Las Vegas
Comments
-
I'm not justifying any deaths!!!!!! I find it appalling! What I am attempting to do is identify a solution and I am questioning the logic of those who think that banning guns is the answer. There may be a case for stricter gun control but only if it is workable and enforceable and has the will of the people behind it.Veronese68 wrote:
I didn't read that as suggesting anything about your children, read it again. Reads to me more like he is saying a person may be able to justify accepting so many gun deaths because they don't expect their kids to be shot.Shortfall wrote:
I called him a pr1ck because of his suggestion that I didn't care because it wasn't my own kids getting shot. What is important here is doing something that is going to to be effective, not just doing anything regardless of the outcome of effectiveness.Shortfall wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:The Yanks are happy to accept gun deaths ten times what they would be with comparable legislation in exchange for their right to do what they want. I guess you just assume it will not be your kids who are massacred.
Don't be such a pr1ck.
I think the name calling was unnecessary.0 -
Veronese68 wrote:
I didn't read that as suggesting anything about your children, read it again. Reads to me more like he is saying a person may be able to justify accepting so many gun deaths because they don't expect their kids to be shot.Shortfall wrote:
I called him a pr1ck because of his suggestion that I didn't care because it wasn't my own kids getting shot. What is important here is doing something that is going to to be effective, not just doing anything regardless of the outcome of effectiveness.Shortfall wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:The Yanks are happy to accept gun deaths ten times what they would be with comparable legislation in exchange for their right to do what they want. I guess you just assume it will not be your kids who are massacred.
Don't be such a pr1ck.
I think the name calling was unnecessary.
V68 - your interpretation is correct.
He does seem very angry0 -
Nobody has said you are, read the post. A hypothetical person in the US that believes it is their right to own a gun may justify it because in the hypothetical mind of this hypothetical person they may believe the freedom to own a gun is justified because their hypothetical children won't get shot.Shortfall wrote:
I'm not justifying any deaths!!!!!!Veronese68 wrote:
I didn't read that as suggesting anything about your children, read it again. Reads to me more like he is saying a person may be able to justify accepting so many gun deaths because they don't expect their kids to be shot.Shortfall wrote:
I called him a pr1ck because of his suggestion that I didn't care because it wasn't my own kids getting shot. What is important here is doing something that is going to to be effective, not just doing anything regardless of the outcome of effectiveness.Shortfall wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:The Yanks are happy to accept gun deaths ten times what they would be with comparable legislation in exchange for their right to do what they want. I guess you just assume it will not be your kids who are massacred.
Don't be such a pr1ck.
I think the name calling was unnecessary.0 -
Shortfall wrote:Given that 86 people were killed by a crazed lunatic driving a wagon in Nice last year and similar attacks around the world are growing in frequency, one wonders how effective gun control would be in stopping homicidal maniacs intent on mass slaughter. Any solutions are likely to be far more complex than some unenforceable ban on gun ownership.
Alternative view: How many more people would have been killed if these manics could access semi-automatic rifles?
I'd also bet that some of these killings wouldn't happen if the killers had to get blood on their hands...knife attacks etc.
NOBODY thinks a gun ban would stop maniacs killing, but it at least makes it more difficult. I can't comprehend how anyone can't see that.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:Shortfall wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:Why do you think a ban will be unenforceable?
Because the right to bare arms is so intrinsic to the American psyche and is part of their constitution. Even if a ban on gun ownership were passed onto the statute books there are so many legally and illegally owned guns already in circulation that it would be pretty meaningless in practice. I am absolutely not saying that America shouldn't look long and hard at gun control, but my own belief is that there other factors at play here like the effects on the minds of these killers from illegal and prescription drugs that should be examined at the same time.
I presume you can't legally own surface to air missiles and the like, so it's just about where you draw the line. Saying it is difficult is different to saying it would be meaningless.
There'd be running gun battles with militias in big parts of the US if you forced people to give up their guns.
The entire attitude of the NRA is born out of a conspiracy that the state is out to get you, and only by having a population with an ability to fight a war against them if they get out of hand can you keep the state in check.
They want guns SPECIFICALLY to make sure the gov't doesn't go too far.
i think most people are suggesting a restriction on the types of gun that can be owned, how quickly you can buy a gun, and types of ammo.0 -
Ja but what gov't fighting are you gonna do when they come for you when all you have is a wuss ass bolt action rifle?0
-
Surrey Commuter wrote:Shortfall wrote:Given that 86 people were killed by a crazed lunatic driving a wagon in Nice last year and similar attacks around the world are growing in frequency, one wonders how effective gun control would be in stopping homicidal maniacs intent on mass slaughter. Any solutions are likely to be far more complex than some unenforceable ban on gun ownership.
it is just a matter of making it harder for people.
Most developed countries see no need for people to own assault rifles or machine guns or would limit the amount of ammo they could buy.
The Yanks are happy to accept gun deaths ten times what they would be with comparable legislation in exchange for their right to do what they want. I guess you just assume it will not be your kids who are massacred.
Or military type ammo - that is designed to disintegrate bone and leave exit wounds the size of grapefruit.0 -
Veronese68 wrote:
Nobody has said you are, read the post. A hypothetical person in the US that believes it is their right to own a gun may justify it because in the hypothetical mind of this hypothetical person they may believe the freedom to own a gun is justified because their hypothetical children won't get shot.Shortfall wrote:
I'm not justifying any deaths!!!!!!Veronese68 wrote:
I didn't read that as suggesting anything about your children, read it again. Reads to me more like he is saying a person may be able to justify accepting so many gun deaths because they don't expect their kids to be shot.Shortfall wrote:
I called him a pr1ck because of his suggestion that I didn't care because it wasn't my own kids getting shot. What is important here is doing something that is going to to be effective, not just doing anything regardless of the outcome of effectiveness.Shortfall wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:The Yanks are happy to accept gun deaths ten times what they would be with comparable legislation in exchange for their right to do what they want. I guess you just assume it will not be your kids who are massacred.
Don't be such a pr1ck.
I think the name calling was unnecessary.
The clue to why I believe he was addressing me personally is this:
" I guess you just assume it will not be your kids who are massacred".
In any case, even if we assume he's talking hypothetically, I'm sure the American people base their perceptions of gun control on how it might affect them and their families and aren't immune to the idea that their own kids may become victims. Once again, I'm not advocating gun ownership here, I'm suggesting that given American attitudes are very different to our own that there aren't any solutions.0 -
I suggest you Google "knife killings in China" which may disabuse you of your idea.Dinyull wrote:Shortfall wrote:Given that 86 people were killed by a crazed lunatic driving a wagon in Nice last year and similar attacks around the world are growing in frequency, one wonders how effective gun control would be in stopping homicidal maniacs intent on mass slaughter. Any solutions are likely to be far more complex than some unenforceable ban on gun ownership.
Alternative view: How many more people would have been killed if these manics could access semi-automatic rifles?
I'd also bet that some of these killings wouldn't happen if the killers had to get blood on their hands...knife attacks etc.
NOBODY thinks a gun ban would stop maniacs killing, but it at least makes it more difficult. I can't comprehend how anyone can't see that.0 -
Shortfall wrote:
I'm not justifying any deaths!!!!!! I find it appalling! What I am attempting to do is identify a solution and I am questioning the logic of those who think that banning guns is the answer. There may be a case for stricter gun control but only if it is workable and enforceable and has the will of the people behind it.Veronese68 wrote:
I didn't read that as suggesting anything about your children, read it again. Reads to me more like he is saying a person may be able to justify accepting so many gun deaths because they don't expect their kids to be shot.Shortfall wrote:
I called him a pr1ck because of his suggestion that I didn't care because it wasn't my own kids getting shot. What is important here is doing something that is going to to be effective, not just doing anything regardless of the outcome of effectiveness.Shortfall wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:The Yanks are happy to accept gun deaths ten times what they would be with comparable legislation in exchange for their right to do what they want. I guess you just assume it will not be your kids who are massacred.
Don't be such a pr1ck.
I think the name calling was unnecessary.
i agree with you, millions of guns, a population that sees carrying weapons as a normal part of life... even if ALL the semi automatic rifles could be removed, you are looking at reducing the deaths as anyone with 2 or 3 semi automatic handguns can cause a heck of a lot of deaths in a crowded space.
the police had to warn all traffic cops to make sure cars were locked as citizens were trying to steal weapons from them apparently to protect themselves.
Experts are saying that his addiction to high stakes gambling might well be an indication of a underlying personality disorder, he obv had a sharp mind, built a very profitable property business, orderly and capable of planning to the last detail, cameras so he could see the police advancing on his room!
Maybe we just have to accept that the US is a very disfunctional society and that there are no short term answers.
Military style .223 rounds are common in all types of rifle used for hunting, dum dums are banned within NATO.0 -
Shortfall wrote:Veronese68 wrote:
Nobody has said you are, read the post. A hypothetical person in the US that believes it is their right to own a gun may justify it because in the hypothetical mind of this hypothetical person they may believe the freedom to own a gun is justified because their hypothetical children won't get shot.Shortfall wrote:
I'm not justifying any deaths!!!!!!Veronese68 wrote:
I didn't read that as suggesting anything about your children, read it again. Reads to me more like he is saying a person may be able to justify accepting so many gun deaths because they don't expect their kids to be shot.Shortfall wrote:
I called him a pr1ck because of his suggestion that I didn't care because it wasn't my own kids getting shot. What is important here is doing something that is going to to be effective, not just doing anything regardless of the outcome of effectiveness.Shortfall wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:The Yanks are happy to accept gun deaths ten times what they would be with comparable legislation in exchange for their right to do what they want. I guess you just assume it will not be your kids who are massacred.
Don't be such a pr1ck.
I think the name calling was unnecessary.
The clue to why I believe he was addressing me personally is this:
" I guess you just assume it will not be your kids who are massacred.
In any case, even if we assume he's talking hypothetically, I'm sure the American people base their perceptions of gun control on how it might affect them and their families and aren't immune to the idea that their own kids may become victims. Once again, I'm not advocating gun ownership here, I'm suggesting that given American attitudes are very different to our own that there aren't any solutions.
now you are agreeing with me0 -
Shortfall wrote:
I suggest you Google "knife killings in China" which may disabuse you of your idea.Dinyull wrote:Shortfall wrote:Given that 86 people were killed by a crazed lunatic driving a wagon in Nice last year and similar attacks around the world are growing in frequency, one wonders how effective gun control would be in stopping homicidal maniacs intent on mass slaughter. Any solutions are likely to be far more complex than some unenforceable ban on gun ownership.
Alternative view: How many more people would have been killed if these manics could access semi-automatic rifles?
I'd also bet that some of these killings wouldn't happen if the killers had to get blood on their hands...knife attacks etc.
NOBODY thinks a gun ban would stop maniacs killing, but it at least makes it more difficult. I can't comprehend how anyone can't see that.
What I meant was...if this guy didn't have a gun would he have been likely to go on a knife spree? And if so, would he have killed 59 and injured 500?
Same for Columbine and Aurora?0 -
Face it, when it comes to gun control in America they are already up shit creek and have shot the paddle to pieces. They could ban all sales today and it wouldn’t make a difference.
Not that they shouldn’t try...The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Dinyull wrote:Shortfall wrote:
I suggest you Google "knife killings in China" which may disabuse you of your idea.Dinyull wrote:Shortfall wrote:Given that 86 people were killed by a crazed lunatic driving a wagon in Nice last year and similar attacks around the world are growing in frequency, one wonders how effective gun control would be in stopping homicidal maniacs intent on mass slaughter. Any solutions are likely to be far more complex than some unenforceable ban on gun ownership.
Alternative view: How many more people would have been killed if these manics could access semi-automatic rifles?
I'd also bet that some of these killings wouldn't happen if the killers had to get blood on their hands...knife attacks etc.
NOBODY thinks a gun ban would stop maniacs killing, but it at least makes it more difficult. I can't comprehend how anyone can't see that.
What I meant was...if this guy didn't have a gun would he have been likely to go on a knife spree? And if so, would he have killed 59 and injured 500?
Same for Columbine and Aurora?
Well I don't know for sure but I can guess. If a nutter is intent on causing mass casualties then there are innumerable ways to go about it with or without a gun or a knife.0 -
Shortfall wrote:Dinyull wrote:Shortfall wrote:
I suggest you Google "knife killings in China" which may disabuse you of your idea.Dinyull wrote:Shortfall wrote:Given that 86 people were killed by a crazed lunatic driving a wagon in Nice last year and similar attacks around the world are growing in frequency, one wonders how effective gun control would be in stopping homicidal maniacs intent on mass slaughter. Any solutions are likely to be far more complex than some unenforceable ban on gun ownership.
Alternative view: How many more people would have been killed if these manics could access semi-automatic rifles?
I'd also bet that some of these killings wouldn't happen if the killers had to get blood on their hands...knife attacks etc.
NOBODY thinks a gun ban would stop maniacs killing, but it at least makes it more difficult. I can't comprehend how anyone can't see that.
What I meant was...if this guy didn't have a gun would he have been likely to go on a knife spree? And if so, would he have killed 59 and injured 500?
Same for Columbine and Aurora?
Well I don't know for sure but I can guess. If a nutter is intent on causing mass casualties then there are innumerable ways to go about it with or without a gun or a knife.
No one disputes that. But like already pointed out, rules are ever changing to suit the landscape.
Since the truck/van attacks we've had to start thinking about anti-terrorist measures. They look sh*t but it's accepted as needed.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Ja but what gov't fighting are you gonna do when they come for you when all you have is a wuss ass bolt action rifle?
Pretty much the response given by the gun shop owner on BBC news just now. Apparently if the Government can have a weapon the population should be able to as well to stop 'them' (the Government) overthrowing 'us' (the People). Even if you accept that situation is likely to happen (seems odd even in the Trump era as the Government control the country and don't need to overthrow the populace who gave them that mandate) if you follow it through to the logical conclusion the populace should have acces to Abrams tanks, Apache gunships, F16s and nuclear weapons. Why are they such a paranoid nation?0 -
Pross wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Ja but what gov't fighting are you gonna do when they come for you when all you have is a wuss ass bolt action rifle?
Pretty much the response given by the gun shop owner on BBC news just now. Apparently if the Government can have a weapon the population should be able to as well to stop 'them' (the Government) overthrowing 'us' (the People). Even if you accept that situation is likely to happen (seems odd even in the Trump era as the Government control the country and don't need to overthrow the populace who gave them that mandate) if you follow it through to the logical conclusion the populace should have acces to Abrams tanks, Apache gunships, F16s and nuclear weapons. Why are they such a paranoid nation?
I've always associated the suspicion of the state with the mentality of the original settlers; it goes hand in hand with the piousness of the more extreme types of Protestantism. America was for a long time full of Europeans who had various reasons to make a long and potentially dangerous journey, leaving literally all they know behind to start a new life.
Usually they're either religiously persecuted or have other reasons to not enjoy the government (corruption, dodgy themselves, etc).
That has never really left the rural parts of the states. There was already a town/countryside divide in the US long before they even reached the West Coast, because a lot of those who fled Europe didn't suddenly want to live in a newer version of one.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Pross wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Ja but what gov't fighting are you gonna do when they come for you when all you have is a wuss ass bolt action rifle?
Pretty much the response given by the gun shop owner on BBC news just now. Apparently if the Government can have a weapon the population should be able to as well to stop 'them' (the Government) overthrowing 'us' (the People). Even if you accept that situation is likely to happen (seems odd even in the Trump era as the Government control the country and don't need to overthrow the populace who gave them that mandate) if you follow it through to the logical conclusion the populace should have acces to Abrams tanks, Apache gunships, F16s and nuclear weapons. Why are they such a paranoid nation?
I've always associated the suspicion of the state with the mentality of the original settlers; it goes hand in hand with the piousness of the more extreme types of Protestantism. America was for a long time full of Europeans who had various reasons to make a long and potentially dangerous journey, leaving literally all they know behind to start a new life.
Usually they're either religiously persecuted or have other reasons to not enjoy the government (corruption, dodgy themselves, etc).
That has never really left the rural parts of the states. There was already a town/countryside divide in the US long before they even reached the West Coast, because a lot of those who fled Europe didn't suddenly want to live in a newer version of one.
I know nothing about where Canadians came from but is it really so different? Australians have a dodgy lineage but don't massacre each other.0 -
Pross wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Ja but what gov't fighting are you gonna do when they come for you when all you have is a wuss ass bolt action rifle?
Pretty much the response given by the gun shop owner on BBC news just now. Apparently if the Government can have a weapon the population should be able to as well to stop 'them' (the Government) overthrowing 'us' (the People). Even if you accept that situation is likely to happen (seems odd even in the Trump era as the Government control the country and don't need to overthrow the populace who gave them that mandate) if you follow it through to the logical conclusion the populace should have acces to Abrams tanks, Apache gunships, F16s and nuclear weapons. Why are they such a paranoid nation?
Easy to see why, life is cheap, the crims have access to guns and will use them.
saw all this in SAfrica, gated communities, everyone had a weapon, robberies/car jackings often ended in murder, my cousin had several guns and i was expected to use them too.
add in the right to bear arms and its a recipe for disaster.
i dont understand the "we must be armed because the Gov is" bit though, thats just bizzare.0 -
Also, there was an awful lot sent there against their will which would explain their antagonisms but not Canada, Australia... or why today. Pretty much every Country has a horrible history.Rick Chasey wrote:Pross wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Ja but what gov't fighting are you gonna do when they come for you when all you have is a wuss ass bolt action rifle?
Pretty much the response given by the gun shop owner on BBC news just now. Apparently if the Government can have a weapon the population should be able to as well to stop 'them' (the Government) overthrowing 'us' (the People). Even if you accept that situation is likely to happen (seems odd even in the Trump era as the Government control the country and don't need to overthrow the populace who gave them that mandate) if you follow it through to the logical conclusion the populace should have acces to Abrams tanks, Apache gunships, F16s and nuclear weapons. Why are they such a paranoid nation?
I've always associated the suspicion of the state with the mentality of the original settlers; it goes hand in hand with the piousness of the more extreme types of Protestantism. America was for a long time full of Europeans who had various reasons to make a long and potentially dangerous journey, leaving literally all they know behind to start a new life.
Usually they're either religiously persecuted or have other reasons to not enjoy the government (corruption, dodgy themselves, etc).
That has never really left the rural parts of the states. There was already a town/countryside divide in the US long before they even reached the West Coast, because a lot of those who fled Europe didn't suddenly want to live in a newer version of one.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:I know nothing about where Canadians came from but is it really so different? Australians have a dodgy lineage but don't massacre each other.
Interesting reading on Australia...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/04/with-our-own-gun-laws-eroding-australia-is-facing-a-concerning-future0 -
PBlakeney wrote:Face it, when it comes to gun control in America they are already up shoot creek and have shot the paddle to pieces. They could ban all sales today and it wouldn’t make a difference.
Not that they shouldn’t try...
It would likely make a difference. Particularly in the latest case. Otherwise law abiding person - even if he'd had some illegal weaponry stashed away he probably couldn't have put together the kit that he used in this shooting if owning guns was largely illegal. Or at least it would have been a lot less likely.
Of course, America will have to hope that this latest approach to mass killing doesn't inspire more similar in future. It seems a lot more effective than running around shooting people at ground level.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Rolf F wrote:PBlakeney wrote:Face it, when it comes to gun control in America they are already up shoot creek and have shot the paddle to pieces. They could ban all sales today and it wouldn’t make a difference.
Not that they shouldn’t try...
It would likely make a difference. Particularly in the latest case. Otherwise law abiding person - even if he'd had some illegal weaponry stashed away he probably couldn't have put together the kit that he used in this shooting if owning guns was largely illegal. Or at least it would have been a lot less likely.
Of course, America will have to hope that this latest approach to mass killing doesn't inspire more similar in future. It seems a lot more effective than running around shooting people at ground level.
I said to the wife during the news the other night that they'll ban mass outdoor gatherings before any form of an additional gun ban.0 -
NRA now calling for more regulations. That I did not expect.
Also, we now know that 4 days is the amount of time before the gun lobby thinks it's appropriate to talk about gun control.0 -
Like many things in politics (and especially in US politics) it comes down to money and lobbying.
Even if you consider the "right to own and bear arms" as an appropriate and current right, this is fully met in allowing people to buy and own a single hunting rifle, revolver or pistol with a 6 round magazine capacity - after they have been through a number of checks of course. Add in some restrictions on the numbers of rounds people can buy and then remove all other weapons and magazines from the market.
This won't solve the problem - but it will reduce the likelihood of mass shootings.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:NRA now calling for more regulations. That I did not expect.
Also, we now know that 4 days is the amount of time before the gun lobby thinks it's appropriate to talk about gun control.
Calling for an administrative adjustment to avoid actual legislation.0 -
Did anyone see John Oliver interviewing Philip van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defense(sic) League?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA
You can't reason with stupidity and ignorance.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:NRA now calling for more regulations. That I did not expect.
Also, we now know that 4 days is the amount of time before the gun lobby thinks it's appropriate to talk about gun control.
Calling for an administrative adjustment to avoid actual legislation.
Yes - but it's still a surprise that the NRA can suddenly see they were on the wrong side of this.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:NRA now calling for more regulations. That I did not expect.
Also, we now know that 4 days is the amount of time before the gun lobby thinks it's appropriate to talk about gun control.
Calling for an administrative adjustment to avoid actual legislation.
Yes - but it's still a surprise that the NRA can suddenly see they were on the wrong side of this.
Well, he had all the guns legally. So, that's kinda tough for them.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:NRA now calling for more regulations. That I did not expect.
Also, we now know that 4 days is the amount of time before the gun lobby thinks it's appropriate to talk about gun control.
Calling for an administrative adjustment to avoid actual legislation.
Yes - but it's still a surprise that the NRA can suddenly see they were on the wrong side of this.
Well, he had all the guns legally. So, that's kinda tough for them.
Normally it would be the price you pay for the rights in the 2nd amendment. This time is the first time I can remember when it's been a different response in any small way at all.
It's a lot more difficult to argue a nuanced point around exactly what should be restricted, rather than saying NO to any restrictions.0
