PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it? (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/549775-usa-gun-thread-wont-controversial-will.html)

BOING 2nd Nov 2014 01:23

Yep, sad indictment but this is a big country where everyone has places to go and people to see so news gets old fast - mind you, even when the news was fresh many people would recognize the son but few the mother. That's one of the problems that is difficult to deal with. The poor farm laborer in the mid-west who works dawn to dusk does not get much reason to check on anything other than the price paid for corn. That's his survival you see and his World is twenty miles across. Really nice people too, no affectations, perhaps favoring your home town is not a bad thing.

You are wrong on the "more guns equals more deaths" comment. Over here that sound bite is used to frighten the undecided and it is MOST CERTAINLY intended to apply to the absolute number of guns in "civilian" possession although it may have another meaning on your side of the pond. "More guns, more deaths" is a frequent rallying cry against gun ownership.


.

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 01:24


Originally Posted by Dushan (Post 8724238)
So you are going to pass this as a royal edict, George?

Nope, I just offer it up as a suggestion, do you see any flaws in the notion :ok:

BOING 2nd Nov 2014 01:31

Seldom.
I love it, political suicide. Your words will be twisted into anti-gun sympathies. The Republicans grab onto your statement, use it as a campaign quote to ensure their supporters get out to vote and to sway the voters who may go Democrat on economic issues but will vote Republican to protect their rights. Even the touchy-feelies will hate you for forcing committal since they see it as an attack on their favorite 4th.

Dead end.

You can have a reset if you like. It is now 5.31 pm Pacific Time.

.

BOING 2nd Nov 2014 01:35

Seldom.
Sorry, I forgot to mention this. Harry Reid the Democratic Senate majority leader is officially pro-gun.

Complicates things but I thought I had better warn you.

.

Dushan 2nd Nov 2014 01:36

That suggestion has every flaw known to man until it becomes a law, and the question asked by BOEING was how would you make it a law. You are one of 539, let's hear it.

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 01:38

Yep, but forgetting all that politics pandering, do you see a problem with telling Mrs Lanza sorry you cant have a gun if Adams home?

BOING 2nd Nov 2014 01:39

Good news Seldom.
I arranged a meeting with the NRA for you the week before the elections. Let me know if you can make it.

There will be a lot of people disappointed if you miss it, of course they wont be Republicans.

.

galaxy flyer 2nd Nov 2014 01:40

PTT,

"It" is simply that we understand the balance between individual liberty and the outcomes of exercising them differently than you Euros who would rather keep the "people" under the government's boot to ensure some margin of safety.

Ben Franklin said it best, "those who would give up liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty of safety."

GF

Dushan 2nd Nov 2014 01:40

Of course I do. It's unconstitutional. You're the lawmaker, surely you won't go against the Constitution?

BOING 2nd Nov 2014 01:41

Of course, the obvious reason is that she is dead so the question is a bit hypothetical. Apart from that you can't just go around putting your gun in the possession of others - there are laws against that sort of thing to ensure public safety.

.

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 01:42


Originally Posted by Dushan (Post 8724256)
That suggestion has every flaw known to man until it becomes a law, and the question asked by BOEING was how would you make it a law. You are one of 539, let's hear it.

Do you remember the abolition of slavery, it's not like you guys haven't done this sort of thing before.

Clucking bell you guys put the first man on the moon, how hard can it be to stop Mrs Lanza doing something silly........:confused:

Dushan 2nd Nov 2014 01:46

Obviously harder, and it won't be done until people are ready. Both houses in at least 38 states...

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 01:47


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8724263)
Apart from that you can't just go around putting your gun in the possession of others - there are laws against that sort of thing to ensure public safety.

.

Irony alert, massive irony alert :(

BOING 2nd Nov 2014 01:51

This might help when you meet the NRA, good talking point. (Conn. was Lanza's State)


Seizure of weapons

Connecticut statutes contain provision that allow law enforcement officials to pre-emptively seize a person's firearms without a warrant or court order, when they have probable cause that the person may either be mentally unstable or intends to use the weapons to commit a crime. The weapons remain in the custody of the law enforcement office that confiscated them, for a maximum of one year, until further directed by an appropriate court of law. Currently, only two other states (New York and Indiana) have weapons seizure laws similar to Connecticut's.

BOING 2nd Nov 2014 01:53

Sorry, I missed this bit.

Connecticut passed gun laws in April 2013 that made it amongst the most restrictive in the country; some of which are being challenged by lawsuits in both the state and federal courts.
.

galaxy flyer 2nd Nov 2014 01:12

Clucking bell you guys put the only men on the moon, how hard can it be to stop Mrs Lanza doing something silly........

Fixed it for ya, SFFP

GF

LASJayhawk 2nd Nov 2014 01:19

It is funny the Brits want to disarm everyone. Just like they did to themselves between WWI and WWII. But they sure didn't mind asking if they can borrow some rifles from us when they were looking across the channel at the German Army. :ugh:


Sorry it is far more prudent to have a firearm and never need it, than need it and not have it. ;)

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 01:38


Originally Posted by galaxy flyer (Post 8724290)
Clucking bell you guys put the only men on the moon, how hard can it be to stop Mrs Lanza doing something silly........

Fixed it for ya, SFFP

GF

Fixed it absolutely, answered it.........naaaah :ok:

BOING 2nd Nov 2014 02:10

Seldom.
Have you worked out how you are going to solve our problems yet, you have the power you have the desire, where's the action?

Not even a peep, perhaps you are playing the game of our present politicians - whatever you do don't make waves and above all work to get re-elected.

I am disappointed in you giving up your principles, you had so much promise.

Back to the old game of asking pointless questions I see. Perhaps you did learn some politics.


.

Dushan 2nd Nov 2014 02:13

Give him time. He is waiting for an answer from Mel Brooks to see if he can use the phrase "it's good to be the king".

BOING 2nd Nov 2014 02:29


NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) — Thousands of pages of documents from the Newtown shooting investigation help fill out the picture of the gunman's mother as a dedicated and loving, if bewildered, parent who acknowledged her son appeared to be spiraling downward but was not aware to what extent.
Well, they could be wrong.



"Friends told NBC's Today show on Monday that Lanza was a devoted mother, especially to her son Adam, and that shooting guns was simply a hobby for her. Russell Hanoman said Adam Lanza was 'clearly a troubled child.'

"Hanoman said Nancy Lanza told him she introduced guns to Adam as a way to teach him responsibility. 'Guns require a lot of respect, and she really tried to instill that responsibility within him, and he took to it. He loved being careful with them. He made it a source of pride,' Hanoman said."
Perhaps Seldom is thinking of another Mrs. Lanza.

.

galaxy flyer 2nd Nov 2014 02:43

SFFP,

The answer is there is NO answer unless you think the government of Connecticut, the US Government or the Her Majesty's Government can read minds like Lanza's and disarm them. Or do you propose denying people rights because they might be a danger?

How come, on other threads, people like you are lecturing us NOT to judge all Muslims by the actions of a few, but you are more than willing to judge all firearms enthusiasts by the actions of the few?

GF

BOING 2nd Nov 2014 03:02

Looks as though our friend Seldom has a record - involving PTT even

Early this year from PTT


Seldomfitforpurpose - see, now you're trolling. The venn diagrams are on the page and you can measure them yourself. They were done by area, by me, using the numbers stated. The numbers are on the diagrams. How the numbers were ascertained are in the same post the diagram was in, with sources linked. All the questions you just posted are answered in post 974.

Now, please answer the question I've asked of you several times: would those same people who blame Muslims as a whole for the disgusting killing of Lee Rigby also blame Christians as a whole for the acts of Anders Breivik or Scott Roeder, or Jews as a whole for Yigal Amir or Baruch Goldstein?
Nothings changed. If you can't answer confuse the issue.

.

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 08:26


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8724325)


Perhaps Seldom is thinking of another Mrs. Lanza.

.

If she's the Mrs Lanza whose son went onto kill her and the kids at Sandy Hook then we are talking about the same Mrs Lanza :ok:

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 08:31


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8724339)
Nothings changed. If you can't answer confuse the issue.

.

The answer was previously posted, you just chose to ignore it.

The answer is to deny Adam Lanza access to firearms and firearms training, without guns and training he can't carry out the Sandy Hook massacre.

Currently the 2nd doesn't allow that hence my suggestion it might need a bit of a tweak.

If that's hard to grasp don't shoot the messenger but to an outsider the answer to the Lanza problem is blindingly obvious.

PTT 2nd Nov 2014 08:51


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8724240)
You are wrong on the "more guns equals more deaths" comment. Over here that sound bite is used to frighten the undecided and it is MOST CERTAINLY intended to apply to the absolute number of guns in "civilian" possession although it may have another meaning on your side of the pond. "More guns, more deaths" is a frequent rallying cry against gun ownership..

See? "Over here" provides that context of population about which I was talking. You've actually proved my point, unless you think that these people are talking about some other place than the US.

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer (Post 8724261)
PTT,

"It" is simply that we understand the balance between individual liberty and the outcomes of exercising them differently than you Euros who would rather keep the "people" under the government's boot to ensure some margin of safety.

Ben Franklin said it best, "those who would give up liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty of safety."GF

I'd say we do understand them differently. "The people" want the government to prevent things like Sandy Hook from happening regularly, and are willing to forego such rights in order to prevent it. It's impossible to stop such things, but the relative lack of them makes us happier than having lots of them and being able to keep guns. Like I said earlier: those who most want guns are often those who should least have access to them (a bit like any power, really).

Franklin's quote is all well and good, but you have plenty of restrictions which are imposed for public safety, so it's a bit hollow.

Mr Chips 2nd Nov 2014 08:54


The answer is to deny Adam Lanza access to firearms and firearms training, without guns and training he can't carry out the Sandy Hook massacre.
But therein lies the issue. You can't make a law that stops a named individual, laws don't work that way.

Mrs Lanza had the right to own guns, but it was up to her as an individual to decide whether it was appropriate to own them, to have them at home, to introduce her son to them.

Much as the UK government try, you can just ban things for the greater good, some things come down to individuals making the right choice.

Mrs Lanza didn't.

mixture 2nd Nov 2014 09:09


It is funny the Brits want to disarm everyone. Just like they did to themselves between WWI and WWII.
Seriously ?! :ugh:

Its always most amusing to see the extents the pro-gun Americans will go to to clutch at their straws... many of the counter-arguments they come up with are laughable ("defend my family", "uprising against the government" etc.) !

Don't waste your time bringing up the silly WWI/WWII analogy .... because the rest of the world will be quick to remind the Yanks that they would have been up shit creek without a paddle during their crusades of Afghanistan and Iraq if it wasn't for help from the rest of the world ..... after all, Gerorge Dubbya washed his hands of it when he said "we don't do nation building" .... indeed, the Americans are only interested in firing guns and dropping bombs.... then leaving the mess for others to clean up !

So please, leave your silly WWI/WWII statements where they belong.... i.e. decades in the past !

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 09:26


Originally Posted by Mr Chips (Post 8724491)
But therein lies the issue. You can't make a law that stops a named individual, laws don't work that way.

Mrs Lanza had the right to own guns, but it was up to her as an individual to decide whether it was appropriate to own them, to have them at home, to introduce her son to them.

Much as the UK government try, you can just ban things for the greater good, some things come down to individuals making the right choice.

Mrs Lanza didn't.

You make my point quite succinctly. As the law in the US stands Mrs Lanza did nothing wrong apart from make a bad choice.

My point is should the law allow that?

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 09:30


Originally Posted by galaxy flyer (Post 8724331)
SFFP,

How come, on other threads, people like you are lecturing us NOT to judge all Muslims by the actions of a few, but you are more than willing to judge all firearms enthusiasts by the actions of the few?

GF

If you care to show me which threads I have made either of those accusations I would be most grateful.

perthsaint 2nd Nov 2014 09:36

Seldom,

Are you suggesting we should judge all muslims by the actions of a few?

Mr Chips 2nd Nov 2014 10:18


My point is should the law allow that?
Yes.

You can't legislate every individual circumstance. You give people rights but the people must exercise those rights properlyu.

How would the law look? "You may own guns unless your son is a bit mental"

How mental? What if you deny your son is mental*? Are we talking certifiable or just a bit odd? Who decides? What if I just don't get him tested?

Mrs Lanza was in the wrong, not the government, not the law, not the constitution

*emotive expression used deliberately

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 11:33


Originally Posted by Mr Chips (Post 8724564)
Yes.

You can't legislate every individual circumstance. You give people rights but the people must exercise those rights properlyu.

How would the law look? "You may own guns unless your son is a bit mental"

How mental? What if you deny your son is mental*? Are we talking certifiable or just a bit odd? Who decides? What if I just don't get him tested?

Mrs Lanza was in the wrong, not the government, not the law, not the constitution

*emotive expression used deliberately

People have the right to own a car, but can only use it for its intended purpose iaw a prescribed set of rules and regs.

We have a friend who has an adult age child with Downs Syndrome, do you think it would right and proper for her to drive?

My father had a driving licence all his life but in his final years he went rapidly downhill with dementia, should we have allowed him to continue to drive?

Why is some sort of read across on the above sort of simple logic for guns such a bad idea?

Mrs Lanza trained Adam, the Instructor who allowed the young girl to 'Uzi' him to death, both thought what they were doing was right. There is no doubt they are not alone in that kind of fruit loop thinking.

No one with an ounce of sense would think they were right so why not say so.

Dushan 2nd Nov 2014 12:24

Bacause driving is a privilege and owing a gun is a right.

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 12:54


Originally Posted by Dushan (Post 8724701)
Bacause driving is a privilege and owing a gun is a right.


Absolutely, hence my outsiders suggestion that the 'right' maybe needs a tweak or two to attempt to prevent 'gun stoopid' :ok:

Dushan 2nd Nov 2014 13:45

You can't "tweak" a right. A right is a right. You acquire it at birth, just like skin color.

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 13:49


Originally Posted by Dushan (Post 8724771)
can't


Not something I normally associate with US folk.


Just a thought but are there any US folk excluded from having that right?

PTT 2nd Nov 2014 14:15


Originally Posted by Dushan (Post 8724771)
You can't "tweak" a right. A right is a right. You acquire it at birth, just like skin color.

Nonsense. You only have the rights you are able to take.

Dushan 2nd Nov 2014 14:19

So we can disband the whole "human rights" industry?

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Nov 2014 14:25


Originally Posted by PTT (Post 8724798)
Nonsense. You only have the rights you are able to take.


That's what I thought, all Americans are effectively born with a right to bear arms but I seem to recall that right does get revoked on occasion, perhaps Dushan can conform that for us................


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:20.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.