it was never enough because the gun grabbers were hell bent on getting the pistols (and much else) out of the hands of the other citizens. (I ran into the cooling off rule in CA, see previous post up there a few pages). Any excuse was leaped upon, and any dishonest rhetoric was resorted to. That hasn't changed.

The opposition was not in a discussing mood (has not been since Ronald Reagan got shot) anymore than RAT 5 actually wants to listen.
It's all about finger pointing.

As I see it, the NRA's Lobbying and fund raising takes on a nasty underbelly: there wasn't any other choice. The past thirty years supports their position on that. That it has come to a scream-fest is yet another data point on how toxic our political culture is, writ large. This is a symptom of a bigger problem.

TWT
27th Feb 2018, 23:58
TWT, that website is not the sourceReally vapilot ??? Did I say it was 'the source' ? No. I said it was included in that article. It's obvious that the source is elsewhere. Your reading comprehension is substandard today (usually pretty good). It is where Highway 1 linked it from.

Turbine D
28th Feb 2018, 00:16
WC,
If you’re offering credibility to his statement about being a law enforcement entity, what laws do they enforce or what other police duties do they attend to?
I asked you to back up your statement that Wayne LaPierre's statement was inaccurate. I think you are choking, cough, cough. I am not asking for some off the wall deflection statement, where is the backup to your contention? Admit it, it is only your persona opinion, you have no backup. Why don't you text or twitter Wayne for an clairfication? Maybe he can bail you out. :ok:

Turbine D
28th Feb 2018, 00:24
Lonewolf,
Wrong my friend. It isn't either or, it's both. They have not stopped doing the gun safety courses.
But you have to admit the emphasis is on today's political stuff, not gun safety. At one time the emphasis was on gun safety and gun training the only emphasis, there wasn't a political axe to grind emphasis as there is today. Wayne La Pierre changed the landscape. After the Cincinnati convention, the NRA tilted to the extreme and Wayne has done a good job at reenforcing the extreme.

West Coast
28th Feb 2018, 00:59
where is the backup to your contention? Admit it, it is only your persona opinion, you have no backup.

In all honesty, I think you’ve mixed me up with someone else. I asked you to validate your statement about the direction of the NRA.

Highway1
28th Feb 2018, 01:21
This is why the GOP and NRA are against (and have prevented) even the mere study the problem, let alone doing something about it, because when we honestly run the numbers, their arguments based on statistics fall away as completely specious.

If its all the fault of the NRA and the GOP why didnt the Dems do anything about it when they were in control?. Obama shed a lot of tears on TV every time there was a shooting but the only Legislation that he introduced actually loosened gun controls.

Perhaps the inconvenient fact is that most of the people dont want more restrictions - they just want the existing Laws enforced correctly.

Back Pressure
28th Feb 2018, 02:03
Can't see the point in all this arguing. Simple fact is that the people of the USA (as a nation) don't care enough about the shooting of all these kids (amongst all the rest of the deaths from guns).

If they did care enough, then the laws would change in an instant.

Terrible to have to say it, but it is true :sad:

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
28th Feb 2018, 11:52
2Bad2Sad said:
We have the right to own guns and that can never be changed.
Of course it can, because:
Mentaly ill people should not own guns period.
You have already taken away some of your citizens rights without even a whimper. Do you not see the irony in this?

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
28th Feb 2018, 12:15
Legal guns in the US are not the big problem. Relatively easy access to a gun, legal or otherwise, is the problem in a culture which enshrines the gun toting as the arbiters of justice, meaning that whenever someone has a really bad day at the office, or always gets picked last at school, or just doesn't get enough likes on face book, they are all too ready and able to bring that gun to the argument.

Lonewolf_50
28th Feb 2018, 13:03
Lonewolf,
But you have to admit the emphasis is on today's political stuff, not gun safety. At one time the emphasis was on gun safety On top of gun safety has been added the additional noise. If all you choose to hear is the political noise (and it is certainly loud) then you will be under the mistaken impression that gun safety is less important. That impression is completely wrong. One did not replace the other, except in your chosen perception.
Perhaps the inconvenient fact is that most of the people dont want more restrictions - they just want the existing Laws enforced correctly. That's part of it.
Traffic: in a culture which enshrines the gun toting as the arbiters of justice, meaning that whenever someone has a really bad day at the office, or always gets picked last at school, or just doesn't get enough likes on face book, they are all too ready and able to bring that gun to the argument. I wonder how much truth is in that observation. The reason those stories make the news (beyond various political and editorial agendas) is that they are such cases of aberrant behavior.


I've been reading "the armed citizen" for about 10 years. It's a summary of news reports from around the country, between 8 and 12 each month, which document three different cases citizens using firearms for self defense.
1) they scare people off by getting their piece out. That as crime prevention, in terms of preventing a crime against persons,
2) they shoot and don't kill, or other wise subdue by pointing their piece at a criminal until the police get there
3) they shoot and the criminal ends up dead.


Each of these is a demonstration of how the citizen is empowered to deal with criminals and not be required to be a crime victim, as the gun over the top control advocates / grabbers prefer in their infinite paternalism and arrogance. That's part of the "separate political realities" bit I mentioned earlier.

But then there is the carjacking issue.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/27/carjacking-suspect-shot-dead-by-man-with-concealed-weapon-in-wisconsin-police-say.html
A carjacking suspect was shot and killed by a man who had a concealed weapon on him in Milwaukee on Monday, officials said.

The Milwaukee Police Department said in a news release (http://www.milwaukeepolicenews.com/attempted-armed-robbery-leads-to-february-26-northwest-side-homicide/) the 21-year-old suspect, identified as Carlos Martin, was shot after he attempted to carjack a 24-year-old man around 5:50 a.m. near the Milwaukee MachineTool Corporation.
"This is the worst thing that could possibly happen to someone," MPD Captain Andra Williams told FOX6 (http://fox6now.com/2018/02/26/didnt-have-to-die-officials-hope-deadly-shooting-of-would-be-carjacker-is-a-wake-up-call/).
He said the would-be carjacker was also armed, and that as carjacking and vehicle thefts continue to rise the incident should serve as a warning.
I don't know how it is in other cities and countries, but the fact that our society has a term for this unfortunately common act: approaching a car with criminal intent, threatening the occupant at gunpoint, or shooting them, and then driving off with their car indicates a symptom of a non trivial criminal problem. Think about this mind set:
The criminal believes that they are entitled to that car and that whomever is behind the wheel needs to get out of the car or they get shot.
Where the hell does that idea come from?


That sense of entitlement looks to me to have a similar pathology of self centeredness that arrives at "I am pissed at my boss/the world/Jodie Foster/my teacher so I'll shoot someone."


The anti gunners refuse to acknowledge incidents like the following, because it disrupts their dishonest narrative, and it doesn't present the citizen as a victim whom they can light candles for ... :
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/04/man-carrying-concealed-pistol-stops-attack-on-utah-police-officer.html
Meyer aimed the pistol at Anderson and yelled at him to stop attacking the officer. Anderson bolted from the scene as responding officers arrived. The attacker, who was found hiding under a flatbed trailer, was arrested and faces several charges, according to FOX13. A citizen found an officer being (for whatever reason) attacked by someone and was able to get the perp to flee. (Later picked up). Nobody died, but the situation was defused by an armed citizen. (My cop friends will probably offer the observation that this cop probably got sloppy, which is why he was in that situation in the first place, but we'll see when I visit with them this weekend. )

sfm818
28th Feb 2018, 14:12
...infinite paternalism and arrogance...

Now who do you think fit’s the profile of infinite paternalism. The generation traumatized by gun
violence before they’ve left school, or the reassuring, paternal instincts of Wayne La Pierre as he
demands more guns in the school system.

If the law abiding NRA membership are serious about who represents their interests, they might
consider a change of leadership. When people were simmering over his response to Sandy Hook
La Pierre went on to secure a generous ’compensation’ package from the NRA - yet he & Loesch
continue to be the public face of the NRA. The result is PR disaster for the NRA, and moral victory
for a student movement which has public opinion on their side.

La Pierre still pushes the same agenda in 2018 that he pushed in 2012. He expresses contempt for
anyone who does not buy into his agenda. A highly motivated generation are already turning their
attention to the NRA’s financial structures.

The longer he stays, the faster victims of assault weapon attacks can carry public support through to
it’s logical conclusion and create a firearms association fit for purpose in the 21st century. That could
be Wayne‘s legacy. He’s banked millions from his NRA connections to provide a comfortable retirement.

Thoughts & prayers. #prayforwayne

Trossie
28th Feb 2018, 15:35
So much hot air. And all meaningless.

More kids were shot at school. No that many really care. Out of a population of 323 million, probably less that 3,200 will seriously commemorate this event in a year's time. (Several more may attend commemorative events, but they will be back to their normal way of life and putting far more of their thoughts into other things within an hour or so of those commemorations.) It's happened before, it'll happen again. Get used to it. Most people have from last time, and the time before, and the time before... Nothing will change. It never does.

oicur12.again
28th Feb 2018, 15:37
“oicur12.again , that chart was included in this article :”

So just to get things straight here, your opinion about the gun debate is formed after examining an unaccredited chart with incorrect data presented by a blogger with zero credibility in the world of gun data analysis?


“It's obvious that the source is elsewhere”

Ok, so where? Get to the source, tell me who came up with these numbers and what credibility do they have on the issue.

This is the crux of the problem. If you want to use facts and figures that support the argument that gun control does not work or that more guns result in fewer gun deaths or that owning a gun makes you safer then lets get the numbers from the experts and start debating.

Until then please think about the source of the information you are using to form your opinion.

PDR1
28th Feb 2018, 15:55
The reason those stories make the news (beyond various political and editorial agendas) is that they are such cases of aberrant behavior.


Yes, it's the 90% aberrents who give the rest a bad name.

I see some of the gun stores are finally waking up and smelling which way the coffee is blowing (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43223279) - they are no longer selling "assault-type" weapons, clearly indicating that those who are addicted to them should buy them from special stores like the other perverts.

It's not perfect, but it's a start. The first step in curing the perverts it to get them to accept that they are perverted. And frankly seeing right to gun ownership as more important than dead kids is an undeniably perverted position. So next time you find yourself near one of these perverted gun-fetishists I suggest you stand upwind - you'll avoid the smell and reduce the risk of catching anything nasty.

PDR

sfm818
28th Feb 2018, 16:17
...No that many really care... Waffle...It's happened before, it'll happen again. Get used to it... Waffle....... Nothing will change. It never does.

That's the spirit. Thankfully there are people engaged on both sides of the issue who hold a more positive attitude.

Lonewolf_50
28th Feb 2018, 16:21
Now who do you think fit’s the profile of infinite paternalism. The advocates for the nanny state. That's what I was referring to. The nanny state has, in the past 50-60 years, taken the modest program that is Social Security and exploded its accounts payable; done its best to make fathers expendable and replaceable by the state: tried to get as many people as they can be on to either be on the dole or to make them dependent on the government.
That's the kind of paternalism I was referring to, sorry, I was using shorthand.

Me personally? I'd not mind seeing Wayne find another job.

Trossie
28th Feb 2018, 16:23
That's the spirit. Thankfully there are people engaged on both sides of the issue who hold a more positive attitude.

When has it ever changed before? Come on, in the spirit of 'positive attitude', tell me when is has very changed before?

We will have an identical thread running on JB next time, and the next time, and the next time. Nobody really cares enough. If they did then things would/could change. But they won't, because no-one really does.

sfm818
28th Feb 2018, 16:49
When has it ever changed before? Come on, in the spirit of 'positive attitude', tell me when is has very changed before?

While you were sleeping there has been a seminal event in America. Not the latest in a growing list of
ASW mass shootings, but a shift in public opinion. This time the stars have aligned for the gun
reform movement. An NRA leadership that does not care if it offends survivors of gun violence.
Politicians with an A+ rating from the NRA who concede they accept payments from the gun lobby,
and a president who, it has to be explained by a doctor, can distinguish a rhinoceros from a giraffe.

This time it is different. These MSD students are clearly well educated, articulate, and now, thanks
to the NRA, well connected in their own right. All in the space of two weeks. That’s never happened.

There will be gun reforms. We’re already starting to see them filter through. What we won’t see is
the insane president take the risk of being in same room with these MSD students. He would NOT
survive that encounter. But hey. Little Donnie. Prove us wrong. Accept the challenge.

Trossie
28th Feb 2018, 16:57
While your sleeping there has been ... (My 'sleeping'? Do I own a 'sleeping'?)

Time will tell. A few 100 thousand will make a fuss. A few hundred million will do nothing. And things will stay the same. Time will tell.

sfm818
28th Feb 2018, 17:08
We will have an identical thread running on JB next time, and the next time, and the next time. Nobody really cares enough. If they did then things would/could change. But they won't, because no-one really does.

This thread is not tied to a specific shooting event. It is a discussion on what concessions the NRA
are prepared to accept before the matter is taken out of their hands and common sense regulation
introduced, including profiling which people can have access to firearms.

PDR1
28th Feb 2018, 17:36
The nanny state has, in the past 50-60 years, taken the modest program that is Social Security and exploded its accounts payable; done its best to make fathers expendable and replaceable by the state: tried to get as many people as they can be on to either be on the dole or to make them dependent on the government.

If someone else had said that sort of thing you'd challenge it, so back at you:

Please provide the evidence in the form of policy papers, delivered speeches, organisation charters or anything else that show any organisation has ever had the deliberate objective of making fathers expendible or getting as many as possible onto the dole.

If you fail to produce this by CoP tonight we will know you made it up - it's a lie.

Please provide details of this "Nanny State" organisation you referenced. Where are its offices? WHo are its officers? what constitutional, administrative or judicial authority does it have?

If you fail to also produce this by CoP tonight we will know you made it up - it's another lie because no such organisation actually exists.

That's the trouble with you uber-right blow-hards - you spend all your lives spewing rhetorical twaddle to the point where to forget that it isn't actually true. It's sad, but you no longer have any referents left by which you can judge reality. That's why you feel that your gun-ownership is more important than the kids you've consequently murdered by proxy.

An honest man - someone of integrity - would look at the events his views have spawned and look to implement the sincerest form of self criticism.

PDR

Lonewolf_50
28th Feb 2018, 18:01
If someone else had said that sort of thing you'd challenge it, so back at you And you don't live here, I do.
Check out the increase in single parent homes, and the statistics on who gets custody of children.
Check out the welfare payments on a per child basis;
The state is acting to make the father disposable, and replaceable by the state. Been going on for about 50 years. The argument and rhetoric on that has been continuous since I can recall becoming interested in this in the mid 80's.

SS has been studied to death, and the Wikipedia article will show you how it has morphed from FDR's original program into something significantly different starting with legislation in the 60's and moving forward. The number of ways to get payouts and the reasons for it have increased considerably. (Not to mention that the actuarial assumptions of the original program died a horrible death in the 60's or 70's).

Welfare reform was an extremely hot topic during the 1990's. I bothered to pay attention to it since it interested me. I paid attention to the very public discourse pro and con of how to improve, revise, or dispose of that system. The system is still there, and it is still contentious. It's the Dole. Money buys votes.

Given your blatant dishonesty in your response, (offices of the nanny state) I still don't owe you anything since I live here and you don't, and I pay attention. You cherry pick what you pay attention to so you can fuel your rants and anti Yank barbs. I also pay attention to the crap you post. On the balance, more bilge than beer, though now and again some beer is to be found. here's an idea, go back to your own problem thread: wait, you Brits are so toxic on politics that it got shut down (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/582793-brexit-telephone-box-hampsterwheel.html). Gee, why should I have any respect for your bringing your poison into this discussion?

In the last 12 months, based on the news articles in the armed citizen, there have been about 80 cases reported of armed citizens deterring crime in one of the three modes I noted above. That's 80 crimes foiled, and in some cases lives preserved.

You choose not to pay attention to that, but you'll go ape over a murder in the news, or a cop shooting someone, or these bizarre school shooting things that seem to have become popular since the much celebrated in the 24/7 media Columbine incident.

Check your biases, PDR. They are hanging out all over the thread. The nanny state is a descriptive term for government paternalism. It's as much a shorthand for an ever increasing intrusion into people's lives by the government as anything else. I am pretty sure that you are familiar with the term "thin end of the wedge."

About our system and how it works:

Back in about 1975, there was an fascinating article in Time magazine addressing the 1976 election coming up that Jimmy Carter won.
The lead into it went something like this: "How do you attract the black vote?" which was a problem for candidates then as now since the difficulty in energizing that sector of the electorate was recognized. The cold, cynical, hard answer in the article was "the way you attract any constituency: with dollars."
As a single article, it was one of the better illustrations for me, at the time, to get a handle on "why do the people in Washington do X, Y, or Z?"
It was a different take on "follow the money" that is another element of our system that is built into it, but as I've grown and experienced our system, the core points in that observation have withstood the test of time.

As I get more aware of state and local politics, I see the same thing: there's a thin veneer of "legitimacy" over a series of patronage networks.
Patronage networks and paternalism, and the growing difficulty of removing any incumbent.

PDR1
28th Feb 2018, 19:00
So you admit you lied - there is no organisation bent on increasing the number of people on the dole. You made that up. Nor is there any organisation working to make men expendable - you made that up as well. It's just rhetoric with no basis in fact - the difference is that I know this and you apparently don't.

Oh yes, and FYI I was born in, and currently live in, the UK. But between those two points in time I have lived in other places for quite long periods in time, including the USA you patently hate so much.

PDR

oicur12.again
28th Feb 2018, 19:47
“In the last 12 months, based on the news articles in the armed citizen, there have been about 80 cases reported of armed citizens deterring crime in one of the three modes I noted above. That's 80 crimes foiled, and in some cases lives preserved.”

Noted your use of an incredibly biased source of information.

That being said, lets proceed.

Your argument is thus: ready availability of guns results in the ability of joe citizen to be armed and prepared to defend the home when necessary.

I suspect you will find the data supports the argument thus: the ready availability of guns may have prevented the 80 crimes from unfolding however this same ready availability of guns is the cause of the high rates of gun homicide from which you are keen to defend yourself from that far outweigh the 80 people saved by guns.

The net result being that the proliferation of guns results in a higher gun homicide rate. The data from the most credible studies support this.

Harvard University School of Public Health.
University Chicago.
US National Library of Medicine.
World Economic Forum.
CDC.

The CDC study conducted in 1993 is particularly important as it found:

“Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.”

This is the report that motivated the NRA to lobby congress to prevent federal money from linking high levels of gun ownership with increased chances of gun homicide. The Dickey amendment was born and ever since the NRA has been successful at virtually reversing the argument and convincing a compliant citizenry that the solution to the gun problem is more guns.

The good guy with a gun argument is pure politics, nothing more.

galaxy flyer
28th Feb 2018, 20:52
Check out the increase in single parent homes

26 out of the 27 deadliest mass killers, all male, were raised in fatherless homes. Make that of what you will.

GF

TWT
28th Feb 2018, 21:52
“oicur12.again , that chart was included in this article :”

So just to get things straight here, your opinion about the gun debate is formed after examining an unaccredited chart with incorrect data presented by a blogger with zero credibility in the world of gun data analysis?


“It's obvious that the source is elsewhere”

Ok, so where? Get to the source, tell me who came up with these numbers and what credibility do they have on the issue.

This is the crux of the problem. If you want to use facts and figures that support the argument that gun control does not work or that more guns result in fewer gun deaths or that owning a gun makes you safer then lets get the numbers from the experts and start debating.

Until then please think about the source of the information you are using to form your opinion.

Er, you're arguing with the wrong person :p

It was Highway1 that posted the chart and he found it on the site I then provided a link for. Even Highway1 isn't saying that it means anything. I think he just threw it in for fun. Then vapilot has a go at me saying it isn't the source. All I did was provide a link to the site where Highway1 got the chart.

Best to read all the posts and not jump to conclusions :ok:

Glad we worked that out ! Have fun ...

Trossie
28th Feb 2018, 22:58
This thread is not tied to a specific shooting event. It is a discussion on what concessions the NRA
are prepared to accept before the matter is taken out of their hands and common sense regulation
introduced, including profiling which people can have access to firearms.Yeah right! Waffle, waffle, waffle. You know as well as anyone else reading any of this that this has been triggered by one particular shooting. (Strange that this thread didn't start a week before this particular Florida shooting!)

It'll all end the same as all of the others. Nowt will be done then it will all happen again. Guns are just too important to too many people there. Spurred on by that glorious Amendment. Which will kill yet more school kids, again and again. As has happened before and before.

Highway1
28th Feb 2018, 23:17
Er, you're arguing with the wrong person :p

It was Highway1 that posted the chart and he found it on the site I then provided a link for. Even Highway1 isn't saying that it means anything. I think he just threw it in for fun. Then vapilot has a go at me saying it isn't the source. All I did was provide a link to the site where Highway1 got the chart.

Best to read all the posts and not jump to conclusions :ok:

Glad we worked that out ! Have fun ...

Yes - a throwaway joke seems to have taken on a life of its own.. :p

vapilot2004
28th Feb 2018, 23:47
Then vapilot has a go at me saying it isn't the source. All I did was provide a link to the site where Highway1 got the chart.



A go, TWT? Sorry for any confusion.

TWT, that website is not the source, but instead, a blog that focuses on statistical analysis. ....

...This is why the GOP and NRA are against (and have prevented) even the mere study the problem, let alone doing something about it, because when we honestly run the numbers, their arguments based on statistics fall away as completely specious.

I was merely providing information about the (your) linked source so we could all be talking about the same thing. Apologies if somehow I upset your sensibilities. That was not my intention.

It would appear our Highway1 linked to a blog site that did not support his chart's apparent purpose (of refuting serious, valid studies on gun violence) and I took the trouble to read the linked source's analysis, and pointed that out.

Best to read all the posts and not jump to conclusions :ok:

:ok:

vapilot2004
1st Mar 2018, 00:31
If its all the fault of the NRA and the GOP why didnt the Dems do anything about it when they were in control?.



1934: The National Firearms Act passes in response to gangster culture during Prohibition. The law implements a tax on the making and transfer of automatic-fire guns, shotguns and rifles.

House - Democratic Majority
Senate - Democratic Majority
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)

1939: Supreme Court upholds a federal ban on sawed-off shotguns, implying that the Founding Fathers adopted the amendment to ensure the then-new federal government could not disarm state militias.

House - Democratic Majority
Senate - Democratic Majority
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)

1968: Congress passes the Gun Control Act. The law calls for better control of interstate traffic of firearms. Lee Harvey Oswald used a mail-order gun to assassinate President John F. Kennedy.

House - Democratic Majority
Senate - Democratic Majority
President: Lyndon B. Johnson (D)

1986: The Firearm Owner's Protection Act is approved by Congress. The law prohibits felons from owning or possessing guns or ammunition. The Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act is also passed. It prohibits the manufacturing, importing and selling of ammunition that can penetrate a bulletproof vest.

House - Democratic Majority
Senate - Republican Majority
President: Ronald W. Reagan (R)

1993: Congress passes the The Brady Handgun Violence Act, establishing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System gun dealers are to use before selling a gun. The law is named after former White House Press Secretary James Brady, who was shot in the head during the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.

House - Democratic Majority
Senate - Democratic Majority
President: William J. Clinton (D)

1994: The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act becomes law. The law banned the manufacture, use, possession and import of 19 types of assault weapons, including AK-47s and Uzis. The law expired in 2004.

House - Democratic Majority
Senate - Democratic Majority
President: William J. Clinton (D)

June 2008: The Supreme Court upholds the lower court ruling, striking down D.C. handgun ban as unconstitutional.

The conservative Roberts court voted 5/4 in favor of removing DC's gun restriction. Justices Stevens and Breyer wrote the dissenting opinion, with Justices Souter and Ginsberg joining, while Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Robert, and Alito joined Justice Scalia for the majority.


Perhaps the inconvenient fact is that most of the people dont want more restrictions - they just want the existing Laws enforced correctly.

http://i68.tinypic.com/2eqdid0.png

Others have made the same mistake. If you changed "of the people" to "conservatives", i.e. "most conservatives don't want more restrictions" that would make your statement closer to the actual truth.

Highway1
1st Mar 2018, 02:15
Others have made the same mistake. If you changed "of the people" to "conservatives", i.e. "most conservatives don't want more restrictions" that would make your statement closer to the actual truth.

I think you need to check your graphic again (carefully) - it shows that 52% want the same or less laws. It is a minority asking for more regulation - which I precisely what I suggested. ;)

vapilot2004
1st Mar 2018, 02:32
Try again. This time you check the graphic (again).

The number of Americans that thought regulations should remain the same never goes above about 44%. Therefore, the chart indicated precisely the opposite of what you said if we are looking at your entire statement...

Perhaps the inconvenient fact is that most of the people dont want more restrictions - they just want the existing Laws enforced correctly.

...but I get your revised, less broad point, however that also remains incorrect when looking at the most recent numbers, where of those (sane) Americans polled, a clear majority (over 52%) think we need stricter gun laws.

An examination of the data shows that overall, there were two brief periods during the Obama administration when the combined total of both the "less strict" and "leave the laws as they are" groups are greater than half.

oicur12.again
1st Mar 2018, 03:11
"Er, you're arguing with the wrong person"

Indeed I am with sincere apologies.

Sometimes I argue with myself too!

TWT
1st Mar 2018, 03:26
:ok: ........................

Fliegenmong
1st Mar 2018, 08:53
I've said this before....it's part of the American 'Thing'.....you just have to accept it....I do...they certainly do.....I don't give a damn about what THEY do in THEIR country.....having said that, being 'the 51st' doesn't sit comfortably at all....If I had a choice I would most certainly choose NOT to be a citizen of the USA!

I've also noted that my Sister once lived in a rather fancy Chicago Neighbourhood....but as soon her children were school age....she moved back to Australia....why? ... No school shootings....there might be a shrimp on the Barby....but there are no school shootings...

She simply made a decision that in order to ensure her children were not laid to waste in a schoolyard...she moved back to a Country where she knew it was not going to happen....

BUT......she was able to do so because her husband (Indian / British) is a world leader in his field....& they had the $ & required skills etc. to do so...

Toadstool
1st Mar 2018, 11:40
So we know that the Coward In Chief would have run empty handed into that building however, he is prepared to take action. Perhaps, as a supporter of the NRA and a Republican President he is best placed to do so.

I will give him that, he's prepared to make decisions and get things done.

Skipname
1st Mar 2018, 11:56
I do agree that the gun laws in USA need to be more restrictive but it's a complicated issue and I don't see a solution anytime soon. On the other hand any legislation would only be followed by the law abiding citizens because criminals don't care about the laws.

I just heard on the radio this morning that in the UK there is talk to declare acid as a dangerous weapon and I am sure various restrictions would follow. Do you think that would stop all the acid attacks that are happening here or just make it more difficult for law abiding citizens get hold of it?

Another question I have is when do you stop punishing the law abiding citizens with restrictions because of the criminal behaviour of the few and start punishing the criminals for their behaviour?

A few months back I found out that it's illegal to own a pepper spray for self-protection in UK. Is this the point when things are ridiculous? I think so.

Highway1
1st Mar 2018, 13:52
...but I get your revised, less broad point, however that also remains incorrect when looking at the most recent numbers, where of those (sane) Americans polled, a clear majority (over 52%) think we need stricter gun laws.

An examination of the data shows that overall, there were two brief periods during the Obama administration when the combined total of both the "less strict" and "leave the laws as they are" groups are greater than half.

So you are basing your claim on another poll not the one you posted - the one that doesn't support your contention. Funny way of having a discussion.. :ooh:

Meanwhile we are still left with a majority not wanting more gun Laws....

oicur12.again
1st Mar 2018, 15:15
Quinnipiac poll of just 8 days ago:

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521

Its very clear that Americans want stricter gun control laws. Just take a look at the polls by CNN, NBC, Politico, Gallup, Pew.

Hempy
1st Mar 2018, 15:33
Can some one please explain to me why something like what happened in Australia couldn’t work in the US? Let me explain.

Guns are not ‘banned’ in Australia, they are categorised;

Category A : Single shot rimfire rifles, single shot and double barrelled shotguns, air rifles (including semi-automatic), and paintball guns.

Category B: Centrefire rifles (bolt action, pump action and lever action) and all muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901.

Category C: Pump-action or self-loading shotguns with a magazine capacity of maximum 5 rounds, semi-automatic rimfire rifles with a magazine capacity max 10 rounds.

Category D: All self-loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self-loading shotguns that have a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and semi-automatic rimfire rifles with a magazine capacity over 10 rounds

Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns.

Category R/E: Military weapons such as machine guns, rocket launchers, full automatic self loading rifles, flame-throwers and anti-tank guns.

Anyone who has a reason to own one of these firearms and is not a ‘prohibeted person’ (e.g has a criminal conviction) can apply for a firearm license and own category A. and B. firearms. A ‘reason’ can be sport/target shooting, recreational hunting, primary producer, pest animal control/vermin control, business or employment, requirements relating to rural purposes, animal welfare and firearms collection.

Primary producers, farm workers, firearm dealers, firearm safety officers, collectors and clay target shooters can own category C. firearms.

Government agencies, occupational shooters and primary producers can own category D. firearms.

Target shooters and security guards whose job requires possession of a firearm can own category H. (handguns). To be eligible for a category H. firearm, target shooters must serve a probationary period of 6 months using club handguns, after which they may apply for a permit. They must attend a certain number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun and be a paid-up member of an approved pistol club. Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain approved pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45 calibre (Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette). IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 SIG/.45 handguns that meet the IPSC rules. Barrels must be at least 100mm long for revolvers, and 120mm for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols. Magazines are restricted to 10 rounds.

So if, for example, you want to hunt, you apply for a license (you will need to provide proof that you are a landowner or have permission from a landowner or from state authorities in charge of public land to hunt). The police do a criminal record check. If you pass these requirements you will be granted a license. You need a license to purchase a firearm and also to purchase ammunition. The dealer is required to register your details against the serial number, and you are required to register your firearm with the police. If you buy ammunition your details are recorded against the batch number. You are required to store your firearm in an approved gun safe that is permanently fixed to the floor. You are required to store your ammunition separately from your firearm.

None of these requirements are onerous. If you are a law abiding citizen you can own and shoot a gun. You can’t buy an AR-15 unless you need it for work (e.g you are a professional vermin controller). You can’t buy a handgun unless you are a security guard or you are a member of a club.

I don’t think anyone in the US with half a brain really intends to ‘take away your guns’. But what is wrong with a registration system? What is wrong with making unregistered firearms illegal and hence subject to confiscation? What is wrong with a licensing system? What is wrong with restricting sale of firearms and ammunition/ammunition components (propellant, primers etc) to license holders?

None of these measures are any more contrary to the second amendment than existing laws that restrict gun ownership in certain circumstances. None of them are discriminatory towards people who are responsible and law abiding.

The laws in Australia don’t stop people who like shooting from owning guns. They do provide the police with a database of who owns guns, how many they own, what types they own and what ammunition they buy. Since the 2000’s they also have a firing pin/rifling fingerprint from every new firearm sold. These measures reduce gun crime...if you own a gun you are less likely to use it in a crime if you know it can be traced back to you.

Yes, there are illegal firearms in Australia. They are expensive to buy on the black market - a semi-automatic handgun goes for around $15,000....you’re average street crim couldn’t afford one if he wanted it, and even if he saved up enough to get one there’s the issue of ammo. And if he gets caught with it he’s going to the big house.

Like it or not, the US does have a gun problem. Yes, there’s an issue with mental health too, but that’s a global problem. Mix mental health issues with freely available, high powered, high capacity, squeeze and shoot firearms and you get another 17 grief-stricken, devastated, broken families. There is no doubt that there is no easy answer, but surely it’s worth making a start.

If you are against any form of gun reform purely on principle you don’t have any imo.

galaxy flyer
1st Mar 2018, 16:09
Hempy,

Thanks very much for that! :ok:

I’m actually in favor of replacing our patchwork of laws, which vary by state and jurisdiction. Don’t agree with every jot and tittle, but a very good basis for discussion. BTW, I’m a Category A, B, and C guy, abide by the storage requirements mostly. Water table is too high to put holes in the basement and at a thousand-plus pounds, nobody is walking away with my safe.

GF

RAT 5
1st Mar 2018, 16:16
DT, in his CNN photo op yesterday, said he was not in favour of a federal law governing gun law: it was up to the states, but he was in favour of a central register.
He then tasked a few attendees at the debate to draw up a 'comprehensive' workable bill incorporating many of the issues discussed.

In USA how does it work if a bill passed before congress and signed by the president can then be tuned by the states?

galaxy flyer
1st Mar 2018, 16:52
He’s an idiot! States can’t modify, nullify or “tune” a Federal law.

GF

Hempy
1st Mar 2018, 17:37
Hempy,

Thanks very much for that! :ok:

I’m actually in favor of replacing our patchwork of laws, which vary by state and jurisdiction. Don’t agree with every jot and tittle, but a very good basis for discussion. BTW, I’m a Category A, B, and C guy, abide by the storage requirements mostly. Water table is too high to put holes in the basement and at a thousand-plus pounds, nobody is walking away with my safe.

GF

Gun laws here are legislated at state level. The Prime Minister gets the credit for it, but all he really did was gather all the state Premiers together and get them all to agree to a proposal that standardised the various state laws into one National Agreement. This wasn’t hard considering the impact that the Port Arthur outrage had on the entire country. There have been various polls over the years in regards to the changes that were made after Port Arthur, the lowest approval rating I can find is 85%. Most polls have it well into the 90’s...we are happy to forego our ability to have a semi-automatic assault rifle if it means that deranged nutcases can’t have them either.

p.s whoever handled the buy-back scheme did it extremely wisely. Anyone could hand in any firearm, registered, legal, compliant or not under amnesty and receive a cash payment well over it’s market value/new/resale price. I remember Dad being stoked that he got around $500 for an ancient, rusty .22 rifle that hadn’t fired a round in years and a dirty old .410 shotgun that was held together with baling twine amd fencing wire. If they were stingy or unfair with their payouts the scheme wouldn’t have been half as successful.

Lonewolf_50
1st Mar 2018, 18:16
No Winner in Tomahawk-Speargun Battle | Lowering the Bar (http://loweringthebar.net/2011/11/no-winner-in-tomahawk-speargun-battle.html)


Spearguns, though, might be another category.

Lonewolf_50
1st Mar 2018, 18:18
So you admit you lied PDR
No, I didn't, I used a term that has been common parlance in American political public discourse (rhetoric) for a couple of decades. That you can't parse it is your problem. Your dishonesty needs to go back to your Brit threads, where at least you might have a clue about what you are talking about.

Lonewolf_50
1st Mar 2018, 18:19
“In the last 12 months, based on the news articles in the armed citizen, there have been about 80 cases reported of armed citizens deterring crime in one of the three modes I noted above. That's 80 crimes foiled, and in some cases lives preserved.”
Noted your use of an incredibly biased source of information.
The news papers. That is where that column gets its items from. Each news source is included in the summary.
The good guy with a gun argument is pure politics, nothing more. The cop who was getting beat upon in the link I provided disagrees with you. (when the citizen with a firearm stopped the incident). So does each individual whose ability to scare off a criminal assault on their person. Your unwillingness to open your mind is noted. Individuals matter. That is a part of why each individual gets their day in court if they are charged with a crime.

Lonewolf_50
1st Mar 2018, 18:26
This thread is not tied to a specific shooting event. It is a discussion on what concessions the NRA are prepared to accept before the matter is taken out of their hands and common sense regulation introduced, including profiling which people can have access to firearms. The well poisoning is noted. You appear to be unaware of the mountains of regulations that already exist. Me, I finally agree with the president on something: the bump stocks gotta go, and I am annoyed that those who are fans of them. We have strict federal laws on automatic weapons, and the bumpstock is at best a loophole, and one that I want to see closed.

galaxy flyer
1st Mar 2018, 19:10
The news papers. That is where that column gets its items from. Each news source is included in the summary.
The cop who was getting beat upon in the link I provided disagrees with you. (when the citizen with a firearm stopped the incident). So does each individual whose ability to scare off a criminal assault on their person. Your unwillingness to open your mind is noted. Individuals matter. That is a part of why each individual gets their day in court if they are charged with a crime.

The “Armed Citizen” has been a column in the NRA’s magazine The American Rifleman for, at least, 55 years. I remember reading it that far back. Always with a news source noted.

Sfm818, it’s NOT the NRA’s power to accept or offer concessions—it’s the voters thru their representatives.


GF

oicur12.again
1st Mar 2018, 20:28
“The cop who was getting beat upon in the link I provided disagrees with you”

Of course he would, he was saved by someone who happened to be armed and obviously capable of using the weapon for a successful outcome.

But this is incredibly rare and the extremely relaxed laws that permit the carriage of weapons by untrained civilians in such high numbers INCREASES the chance of being involved in a gun related homicide.

There will be isolated examples of where Wayne Lapierre’s tired statement is accurate however employing this rationale to justify lax gun laws only increases the chances of a good guy being needed and in most cases the good guy has proven to be ineffective.

“Your unwillingness to open your mind is noted.”

My opinion is based upon data. Not from newspaper articles listing isolated cases of goods guys with guns. Such an approach provides no context at all and does not inform the reader about trends or results from expert analysis, all of which indicates that gun proliferation at city, state and country level increase the incidence of gun homicide.

Please feel free to provide a detailed study that concludes the opposite.

Here is an interesting documentary on the gun issue in the US. The comments made by the Memphis doctor are pertinent to this debate and completely consistent with the studies listed in a previous post.

It must be remembered that although pprune world is inhabited by professional educated and probably very responsible gun owning airline pilots, there are huge numbers of gun owners out there in middle America who are not.

https://youtu.be/lUpCqBonOFw

vapilot2004
1st Mar 2018, 20:36
So you are basing your claim on another poll not the one you posted - the one that doesn't support your contention. Funny way of having a discussion.. :ooh:

Meanwhile we are still left with a majority not wanting more gun Laws....

???

https://sayingimages.com/wp-content/uploads/Brought-To-You-By-The-Letters-WTF-meme.png

sfm818
1st Mar 2018, 22:22
... it’s NOT the NRA’s power to accept or offer concessions...

But it is in the NRA's power to offer financial contrubutions to politicians who support their agenda.

Before history rolls over the detail, here’s a summary of NRA influence over the last few days. MSD
students met with their principle on Sunday to prepare for the resumption of classes on Wednesday.
On that same day (Sunday) the NRA had lunch with Trump to prepare him for a bi-partisan meeting
on gun reform scheduled for Wednesday. As those students returned to school Trump was playing
up to the cameras for a bizarre discussion on gun reform. When he departed from the script there
were enough NRA sympathizers around the table to intervene and bring him back on message. He
surmised that gun free zones were the problem and pushed the NRA agenda to arm teachers.

Someone mentioned state welfare makes fathers disposable. That might apply to the feckless but
consider a hard working father, from a stable family background, who becomes an arbitrary victim
of gun violence. What are his options if he has insufficient medical insurance to pay hospital bills.
How will he provide for his family. Who will compensate him for his injuries and follow up treatment.
Will the welfare system support him?

Do the firearms industry make any provision for victims of gun violence, or has the NRA exerted
pressure on lawmakers to protect gun makers from liability.

Since the sunset clause expired there has been a rise in the number of ASW mass shootings. In a
rational society there would be a study into how gun culture places a burden on the health service,
with emphasis on the risk to public health from ASW’s.

Unfortunately, those studies cannot go ahead, even with the evidence (and bodies) mounting after
each ASW incident, because the relevant government body had their funding blocked by the NRA.

How many children and adults are currently hospitalized with life changing injuries across the US
because their right to affordable health care is outweighed by the right to own a firearm.

It is appropriate on a thread titled NRA & Profiling to allow the NRA spokesperson to put her case.
Over to Dana for some words of healing & reconciliation for mothers grieving over gun violence.

https://youtu.be/h5H_tcMeQxM

Highway1
1st Mar 2018, 22:48
???




Not sure what is so difficult - the most recent entry on your your chart showed 48% in favor of more restrictions and 52% wanting them unchanged or even less.

Its not my fault you didn't bother to read your own chart carefully before posting.

With regard to polls generally - if there were so much support for increased gun regulation I'm sure we would have seen some by now. Obama had 8 years in power and achieved nothing so I reserve judgement on how accurate these polls are. In the UK there is a phenomenon with polls where respondents tend to tell pollsters what they think they want to hear - as a result polls always underestimate Conservative support. People dont like to be open about supporting issues and parties that the twitter brigade have deemed unacceptable - but in the privacy of the polling booth they can choose what they like.

Surely the election of Donald Trump told you not to rely on polls for your view of the people.

Lonewolf_50
1st Mar 2018, 23:04
Of course he would, he was saved by someone who happened to be armed and obviously capable of using the weapon for a successful outcome. Why do you object to empowering the citizen to be able to do that? Your position requires you to oppose that empowerment, in a land where the individual's rights are a critical element of our political history and fabric. The whole grinding argument vis a vis the federal versus the state versus the citizen wrangle that took place in the Constitution's formation resulted in the point of the limitation of governmental power for the benefit and the empowerment of the citizen. That you and numerous foreigners here still refuse to understand that has an impact on your ability to see how that influences the rhetoric in this particular piece of political discourse. It is a critical piece of American political thought, that all other rights are reserved ... see amendments IX and X.

The ninth amendment states that any rights not specifically granted to the people by the constitution are not necessarily denied to them either. It was designed to protect the United States federal government from being too powerful. The text reads: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The Tenth Amendment helps to define the concept of federalism, the relationship between Federal and state governments. As Federal activity has increased, so too has the problem of reconciling state and national interests as they apply to the Federal powers to tax, to police, and to regulations such as wage and hour laws, disclosure of personal information in recordkeeping systems, and laws related to strip-mining.
The text reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Of course the catch to that is that the people are rarely united, so it takes a super majority to amend the constitution ... but we are drifting from the topic.



Because it takes a supermajority to make serious changes, the approaches offered are bandaid fixes. Come up with a proposal that you can get a 2/3 or 3/4ths majority to say "yeah, I'm good with that" and you'll see a significant change. Oh yeah, and provide details. The hand wave "gun control" and "assault weapon"vagueness is a core part of the problem. When unpacked, the details run into trouble.


There Is No Easy Button.


To date, the so called "solutions" keep trampling on the rights of citizens, a great many of whom do not trust the politicians advocating a change. It's like the problem of the cops and building trust in some of our cities: when you start a conversation with distrust as the opening assumption, your allegedly "rational" look at a solution set can't even get to step 1.

As to your "I found a study" approach, the argument has a problem: it pretends a homogenous place, which America is not. Go back to the differing political realities problems. Across the vast expanse of American life, guns aren't a problem. In the exceptional case, they can be. You choose to count the hits and ignore the misses with your approach. So you feed your own bias. Gee, there's a shock.
Here is an interesting documentary on the gun issue in the US. Sure, it's interesting to you. But I've been reading your posts on JB for a few years. I was born at night, but not last night.

Lonewolf_50
1st Mar 2018, 23:10
But it is in the NRA's power to offer financial contrubutions to politicians who support their agenda. As any lobbying group can and does. Are you suggesting that lobbying be curtailed? (That's an interesting topic all by itself, but off topic somewhat for this discussion probably)

sfm818
1st Mar 2018, 23:39
As any lobbying group can and does. Are you suggesting that lobbying be curtailed? (That's an interesting topic all by itself, but off topic somewhat for this discussion probably)

Yes. Absolutely. If the NRA were not so deeply embeddd in the political system there might finally be a chance to address the gun epidemic. Hempy made a very good post -Australia and mainland America are roughly similar in area (disregard Alaska) with similar issues (people living in geographical isolation). That might be an opportunity for US lawmakers to align their firearms legislation based on the Australia model. However, for forward progress to be made the NRA must be identified for what it has become. A radical organization which does not reflect public opinion, and should be disbanded. Just listen to the hysterics of Dana Loesch with her scaremongering about 'them' coming to disarm 'us'. America is an advanced society. If it cannot control the NRA then it cannot control gun violence within it's own borders. No pro-gun lobbying on behalf of the fireams industry. Period.

galaxy flyer
1st Mar 2018, 23:45
Do the firearms industry make any provision for victims of gun violence, or has the NRA exerted pressure on lawmakers to protect gun makers from liability.

Any firearm is, by definition, a dangerous weapon if used in a criminal or negligent manner, the manufacturer cannot be liable for criminal or negligent use as they have no control over the end user. If there exists faulty design or manufacturing defects, they can be held liable.

BTW, the NRA or any lobbying is not a government agency and cannot make laws, but you knew that.

Fun fact, the Director of Civilian Marksmsnship, a DoD function until privatized to the CMP program, SOLD M1 Garands and M1 carbides for decades without any being used in mass murders. You might note, the Federal Govetnment sold real assault weapons for decades to the public. Name me another country that did that?

sfm818
1st Mar 2018, 23:51
Any firearm is, by definition, a dangerous weapon if used in a criminal or negligent manner, the manufacturer cannot be liable for criminal or negligent use as they have no control over the end user...

I disagree. A few pages back I referenced how aggressive marketing from certain gun makers promotes the wrong message. So, in that respect, they do have control over the end user. They should be held responsible.


.

galaxy flyer
2nd Mar 2018, 01:44
I don't agree. A few pages back I referenced how aggressive marketing from certain gun makers promotes the wrong message. So, in that respect, they do have control over the end user. They should be held responsible.

Car manufacturers advertise speed and power, are they responsible for speeding? Apple advertise its devices are they responsible for hackers, Wikileaks, etc.?

GF

megan
2nd Mar 2018, 01:55
Hempy, post #201, well said. :ok:

sfm818
2nd Mar 2018, 08:43
...it’s NOT the NRA’s power to accept or offer concessions...GF

Car manufacturers advertise speed and power...


Fast cars aren’t delivered with a warning attached ‘ This product can damage your health ’ - but if the fast car is powered by a 500 horsepower engine - and the end user is an impressionable 19 year old, insurers would assess the obvious risk (and hazard to other road users) commands too high a premium. In respect to firearms. Specifically, the AR-15. That common sense principle is ignored by the NRA. The morning after MSD students returned to school and Trump staged a meeting for the cameras - yes, the morning after - Fox & Friends allowed a gap in their schedule to hear the NRAs’ response. According to the NRA, raising the age limit to 21 would be “ Punishing the 19 year old deer hunter.” Let that sink in. For someone speaking up for hunting with firearms, a sport that requires competence and accuracy, this woman has an unfortunate habit of always missing what should be her target - a public which needs to be reassured that an impressionable 19 year old in possession of an AR-15 is not a hazard. The consequences of getting that calculation wrong are already known. It is not the teenager who is Punished - but the victims & their families traumatized when human targets are substituted for deer. A week is a long time in politics but it has taken the NRA one day to derail an attempt to introduce a comprehensive bill on gun control. In the morning the NRA opened their attack on Fox News and by the evening, the NRA were back in the White House - to secure CONCESSIONS from the president & vice president.

RAT 5
2nd Mar 2018, 10:05
Just a questions for the US guys. In EU, and I suspect Australia and other countries, there is a gun culture involving hunting, both rifle & shotgun, recreational target shooting, pistol shooting etc. Each country has its Shooting Association under what ever name.
I've not heard of any of them having any strong aggressive lobbying policy on government; certainly not holding sway of government and not receiving generous discounts from major corporations. I may be wrong, but it not general public knowledge. It is all very quite on that front.

So, to the US guys; why is it that the NRA, which represents recreational and 2nd amendment gun carriers, has so much sway over government, and indeed wants & feels it necessary to do so? How did it come about on such an influential political footing when it is not the case elsewhere?

Fliegenmong
2nd Mar 2018, 14:27
Not a US guy Rat5...but something like $40 mill into your funding....well.....you're expected to give something back...but it isn't corrupt...it's just....well it's not corrupt anyway...move along nothing to see...

Highway1
2nd Mar 2018, 14:56
Not a US guy Rat5...but something like $40 mill into your funding....well.....you're expected to give something back...but it isn't corrupt...it's just....well it's not corrupt anyway...move along nothing to see...

$40 Million is peanuts really - Hilary spent $1.2 Billion on her failed campaign

le Pingouin
2nd Mar 2018, 15:26
So why are politicians so beholden to peanuts proffered by a fringe group?

Highway1
2nd Mar 2018, 15:35
Are they though? - perhaps they just reflect the views of their electorates.

le Pingouin
2nd Mar 2018, 16:27
The politicians don't listen to their constituents - they listen to the people who buy their favour with cash.

glad rag
2nd Mar 2018, 16:32
Hempy, post #201, well said. :ok:

Not really.

Firearms aren't banned but people are.

Hmmm now who started that one...

galaxy flyer
2nd Mar 2018, 16:50
So why are politicians so beholden to peanuts proffered by a fringe group?

A fringe group? Hardly, compared to EU or AU, armed citizens represent about 40%, perhaps more and, more importantly, are often single - issue voters. Look at DL, where the state government is weighing in. Many NRA members and sympathizers are wealthy, highly educated people who have influence. It’s not unusual at shooting competitions to see $25,000 shotguns and air conditioned gun buggys towed behind $70,000 pickups. I’ve seen a guy go duck hunting in BOS harbor and put a $32,000 David MacKay Brown shotgun in the boat. Not my style, but anyone with that kind of cake has influence.

That’s why the politics are such.

GF

Gault
2nd Mar 2018, 17:16
I am not sure being numerous excludes you from the description "fringe group"

oicur12.again
2nd Mar 2018, 18:26
“Why do you object to empowering the citizen to be able to do that?”

Because the very empowerment you speak of requires liberal gun laws that permit the proliferation of guns that creates the very problem you are arming yourself to combat.

Those empowered to defend the home are now employing military style assault weapons in order to defend against intruders who can easily be armed with military style assault weapons.

More importantly, despite the several dozen anecdotal examples you provided published by the Armed Citizen, the concept does not work. Most people will not succeed in defending themselves or their homes against an armed person with serious intent.

For every example the Armed Citizen publishes, there are more examples of where the armed person failed, or accidently killed themselves or a loved one, or lost control and used it in a homicide, or used it to commit suicide.

As mentioned before, every reputable study conducted concludes that at every level, an increase in the number of households holding guns results in an increase of instances of where the gun will kill YOU or a loved one.

In my home city in Australia there have been several home invasion cases in past weeks, none of them fatal. However, what has become obvious is the speed at which things unfold to the point where the only way an armed person would be successful would be to have the weapon in hand, loaded and cocked.

I have no doubt you think you will succeed in the same way I think I will never make a mistake while flying that will result in an accident.

The MAJORITY of gun homicide in the US is by law-abiding citizens.

“That you and numerous foreigners here still refuse to understand that has an impact on your ability to see how that influences the rhetoric in this particular piece of political discourse.”

I admire your knowledge of the constitutional complexities and the difficulty in balancing state and federal powers, not something unique to the US.

However, at no point did I suggest that there was an easy button. I actually do not see this issue ever being solved and indeed I believe in the long term it is this issue that will turn one half of the US against the other half. I don’t for a second think that it will end with the citizens of America ever locked in arms singing kumbya. The opposite in fact.

“To date, the so called "solutions" keep trampling on the rights of citizens”

That is correct, something which most developed countries accept as the price of civility.

“As to your I found a study approach”

As apposed to not using a study? Ignoring facts? Reading NRA propaganda?

Lonewolf_50
2nd Mar 2018, 20:25
“Why do you object to empowering the citizen to be able to do that?”

Because the very empowerment you speak of requires liberal gun laws that permit the proliferation of guns that creates the very problem you are arming yourself to combat. No, it doesn't. The problem is between the ears and inside the hearts of those who choose to kill their fellow citizens. Always has been. We have a lot of gun laws that are badly enforced, but you seem to assert that somehow more laws and more restrictions are somehow a valid solution set? Your "more laws" argument is a bald faced lie. What you want, in your position, is to control other people's choices using a law as a bludgeon. Any old law will do, for your crowd.

You are still missing the context. This current argument is part of a continuum.

The increases in crime in America during my own lifetime (go ahead and google the Kitty Genovese story to understand the underlying social context of what's going on here) has had a number or ripple effects.

One of them is the stark realization that the criminal's rights has become more protected, as has a suspects rights. (Please make sure that you understand the subtle distinction there, because for all that it frustrate's cops, the Miranda decision is a good thing). The knock on effect, in terms of the (1) level of criminal activity and (2) the effort and expense to curtail same, is loss of public trust in "the system" to uphold law and order. There is going to be a reaction to that. (And in some of our cities, a traceable reaction is the formation of gangs for, among other things, small islands of self protection ... though it goes beyond that).

Enter your time capsule and travel about 30 years as that erosion of trust builds and builds. Now head into the 90's and you end up with trust being so badly eroded that the "three strikes and you are out" initiative gets traction in Congress, and so do mandatory sentencing laws. That (IMO poorly advised) change reflects the political expression of people on all sides of the middle being utterly unhappy with the level of crime, and of criminals. That point is just over 20 years ago. (I never liked either of those two initiatives, as messy as it leaves the process and due process. I reject them on the principle of 'every case on its merits" even if that's messy).

The gun grabbing lobby has been aggressive and uncompromising for as long as I've been paying attention to this, which would be in the mid 80's and the pivot point being the Brady bill after Reagan got shot. The problem is that the gun grabbers do not listen, and have never listened, but have only one answer: take away someone else's guns. For years it was pistols: "rifles are OK, we just want those pistols out of people's hands" That's a thirty year track record of intolerance and smoke screens. At some point, there is going to be push back. This dire rhetoric (with handguns as their focus) began before school shootings became a hobby among the mentally lost.

To boil it down for you, beyond the matter of the separate political realities, those of us who are not criminals do not wish to have no choice but to be a victim. A lot of this is about Choices, and the cops mostly can't get there until after the fact given how spread out we are as a society.

A lot of people choose not to own a firearm. Works for me. It's not a requirement. But that's each individual's risk decision to make, and choice. And again, individuals matter.

Lost in your noise is simple principles like that: the freedom to make that choice. Don't forget that a few hundred years ago, people over here were willing to fight and kill to assert and preserve their rights. The English found that out with some dismay, even though they'd been doing that with each other for hundreds of years.

That you want to tar law abiding citizens with the brush of the criminal is once again part of the problem with your position. You are assuming everyone but you must be a criminal, and have criminal intent. Without that axiom , you have no position. But this whole rancorous discourse is based in profound distrust, due to the Thin End Of The Wedge problem. Once you let them take that away, they won't be happy and will try to take something else away. I offer the anti smoking zealots in our own city as the perfect example of how this works.

The initial issue put before the city council was no smoking in restaurants. This went round and round for a bit, and the farcical implementation of no smoking and smoking areas in various public places, to where restaurants where food was served, "what about the children" etc, all worked out to this:
WHere food isn't served, owner discretion, smoking or not.
In a place of "X" size, or with food service (and families, etc) banned.
Finally agreed.
And one year later, guess what happened. The attack on the bars, which were the original "owner discretion sites" and a few other places, began in the city council. That attack continued for a bit over a year until the vote came to the city council, and then that passed as well. (I had stopped smoking at that point in my life, but it was the process here that got my attention).

The anti smoker zealots were trusted, and what did they do? Attacked again. There was no compromise, there was only the desire to control other people's behavior.

The anti-gun zealots are identical in there false faces, and have been since I began to pay attention back in the 80's. The behavior is the same. The lie being spoken is that there is any interest in working together or compromise, per the lie in RAT_5's opening post. (Which also had its share of well poisoning in it).

Sorry, those in your camp cannot be trusted. The track record on this matter is very clear for over 30 years. What the NRA has been doing for the past few decades is in reaction to that.


I have never been interested in buying a semi automatic assault weapon. I qualified on the M-16 back in the 70's, it's a good piece but not what I'd want at home. The rifles I have purchased have all been with hunting in mind.
I bought a Ruger mini-14 in 1980/81. It has a five round clip, fires .223, and is a decent varmint gun and for small deer it suffices. Back in the 80's, I ordered a couple of 20 round clips simply because I could, and have only once gone out in the range with one of them filled. Quite frankly, more expensive than I care to indulge in when I want to keep my proficiency up. The 5 round mag does nicely.
A few years later, I find out from a friend who holds a FFL that my little mini-14 is being classed as an assault weapon in one of the many round and round discussions of "what is an assault weapon?" that was rampant in the 90's and early 00's. In due course, through no action on my own, the prospect faced me that due to the hysteria of the anti gun zealots that I would, overnight, become a criminal owning an "assault weapon" if that measure passed.

Sorry, bud, nobody in the anti gun crowd can be trusted. You've shown your colors time and again, and every position you offer is a bald faced lie about what you want and why you want it and how you want to go about it.

Trossie
2nd Mar 2018, 20:43
Q: Why do the NRA have so much say over politicians?

A: The NRA have got guns!

(A bit third-worldish and war-lordish, all that!)

Lonewolf_50
2nd Mar 2018, 21:10
Trossie, the Number of people who own firearms who are not in the NRA is significant. (Like 4 or 5 times as many are not members, but I can't recall where I saw that comparison. Been a couple of years) Someone in this thread or in US pol hamster wheel pointed out that NRA membership has decreased.

galaxy flyer
2nd Mar 2018, 21:43
Shorter oicur12,

Citizens are too stupid, irresponsible and cannot be trusted, so we’re from the Government to save you. Just sit there and we’ll save you. Given the choice between his position and having guns, it’s not a question for me—I’ll trust myself

GF

Ogre
2nd Mar 2018, 22:04
Shorter oicur12,

Citizens are too stupid, irresponsible and cannot be trusted, so we’re from the Government to save you. Just sit there and we’ll save you. Given the choice between his position and having guns, it’s not a question for me—I’ll trust myself

GF

Regardless of what anyone tells you, a firearm does not load itself, aim itself and choose to let rip when it feels like it. Firearms alone do not kill people, it is the people with firearms that though deliberate actions use the firearms in a manner that kill people.

And when it comes down to it, I don't trust the majority of people to do the right thing all the time driving a car, or crossing the road, or making business decisions.

So why should I trust them with firearms?

TWT
2nd Mar 2018, 22:18
$40 Million is peanuts really - Hilary spent $1.2 Billion on her failed campaign

Highway1, just curious, but how do you know what Hillary spent on her campaign ?

Highway1
2nd Mar 2018, 22:45
Highway1, just curious, but how do you know what Hillary spent on her campaign ?Hillary Clinton’s losing campaign cost a record $1.2B (https://nypost.com/2016/12/09/hillary-clintons-losing-campaign-cost-a-record-1-2b/)


I must admit - I dont know how you spend that obscene amount of money on an election campaign. Perhaps time to put some limits on it.

TWT
2nd Mar 2018, 23:05
Thanks.

If that number is true, then it's scary how that amount could have been raised in the first place much less frittered away !

I'd love to see a breakdown of the costs :)

galaxy flyer
2nd Mar 2018, 23:22
Ed “Sleepy” Bastian got down on CNN and proclaimed his and DL’s support for the Second Amendment.

Delta CEO: 'We are supporters of the 2nd Amendment' - Mar. 2, 2018 (http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/02/news/companies/delta-nra-response/index.html?sr=twCNN030218companies1033AMStory)

BTW, there are three times in Bill of Rights it says “the right of the people....”

GF

megan
3rd Mar 2018, 01:04
Firearms aren't banned but people areI'm afraid you miss Hempy's point. Guns generally are not banned, except for certain types, and nor are people in general banned, except those who show certain dispositions. You best read up on Australia's rules, readily available on the internet.

b1lanc
3rd Mar 2018, 02:12
Ed “Sleepy” Bastian got down on CNN and proclaimed his and DL’s support for the Second Amendment.

Delta CEO: 'We are supporters of the 2nd Amendment' - Mar. 2, 2018 (http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/02/news/companies/delta-nra-response/index.html?sr=twCNN030218companies1033AMStory)

BTW, there are three times in Bill of Rights it says “the right of the people....”

GF
Well, unfortunately, corporations appear to be people too - which is why our political election seasons are inundated by pathetic political drivel paid for by people - err corporations now. The immense pressure to contribute to pols sympathetic to the corporate interest (or managements personal agendas which ticked me off more than anything else) has been intense in the companies I've worked in - to the point of what I would now term harassment in retrospect.

galaxy flyer
3rd Mar 2018, 02:32
Corporations are just an association of people, people who have rights. They have been recognized for centuries.

GF

b1lanc
3rd Mar 2018, 02:57
Corporations are just an association of people, people who have rights. They have been recognized for centuries.

GF
Really? Individuals have no rights within a corporation. They aren't 'associations of people' - they are individual indentured servants to the corporation whose income entirely rests on whether or not they accede to corporate mandates. At-will employees have no say in corporate incompetence. And that's been recognized for centuries as well.

galaxy flyer
3rd Mar 2018, 03:50
One certainly does have “rights”—quit! In a total of 21 years in civil industry, most “at will”; I never once was indentured. I told my bosses on day one, don’t like what I got to say or how I carry out my job, fire me or ask for a resignation and you’ll have it within the hour. I just never put with the BS; called out stupidity regularly and I was a manager for much of the time. Feeling one has to accede to corporate incompetence or mandates is in you, not them. I’ll also told them, I’d “fire them” in heartbeat. Make your services valuable and it can be done.

Yes, the “owners”, not the employees of the owners, have rights to free speech. Don’t like it, sell your stock holdings. You need a better understanding of the corporate structure and less Marxist kant.

GF

b1lanc
3rd Mar 2018, 05:31
One certainly does have “rights”—quit! In a total of 21 years in civil industry, most “at will”; I never once was indentured. I told my bosses on day one, don’t like what I got to say or how I carry out my job, fire me or ask for a resignation and you’ll have it within the hour. I just never put with the BS; called out stupidity regularly and I was a manager for much of the time. Feeling one has to accede to corporate incompetence or mandates is in you, not them. I’ll also told them, I’d “fire them” in heartbeat. Make your services valuable and it can be done.

Yes, the “owners”, not the employees of the owners, have rights to free speech. Don’t like it, sell your stock holdings. You need a better understanding of the corporate structure and less Marxist kant.

GF
CEOs aren't owners and employees aren't associations as you previously asserted. May come as a shock, Ed Bastian doesn't OWN Delta but he speaks for every employee and shareholder when he opens his mouth. Not every Delta employee agreed with what he said so they should quit according to your philosophy? Thankfully, the ones I know are a bit more professional and less self-serving.

Bergerie1
3rd Mar 2018, 06:53
I hesitate to comment - I'm not an American. But if America really is a democracy, why don't the politicians do what the people want?

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/npripsos-poll-majority-americans-support-policies-aimed-keep-guns-out-hands-dangerous-individuals

neila83
3rd Mar 2018, 10:45
I am genuinely fascinated by people who spend hours of their lives on an irrelevent internet forum to talk about how great guns are, in a nice safe space where they can pretend anyone who opposes them is some dirty colonialist. Although most americans, including the president, want tougher laws.

The same people think it's perfectly fine to deny people healthcare because of their financial status. If you believe guns are a right but healthcare isn't, maybe go and re-read the new testament. Because whether you like it or not, Jesus was a socialist. Do be careful to avoid the meek on your nest shooting spree.

I'm sure you all have a way to somehow explain your personal lack of any behavior Jesus would approve of, with the absolute domination of capitalism. America: a country where to become a candidate of the god party all you have to do is talk about how great new ways to people kill are.

If you do all genuinely believe in god, you're going to hell. I somehow suspect you don't though and it's a convenient cover for any weird position you want to take.

vapilot2004
3rd Mar 2018, 11:37
I hesitate to comment - I'm not an American. But if America really is a democracy, why don't the politicians do what the people want?

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/npripsos-poll-majority-americans-support-policies-aimed-keep-guns-out-hands-dangerous-individuals

George Carlin, comedian and oracle and our era's Mark Twain, has your answer, Bergerie. The interesting bits start around 4:15. The whole clip is 9 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-o_XCDTyB4