And it keeps on happening...

[Robinho]

Boy killed sister with gun for kids http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22386105

I have got to the point where I honestly believe people deserve to keep having these things happen to them and their families and will continue to justify it with some spurious links to rights and freedoms.

Sent from North Korea using the dark network

[dj_bytedisaster]

I used to be upset about people, who think that having rifles at home makes them live safer. But looking at things like that, I'd say by the rate this is going lately, they'll annihilate each other, so let them...

[anthonyvop]

I have asked before and nobody has been able to provide an example.


Show me one case where a properly functioning firearm ever killed or even injured a human being.

Just one case.

[dj_bytedisaster]

I have asked before and nobody has been able to provide an example.

Show me one case where a properly functioning firearm ever killed or even injured a human being.

Just one case.

The little boy's gun was properly functioning, wasn't it? He even has a dead sister to show for it. It sounds cynic and in a way it is, but people, who think that their 5 year old son should have a deadly weapon shouldn't have kids in the first place. Looks like the little fella has started to correct that oversight.
It's just ridiculous. In America there's warning messages on coffee cups and kids have to wear helmets for everything but getting molested by their resident priest, but buying them a weapon with live ammunition is ok. That doesn't even make sense after 10 beers.

[henners88]

At least the little boy will grow up knowing he had the right to do it.

That's life eh.

[Robinho]

Tony, I'm not blaming guns, I'm blaming the people who time and time again prove they cannot be trusted with a lethal weapon. I can't see this boy having killed his sister, accidentally, with anything like the ease he did, without access to a gun.

Sent from North Korea using the dark network

[dj_bytedisaster]

I can't see this boy having killed his sister, accidentally, with anything like the ease he did, without access to a gun.


It was his own gun, a special made gun for children. That's how perverted the whole scenario is. There is a company out there that makes lethal weapons, specifically for small children. I have no sympathy for the parents, who lost their daughter. The little girl died, because her brain dead parents thought it was a good idea to buy a gun for a toddler.
I don't buy this whole claptrap that they want to teach gun safety to their kids. A five year old has no business touching a lethal weapon. period. A what's there to teach about 'gun safety'? Thy shalt not point the dangerous end at people - that's all. I feel for the little girl, but I have no sympathy for the parents, who shouldn't have been allowed to breed in the first place.

[schmenke]

Good Lord! :s

"...Kristian's rifle was manufactured by Keystone Sporting Arms, which has a "kids' corner" on its website featuring images of children at shooting ranges and on bird and deer hunts. The guns are sold in pink, blue and other colours and designs. ..."

[Bagwan]

It's not a question of whether the "My little pony" edition sells , but rather whether the clip is allowed to have more than 10 rounds that is the real issue here , people .
Get real .

[race aficionado]

Yep, let's get real.

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/05/04/8a8edyna.jpg

[donKey jote]

Sorry race, but this is a culture (sic? :p ) war against you anti-gun elitists :dozey:
BBC News - NRA chief in rallying cry for 'culture war' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22402866)

[mr nobody]

Marketing a gun specifically for kids (like the one the boy had) is wrong. BUT, what's een more wrong is the fact the parents didn't teach their kid to be responsible with gins and that a firearm is not a toy. I was born and raised in a house where the family guns (2 shotguns and 22lr caliber rifles) hung in the hallway right outside my bedroom. Never once did I have the deisre to touch them or play with them. Why you ask, it comes down to this. My parents taught me that if I was told not to do something I listened. If they told me to respect a firearm, make sure what you are shooting at and make sure where everyone is before ever loading the chamber (much less pulling the trigger) I listened. I was never left unattended with any firearm or anything else that was inherently dangerous. I went shooting for the first time when I was 7. Now I am 35 and I have three AR-15's (2 in .223 and one in 22lr), I have a Remington 1911R1 in 45 ACP, I have a GSG-522 rifle, a Umarex 1911 in 22lr, and a Ruger 10/22. I still fully respect firearms and I make doubly sure when I am out shooting that everyone is always accounted forbefore I ever load the gun or pull the trigger.

This isn't a firearm issue at all. It's a society that fails to teach people to be responsible with the privileges they are given.

[dj_bytedisaster]

mr. nobody, I'm seriously at a loss here. I'm trying to come up with reasons, why a single household needs to have 3 (!!) semi-automatic assault rifles. Some that spring to mind :

a) serious genital size issues,
b) preparing to mow down dozens of kids in a high school,
c) being the worlds most useless hunter or
d) living in Syria

Seriously, not a single reason comes up that would make owning three AR-15's sound like something that makes sense :eek:

[donKey jote]

dj, some people collect stamps, others collect guns. Some collect cars, others collect wives. So long as it's legal, it's non of your business. :)

Still, a five year old is a five year old :rolleyes: , and marketing guns for these ages is :crazy: .

[ioan]

Boy killed sister with gun for kids BBC News - Kentucky boy, 5, shot dead sister, 2, with child gun (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22386105)

I have got to the point where I honestly believe people deserve to keep having these things happen to them and their families and will continue to justify it with some spurious links to rights and freedoms.

Sent from North Korea using the dark network


The little boy's gun was properly functioning, wasn't it? He even has a dead sister to show for it. It sounds cynic and in a way it is, but people, who think that their 5 year old son should have a deadly weapon shouldn't have kids in the first place. Looks like the little fella has started to correct that oversight.
It's just ridiculous. In America there's warning messages on coffee cups and kids have to wear helmets for everything but getting molested by their resident priest, but buying them a weapon with live ammunition is ok. That doesn't even make sense after 10 beers.

Nature has it own way of taking care of things.

[ioan]

I have asked before and nobody has been able to provide an example.


Show me one case where a properly functioning firearm ever killed or even injured a human being.

Just one case.

There is an example in the opening post of this thread, that you obviously didn't bother to read, or maybe, and I am starting to consider this option seriously, you can not read properly.

[airshifter]

Marketing a gun specifically for kids (like the one the boy had) is wrong. BUT, what's een more wrong is the fact the parents didn't teach their kid to be responsible with gins and that a firearm is not a toy. I was born and raised in a house where the family guns (2 shotguns and 22lr caliber rifles) hung in the hallway right outside my bedroom. Never once did I have the deisre to touch them or play with them. Why you ask, it comes down to this. My parents taught me that if I was told not to do something I listened. If they told me to respect a firearm, make sure what you are shooting at and make sure where everyone is before ever loading the chamber (much less pulling the trigger) I listened. I was never left unattended with any firearm or anything else that was inherently dangerous. I went shooting for the first time when I was 7. Now I am 35 and I have three AR-15's (2 in .223 and one in 22lr), I have a Remington 1911R1 in 45 ACP, I have a GSG-522 rifle, a Umarex 1911 in 22lr, and a Ruger 10/22. I still fully respect firearms and I make doubly sure when I am out shooting that everyone is always accounted forbefore I ever load the gun or pull the trigger.

This isn't a firearm issue at all. It's a society that fails to teach people to be responsible with the privileges they are given.

I would even go so far as to say that marketing weapons for kids is not a bad thing.... the kids can't buy those weapons. Only adults can buy those weapons.

Much like yourself I was shooting at a very young age, and never even remotely considered not following all safety rules. Beyond that I wasn't given a choice in the matter.... until I was old enough to prove myself responsible my father kept the control of the firearms to ensure I ​couldn't do anything stupid.

I can completely agree that it is a society issue, and the parents not being responsible is what killed this young child.

[D-Type]

Nevertheless, this 2-year old would still be alive had the society in question not had laws allowing her family to possess a gun.

[mr nobody]

mr. nobody, I'm seriously at a loss here. I'm trying to come up with reasons, why a single household needs to have 3 (!!) semi-automatic assault rifles. Some that spring to mind :

a) serious genital size issues,
b) preparing to mow down dozens of kids in a high school,
c) being the worlds most useless hunter or
d) living in Syria

Seriously, not a single reason comes up that would make owning three AR-15's sound like something that makes sense :eek:

For the record, there is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault rifle. If it fires as semi-automatic it's not an assault rifle, it is a semi-automatic rifle. If it fires in full auto then it is an assault rifle but those are heavily regulated to only licensed FFL holders of full auto firearms pre 1986. As to a reason why I own three, one is a specially built M-16 clone, one was built by myself (everything even head spacing) and the third is a 22lr caliber model that is simply for plinking. Your reasons that you list, well, am I to take those seriously or are you the resident flamer who like to flame people for their hobbies because you disagree with them and like to stir sh*t around here?

[slorydn1]

Everyone play nice, now........ :mark:





:beer: :s mokin:

[ioan]

I can completely agree that it is a society issue, and the parents not being responsible is what killed this young child.

Obviously a simple, over simplified, background check is not enough for being allowed to buy a gun.
If it really has to be allowed to own guns why not come up with a serious compulsory check for a fee, with at least serious psychological tests for those who want to buy a gun.
And repeat the test periodically, say every 10 years up to 60 years of age and every 5 years after that. We have that in some European countries for getting/holding a driving license.
It would be a win-win situation, you only get mentally healthy people to hold a license and the state gets the additional income for the tests.

As for allowing kids to use firearms, WTF is next? Let them drive cars?

[dj_bytedisaster]

Your reasons that you list, well, am I to take those seriously or are you the resident flamer who like to flame people for their hobbies because you disagree with them and like to stir sh*t around here?

It was meant to be ironic, but considering what happened at the last NRA convention that they showed clips of a few days ago, this doesn't compute with the weapon crazed. For the record - I think no civilian has any business owning a rifle of any kind. The only thing that american gun laws make sure of, is, that serial murders and psychopaths can easily gain access to deadly armaments. Which is why America had more school shootings this year than Europe had for the last decade. To make sure you don't go off haöf-cocked again - I didn't mean to include you in that group. I'm pretty sure there are many responsible americans, who know how to handle weapons, but as long as you have parents dumb enough to mishandle weapons in a way that a 5 year old can rearrange the family structure or that some nutter can take his mother's rifle and mow down over 20 kids, the gun laws are simply wrong.
You can legally own weapons in most parts of the world. For instance you could own an AR-15 in Germany. But you'd have to undergo a massive psychological exam, had to prove that you're either a hunter or a registered sports shooter and you'd be obliged to buy a safe in which the weapon is stored at all times and you'd be restricted to magazines of at most 2 bullets. That makes a lot more sense than allowing some weird-ass psycho to buy a weapon at a guns fair with no background check at all.

[mr nobody]

It was meant to be ironic, but considering what happened at the last NRA convention that they showed clips of a few days ago, this doesn't compute with the weapon crazed. For the record - I think no civilian has any business owning a rifle of any kind. The only thing that american gun laws make sure of, is, that serial murders and psychopaths can easily gain access to deadly armaments. Which is why America had more school shootings this year than Europe had for the last decade. To make sure you don't go off haöf-cocked again - I didn't mean to include you in that group. I'm pretty sure there are many responsible americans, who know how to handle weapons, but as long as you have parents dumb enough to mishandle weapons in a way that a 5 year old can rearrange the family structure or that some nutter can take his mother's rifle and mow down over 20 kids, the gun laws are simply wrong.
You can legally own weapons in most parts of the world. For instance you could own an AR-15 in Germany. But you'd have to undergo a massive psychological exam, had to prove that you're either a hunter or a registered sports shooter and you'd be obliged to buy a safe in which the weapon is stored at all times and you'd be restricted to magazines of at most 2 bullets. That makes a lot more sense than allowing some weird-ass psycho to buy a weapon at a guns fair with no background check at all.

A semi-auto pistol can do just as much if not more damage then a semi-auto rifle. I can change the mags in my 45 in less then 1 second. Each mag holds 7 rounds (yes there are larger capacity mags available) Before anyone can react a person can get off 35 shot pretty easy and kill as many if not more then with an AR-15. Also, the mags for a 45 are much easier to carry and conceal then those for an AR-15. Style of gun means nothing. What one massive downfall in America is the media driven paranoia of guns. I'm not saying go back to the days of the wild west. I am saying that the news media needs to convey a balanced message that guns are not only bad but good also. I use mine as a way of stress relief. I can focus on goals such as target distance, accuracy and keeping calm under pressure. I usually only shoot 50 to 75 rounds a month with the AR-15's. Some want it just because they have heard the power of these guns and like that feeling of power and control in their hands. I prefer the power and control it develops in me. Mags of just 2 rounds are to me not practical but that's me. I only own 4 mags that are 20 rounds, the other 16 are 30 round mags. I do have a safe that the guns are stored in, mostly because the safe has a climate controll system in it to protect the guns and ammo. As far as backgound checks, every show has them. I have a friend who runs a gun store and does 2 shwos a months. The shows use the background check system that the stores use. The press fails to report that.

I will agree that mental health records needs to be added to the background check system in far greater numbers then they currently are. There are many states who omit their records or don't add them to the database. The mental health system in this country needs a huge overhaul and people that exhibit the now "standard" profile of a person that should have guns due to mental health problems should be reported. If they are known to be like the shooter in Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT and not reported then the family and or friends need to be held reponsible for failure to report a threat. THose two individuals showed clear and obvious mental health issues in the months and years leading up to their shooting sprees yet were enver properly reported nor dealt with. That is a far bigger concern then what gun is or isn't available for sale.

[Rollo]

I can completely agree that it is a society issue, and the parents not being responsible is what killed this young child.

Society as a whole "not being responsible", is also what killed this young child.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/science/16limb.html?ref=science&pagewanted=all&_r=0
Magazines and newspapers ran shocking pictures of seal-limbed children, and the drug was banned in 1962. By then, 10,000 children, mostly in Europe, had been born with thalidomide-induced birth defects.
- New York Times, 15 Mar 2010

Thalidomide was known to cause birth defects and was probably responsible for between 10,000-20,000 deaths worldwide. In comparison, firearms (whose main purpose is to injure and kill), kills at least 10,000 on an annual basis in the United States.
The sheer utility of numbers suggests that the prevalence of firearms in the United States has cause at least 25 times the number of deaths of Thalidomide; yet the latter was banned; the former is very highly advocated.

[henners88]

As far as backgound checks, every show has them. I have a friend who runs a gun store and does 2 shwos a months. The shows use the background check system that the stores use. The press fails to report that.
On a recent BBC panorama program a reporter was able to buy the same weapon the scumbag from the Sandy Hook shooting used. Using hidden camera's they showed how no checks were done on him and very little questions were asked. The only significant question asked was if he had shot that particular type of weapon before. I'm sure most shows in the US have procedures they have to follow but that doesn't escape the fact some don't and you only need that one occurrence for damage to be done. The press will always report the worse stuff, but for that to stop, there needs to be no instances of this happening.


As I have said before, we live in very different societies. Although the Americans and the British are close in terms of world politics, we have a very different way of life. I can't imagine owning a gun or allowing my son or daughter to shoot one and hope they go their entire life never doing so. Thankfully in all reality they won't need to over here. I hope they grow up playing football, netball, hanging around with friends and enjoying music. The general stuff European kids do. I know many of the Americans here get frustrated that we don't understand your gun culture, but the same can be said for you not understanding our culture where guns are absent. We are just worlds apart and we'll never understand one another. :)

[steveaki13]

Dont get the obsessions with guns.

If I lived somewhere that started becoming so dangerous I needed a gun. I would move.

If my whole country felt it needed guns I would leave said country.

[mr nobody]

henners88, we have had several people hurt (1 killed) at gun shows where the guns that were being sold were loaded. That is a massive error on the dealer as the rules for the shows state no loading of firearms. I heard those stories and just sat in utter disbelief that someone could be so lax in thier responsibility, especially during the gun debates. I know it's said that "accidents happen" but I can't and don't overlook pure negligence and that happened in these two events. Some gun shows have skirt the laws and that is one reason they have such a bad name.

steveaki13 I live in a town of less then 300 and we are far removed from any bad areas. I can 1 mile in any direction and be in the middle of a corn field. It's the best life possible. I grew up in a town of over 100,000 people and when I was much younger the area I lived in was safe and enjoyable. When I left in 2004, I had a loaded revolver at home ready for use just because of the condition the neighborhood had become. My parents left in 2007 and just 2 weeks after they left, one of their neghbors was robbed at gun pint infront of her own house. They got $10.00 and her glasses. She had her dog with her when this happened. I completely agree about moving if an area got to be where I had to keep a gun just to feel safe. As far as obsession goes, I would say I am not obsessed with guns as much as I am obsessed with how things work, it's why I built my second AR-15. I had only the intention of having one but when I got it and cleaned it the first time I am a curious person when it comes to how something works so I am usually tearing something apart and putting it back together.

[dj_bytedisaster]

steveaki13 I live in a town of less then 300 and we are far removed from any bad areas. I can 1 mile in any direction and be in the middle of a corn field. It's the best life possible. I grew up in a town of over 100,000 people and when I was much younger the area I lived in was safe and enjoyable. When I left in 2004, I had a loaded revolver at home ready for use just because of the condition the neighborhood had become. My parents left in 2007 and just 2 weeks after they left, one of their neghbors was robbed at gun pint infront of her own house. They got $10.00 and her glasses. She had her dog with her when this happened. I completely agree about moving if an area got to be where I had to keep a gun just to feel safe. As far as obsession goes, I would say I am not obsessed with guns as much as I am obsessed with how things work, it's why I built my second AR-15. I had only the intention of having one but when I got it and cleaned it the first time I am a curious person when it comes to how something works so I am usually tearing something apart and putting it back together.

You just made our point. How come your neighbours get robbed at gun point? Simple - because every run-down thug can buy a gun with minimal or no way to prevent it. If you really want a gun, you can get one everywhere in the world, but in most countries it involves illegal measures and quite an effort to get one instead of just going to the next town on a fair or buying one from private to sidestep the background checks. That would deter many of them, while freely available weapons can act as an encouragement.
That's the reason why armed robbery is a daily occurrence over there and rather rare over here. So far I haven't heard a single convincing argument for guns in civilian houses.

[Starter]

Dont get the obsessions with guns.

If I lived somewhere that started becoming so dangerous I needed a gun. I would move.

If my whole country felt it needed guns I would leave said country.
That's where you are completely in error. 1) We're not nearly as obsessed with guns as some on this board are obsessed with complaining about our laws - in a place they don't live and most will never visit. 2) Many people here don't think that they need a gun and therefor don't have one. 3) Most of the people who live in places where you might need a gun don't have the resources to move elsewhere. Otherwise they already would have done so.

[Starter]

You just made our point. How come your neighbours get robbed at gun point? Simple - because every run-down thug can buy a gun with minimal or no way to prevent it.
You are not thinking clearly this morning. Any convicted criminal, and most street crime is committed by career criminals, already is not allowed to buy a (legal) gun. So they most likely did not get in their hands by legal means. Please explain, in detail, how gun laws will prevent someone from buying a black market gun.

[Rollo]

You are not thinking clearly this morning. Any convicted criminal, and most street crime is committed by career criminals, already is not allowed to buy a (legal) gun. So they most likely did not get in their hands by legal means. Please explain, in detail, how gun laws will prevent someone from buying a black market gun.

It's all a matter of probabilities isn't it?

Properly enforced laws, shift the supply curve to the left and shrink the total size of the amount of products in the market place. A new equilibrium price will be found which is hopefully higher than an "average" person wanting to purchase a black market gun is prepared to pay.
I thought America was supposed to be the land where free-markets ruled. How come no-one is smart enough to use the markets to do anything about it?

Of course no-one has the guts to properly enforce laws because you have another set of market forces which drive politicians not to enforce them.

[Gregor-y]

All these illegal guns were legal at some point. For some reason we don't keep track of that transition. It's not like these guns are being smuggled in by submarines from North Korea, or made in back alley workshops like in Pakistan.

[mr nobody]

You just made our point. How come your neighbours get robbed at gun point? Simple - because every run-down thug can buy a gun with minimal or no way to prevent it. If you really want a gun, you can get one everywhere in the world, but in most countries it involves illegal measures and quite an effort to get one instead of just going to the next town on a fair or buying one from private to sidestep the background checks. That would deter many of them, while freely available weapons can act as an encouragement.
That's the reason why armed robbery is a daily occurrence over there and rather rare over here. So far I haven't heard a single convincing argument for guns in civilian houses.

There are ways to prevent the illegal purchase of guns. It is considered a small time gun trafficing charge if someone was to buy a "saturday night special" out of a car. Make the punishment for partaking in such activity so harsh that people won't do it. I will openly admit our punishments in America are very much a slap on the wrist instead of swift kick in the arse. As far as private sales, they do not require a background check when sold from a family member to a family member or inherited. The new law they wanted to enact was to force everyone into background checks no matter what kind of transaction it was. I was in favor of that. I think every gun transaction should go through an FFL dealer. That way a responsible dealer can see how the person buying it acts with the gun. You can tell immediately if someone should or shouldn't have a gun by the way they act when holding one. I have an uncle who shouldn't be allowed to own any gun yet he has two pistols and a shotgun. However, he is a slick talking man who talked his way out of terror threats (pre 9/11 mind you) and through anger assessment and anger management classes his employer ordered for him. In the therapists mind: "He shows no traits of a perosn with anger or personality disorders that warrant such treatment that has been requested by his employer." He's verbally attacked people in his neighborhood and ran after kids that went through his yard upto the point of grabbing their bike and stating things I can't post here due to their racial/ethnic/perverse nature. Those are the people that no matter how much you report, the current system doesn't take care of.

As to why armed robbery happens every day over here, the access to guns has no effect on that. You can and will get robbed overhere by guys wielding guns, knives, swords, ball bats, hammers, broken bottles, canes, clubs, crutches, flares, prostetic limbs, hockey sticks and pipes. I take it you have none of thsoe things over there? It's not the weapon that commits the crime, it's the person wielding such weapon that commits the crime. Any object can be used as a weapon when it's in the hands of a perosn who is hell bent on committing a crime.

As to the argument of having guns in a civilian house, that is simply a personal choice. You chose not to have them, that is your choice. My choice is to have them. ALl I will say is don't take my ability to choose away because others make bad choices.

[Gregor-y]

These are plenty of straw purchase laws on the books, and law enforcement works pretty hard to track and trap them. But it'd be a lot easier if we knew where the chain based on sales and could find at what point the firearm 'disappeared.' And it doesn't deny a person's right to buy and own weapons.

It would help with a large number of shootings, but not necessarily the acts of outrageous stupidity like this five year old and a lot of domestic abuse and general wackos. But it would help with a lot of gang-related shootings, which are where most people are being hurt.

[dj_bytedisaster]

As to why armed robbery happens every day over here, the access to guns has no effect on that. You can and will get robbed overhere by guys wielding guns, knives, swords, ball bats, hammers, broken bottles, canes, clubs, crutches, flares, prostetic limbs, hockey sticks and pipes. I take it you have none of thsoe things over there? It's not the weapon that commits the crime, it's the person wielding such weapon that commits the crime. Any object can be used as a weapon when it's in the hands of a perosn who is hell bent on committing a crime.

As to the argument of having guns in a civilian house, that is simply a personal choice. You chose not to have them, that is your choice. My choice is to have them. ALl I will say is don't take my ability to choose away because others make bad choices.

Armed robberies happen in Europe, too. But robberies with guns are relatively rare and the overall frequency including other types of weapons is a lot lower, too. That must have a reason and my theory is that violence is much more common place in American society. And the obsession with weapon ownership is just a reminder of that. Your uncle would never have gotten a weapons permit over here. The moment he was in need of therapy it would've been the end of that discussion no matter if the therapy was successful or not.

Yes, in America it is a personal choice to own a gun or not, but it isn't a choice you should have in the first place. You can't compare it to choosing between cars to purchase. A gun is produced for one single purpose - to kill. Those things belong in the armed forces and the police, not in a civilian house. Maybe owning a gun was necessary back in the day when you stole the land of the natives, but in this day and age there is no compelling case for civilian weapons ownership.
I was long enough in the armed forces and had the misfortune to be part of the first foreign mission of the Bundeswehr in Somalia in the early 90s. I know what these things are capable of. Guns do not belong in the hands of civilians. Of course stricter laws won't eradicate gun crimes. The really determined thugs would still find a way to get hold of them, but Europe is proof enough that you can at least reduce the risk if you make it harder for people to get their hands on weapons.
I wouldn't have too much of a problem with responsible adults in rural areas owning a hunting rifle, but if I look at the claptrap that was sprouted at the latest NRA convention I'm losing faith in humanity. Certified dimwits like Sarah Palin and other guys declaring 'cultural war' despite not even knowing what frickin' war bloody looks like. I want to see these people's faces the first time some Somalian kid soldiers unleash hell on them from the business end of an AK-47. That would heal them from their gun-wielding machismo in a darn hurry.

[mr nobody]

Armed robberies happen in Europe, too. But robberies with guns are relatively rare and the overall frequency including other types of weapons is a lot lower, too. That must have a reason and my theory is that violence is much more common place in American society. And the obsession with weapon ownership is just a reminder of that. Your uncle would never have gotten a weapons permit over here. The moment he was in need of therapy it would've been the end of that discussion no matter if the therapy was successful or not.

Yes, in America it is a personal choice to own a gun or not, but it isn't a choice you should have in the first place. You can't compare it to choosing between cars to purchase. A gun is produced for one single purpose - to kill. Those things belong in the armed forces and the police, not in a civilian house. Maybe owning a gun was necessary back in the day when you stole the land of the natives, but in this day and age there is no compelling case for civilian weapons ownership.
I was long enough in the armed forces and had the misfortune to be part of the first foreign mission of the Bundeswehr in Somalia in the early 90s. I know what these things are capable of. Guns do not belong in the hands of civilians. Of course stricter laws won't eradicate gun crimes. The really determined thugs would still find a way to get hold of them, but Europe is proof enough that you can at least reduce the risk if you make it harder for people to get their hands on weapons.
I wouldn't have too much of a problem with responsible adults in rural areas owning a hunting rifle, but if I look at the claptrap that was sprouted at the latest NRA convention I'm losing faith in humanity. Certified dimwits like Sarah Palin and other guys declaring 'cultural war' despite not even knowing what frickin' war bloody looks like. I want to see these people's faces the first time some Somalian kid soldiers unleash hell on them from the business end of an AK-47. That would heal them from their gun-wielding machismo in a darn hurry.

I was going to continue this discussion but after reading the last two sentances you typed I have decided to end it here. That is quite probably the sickest thing I have ever read. You should be ashamed for even thinking something liek that, much less voicing it.

[dj_bytedisaster]

I was going to continue this discussion but after reading the last two sentances you typed I have decided to end it here. That is quite probably the sickest thing I have ever read. You should be ashamed for even thinking something liek that, much less voicing it.

Well, I have lived through that situation, lost one German and two American comrades in that fight, which is why all the gun wielding and 'cultural war' NRA claptrap feels just as sick to me as my words feel to you, because it comes from people, who don't know what gun use really looks like. Shouldn't those people feel ashamed? Shouldn't those people visit a hospital full of gun wound victims before they continue blathering how glorious it is to wield a pump gun? And no, I don't feel ashamed. Every medal has two sides. And please don't tell me what I'm allowed to think. Our east German Gouvernment tried that before '89 and they didn't succeed either.

[mr nobody]

Well, I have lived through that situation, lost one German and two American comrades in that fight, which is why all the gun wielding and 'cultural war' NRA claptrap feels just as sick to me as my words feel to you and no, I don't feel ashamed. Every medal has two sides. And please don't tell me what I'm allowed to think. Our east German Gouvernment tried that before '89 and they didn't succeed either.

Where did I tell you that you that you are not allowed to think? All I said was that you should be ashamed. There are things that I think and I am ashamed of them but I still think them. Also, the NRA does far more good then bad. The only things the press covers are sound bites that get ratings for the news media. They don't report the good the NRA does and here is not the place to start an NRA debate.

Anymore on this is strictly from your view point. I am not going to be part of some platform for a diatribe.

[BDunnell]

Anymore on this is strictly from your view point.

The same goes for you.

No body that actively promotes the ownership of guns can claim to be a positive influence upon a polite society.

[henners88]

Indeed, any country that has a need to promote responsible gun ownership to civilians has a problem IMO. You can own certain types of guns in the UK if you have a license but you have to prove you have a need or are background checked to the hilt within a gun club. The difference is gun sports are not so popular here and our society is safe enough not to worry about someone breaking into your house armed with one. Shootings are rare and most people don't know somebody who owns a gun.

I've done the States several times over the years, and met some very lovely people. One of my best mates moved to Virginia 4 years ago when he met his now wife and he is rather proud to have a gun free home. His friends out there think he's mental but this just highlights how different we are. I'll never understand the culture and I struggle to muster up sympathy when things go wrong, sorry. The story of this thread is tragic, but almost comical that there are individuals stupid enough to buy children guns. Unfortunately it's a story where you read it, shrug your shoulders and scroll to the next BBC article. We've had so many of these stories reported recently and the shock factor has worn off somewhat for me.

[D-Type]

Steady on folks!

Attacking the post is OK - attacking the poster is not. It is difficult to draw the line sometimes. So please make life easier for the mods by thinking before you post. And if in doubt, hold back. [/moderator]

[Knock-on]

I guessed what this thread was about and knew which way it would degenerate.

It is up to Americans when they have had enough of senseless child deaths. One day they will grow up.

[Starter]

I guessed what this thread was about and knew which way it would degenerate.

It is up to Americans when they have had enough of senseless child deaths. One day they will grow up.
Perhaps someday others will grow up and stop posting the same old tired thread over and over, just with a new title. The question is not going to be resolved on this board - ever - and it's become a dreary waste of everyone's time. Perhaps Duncan and the other Mods should delete ALL gun threads, pro and con.

[BDunnell]

Perhaps someday others will grow up and stop posting the same old tired thread over and over, just with a new title. The question is not going to be resolved on this board - ever - and it's become a dreary waste of everyone's time. Perhaps Duncan and the other Mods should delete ALL gun threads, pro and con.

Another illustration of how the much-vaunted American belief in freedom only goes so far. If you believe in it as much as you trumpet, you wouldn't make such a suggestion.

[Starter]

Another illustration of how the much-vaunted American belief in freedom only goes so far. If you believe in it as much as you trumpet, you wouldn't make such a suggestion.
The right to freedom of expression allows you to express yourself. It does not necessarily give you the right to babble incessantly.

[BDunnell]

The right to freedom of expression allows you to express yourself. It does not necessarily give you the right to babble incessantly.

From those opposing your view I see no incessant babble; certainly not when compared with the words that spew from the keyboard of some of those with whom you agree.

[Spafranco]

I have asked before and nobody has been able to provide an example.


Show me one case where a properly functioning firearm ever killed or even injured a human being.

Just one case.

This makes absolutely no sense. None whatsoever. If all the murders, suicides and accidents were caused by malfunctioning guns then................

[Spafranco]

You are not thinking clearly this morning. Any convicted criminal, and most street crime is committed by career criminals, already is not allowed to buy a (legal) gun. So they most likely did not get in their hands by legal means. Please explain, in detail, how gun laws will prevent someone from buying a black market gun.

How would you know that it was acquired as you and the rest of the 10% who don't want background checks allow for friends to pass guns to other friends. Easy. Why don't you want background checks? What have you to fear?

[Starter]

This makes absolutely no sense. None whatsoever. If all the murders, suicides and accidents were caused by malfunctioning guns then................
Try caused by malfunctioning people. The guns were the instrument, not the cause.

[Starter]

How would you know that it was acquired as you and the rest of the 10% who don't want background checks allow for friends to pass guns to other friends. Easy. Why don't you want background checks? What have you to fear?
Please provide me with the quote where I said I did not want background checks.

[Roamy]

the answers are quite simple to the gun problem
1. you register with the feds and you get a national concealed carry permit good in all states
2. class 1 gun crimes ie you rob a 7-11 and are on tape - you are executed within one year. It has to be 100% positive.

But that said you will never stop wackos who are willing to die. Guns bombs whatever - they will get them.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Also, the NRA does far more good then bad.

What the heck are you smoking? If it is legal, please tell me the name of the stuff. What good did the NRA do? Planting a half-rotten Charlton Heston on the dais, declaring that they'll have to pry his gun from his cold dead hands? Sarah Palin & Co declaring cultural war? Christian Extremists promoting gun use instead of what the bible says? What good did that bunch do? Have my opinion on the subject...

Cold dead hands (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N0Wn3Eey6dY)

[Rollo]

What the heck are you smoking? If it is legal, please tell me the name of the stuff. What good did the NRA do?

Gun control reform: all but three 'no' senators received pro-gun cash | World news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/18/pro-gun-groups-donated-senators)
Documents also show the NRA saw a surge in donations to its lobbying arm in the months following Newtown – registering a record $2.7m in cash during January and February. Further disclosures showing the scale of its recent donations, particularly to politicians in the House of Representatives, are expected on Saturday.
- The Guardian, 18th Apr 2013

In Australia, we'd call that bribery and would be referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption but in America it's called "lobbying" :D

What good did the NRA do? Don't you understand? They paid off politicians so that they'd get their way. That's good, surely? Having increased medical expenses as a result of higher levels of gun ownership is obviously the aim here because it means more money for HMOs -
It's a "stimulus package".

[henners88]

Try caused by malfunctioning people. The guns were the instrument, not the cause.

Of course, nobody here is claiming the gun is the cause. People flip out and go mad in every country in the world and decide they want to take people with them. The problem with an instrument such as a gun is they enable the user to kill people very quickly and effectively. Of course there are millions of responsible gun owners in your country who wouldn't so such things, but you have to accept that when you do have a nutter with a cause, its going to create more deaths. There is a reason why America have had so many mass shootings and that is because firearms are so easy to get hold of. In this country someone could quite easily walk into a high school with a knife with the same intent, but the chances are they would be over powered or shot dead by the police. Things like that are rare here and thankfully guns are in the hands of the right people IMO. We have had mass shootings here, but after every shooting the law has either been reviewed or amended. We're not afraid to take action and this has made for a safer society. I went to school with a lad who was a member of a shooting club here with his father and they owned several handguns. After Dunblane handguns were banned and every licensed handgun owner was ordered to hand in their firearms. They felt hard done by at the time, but it was a small price to pay when you consider how much damage that evil scumbag caused up in Scotland. They still own shotguns and air rifles as they are passionate about it as a sport and I understand that. They live in the countryside and farming is their life. I'm just glad the law was changed here to prevent suburban homes owned deadly weapons when there really was no need. I think the difference here though was gun ownership was on a lesser scale and public opinion against guns outnumbered those that owned them. That just puts it into perspective really and demonstrates how differently we think.

America need to review why there are so many gun deaths, meaning how is it so easy for nutter to acquire such weapons? Why are the nutters not being recognised as a risk in the first place, and is there the support system in place to make a difference? After the Sandy Hook shooting the gun makers saw profits sky rocket as people appeared to be arming themselves up like that was the solution. To the outside world it was just mind boggling. As what keeps getting repeated though, its not a situation that is going to be resolved in our life times if the threat isn't limited. Selling more guns just means more guns are in general circulation and there is more chance a maniac will get hold of one. Whilst these shootings are tragic, they are almost accepted as an occurrence now within our news.

[SGWilko]

Try caused by malfunctioning people. The guns were the instrument, not the cause.

Take away the instrument........

[Starter]

In Australia, we'd call that bribery and would be referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption but in America it's called "lobbying" :D

What good did the NRA do? Don't you understand? They paid off politicians so that they'd get their way. That's good, surely? Having increased medical expenses as a result of higher levels of gun ownership is obviously the aim here because it means more money for HMOs -
It's a "stimulus package".
Nice try at distorting things. None of that money went to the politicians.

[schmenke]

What the heck are you smoking? If it is legal, please tell me the name of the stuff. What good did the NRA do? ...

I am not an advocate of the NRA, but I think what mr nobody is referring to is the fact that one of the organization’s primary purposes is the promotion of gun education and safety.

[mr nobody]

Please provide me with the quote where I said I did not want background checks.

Starter, give it up. You will never convince anti-gun zealots that it's the people and not the gun that is the problem. They don't understand why the gun was so important when America was founded that it was placed in the constitution to have the right to have them. I applaud your attempts but have come to realize something. No matter what the people say who value their rights and their guns, there will always be those who think the guns are the problem and that no one should be allowed to have them. It's sad that others are so hell bent on taking them away but they are the ones who fail to see the whole problem/situation and come up with a logical fix for it.

[mr nobody]

Take away the instrument........

Yes indeed that way the nutcases can resort to knifings like in China, or attacks with clubs, rocks and sticks in the Middle East, or bombs in London and Boston or the mines used in Beslan.

[mr nobody]

I am not an advocate of the NRA, but I think what mr nobody is referring to is the fact that one of the organization’s primary purposes is the promotion of gun education and safety.

That is the NRA's primary purpose with a secondary purpose of protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of US citizens.

[Starter]

In this country someone could quite easily walk into a high school with a knife with the same intent, but the chances are they would be over powered or shot dead by the police. Things like that are rare here and thankfully guns are in the hands of the right people IMO.
What, more gun violence? ;) The chances of any police being close enough to stop things are slim indeed.


I think the difference here though was gun ownership was on a lesser scale and public opinion against guns outnumbered those that owned them. That just puts it into perspective really and demonstrates how differently we think.
This is very true. That is one reason why some of us get frustrated with posters who assume their culture is the only one to live by. They completely ignore the fact that there are upwards of fifty million legal guns already in private hands here and who knows how many illegal ones in other hands. They would have everyone give up their legal guns and be at the mercy of the criminals. There are only a finite number of police and they have to sleep and eat once in a while, so, as I have said before, the police DO NOT STOP CRIME. What they do is investigate the crime and, hopefully, find and arrest the perpetrators. They do not find them all.


America need to review why there are so many gun deaths, meaning how is it so easy for nutter to acquire such weapons? Why are the nutters not being recognised as a risk in the first place, and is there the support system in place to make a difference?
You and I are completely in sync on this one. There is very little in the way of services to identify and do something about the whack jobs walking our streets.


After the Sandy Hook shooting the gun makers saw profits sky rocket as people appeared to be arming themselves up like that was the solution.
It is a partial solution if you live in a place where you or your family can suffer the consequences of criminals or nut cases. It's no help to you if the police are able to catch them later.

[henners88]

Starter, give it up. You will never convince anti-gun zealots that it's the people and not the gun that is the problem. They don't understand why the gun was so important when America was founded that it was placed in the constitution to have the right to have them.
Great Britain was formed with way more blood shed than the US yet gradually the right to bear arms has diminished as as society has evolved. We simply don't need them any more but you guys say you do. That is fair enough but you have to deal with the consequences when things go wrong and there are those civilians in the US who also wish guns were not freely available, but they have no right to stop it. If America hasn't evolved since that constitution was written and there is still a need, its clear some of the developed world isn't quite as developed as we would like to think.


I applaud your attempts but have come to realize something. No matter what the people say who value their rights and their guns, there will always be those who think the guns are the problem and that no one should be allowed to have them. It's sad that others are so hell bent on taking them away but they are the ones who fail to see the whole problem/situation and come up with a logical fix for it.
Its easy for us to say take the guns away because we live in countries where ordinary civilians are not allowed to own them and we also have nowhere as many mass shootings or gun deaths that the US have. It would be a massive task to dis-arm civilian America, but from a logical standpoint less guns in circulation results in less deaths. People here can make statements concerning banning guns because we live in countries where such measures have taken place. You guys want the right to own multiple guns in your home because an old paper states you can do so, but that will never be understood by people like myself. You think its 'sad' that people exist that don't wish guns to be owned by average joes, but the feeling is mutual in regards to the opposing view to be honest.

I'm sure many here are sick of the whole gun debate being brought up every time something happens by now. We should try a new stance here where next time a couple of dozen kids are executed in their classrooms, we just don't acknowledge it. I for one probably wouldn't give it a second thought unless I saw a thread with views I disagreed with :)

[SGWilko]

Yes indeed that way the nutcases can resort to knifings like in China, or attacks with clubs, rocks and sticks in the Middle East, or bombs in London and Boston or the mines used in Beslan.

Are you suggesting the lad that killed his skin and blister was a nutter???

[BDunnell]

Starter, give it up. You will never convince anti-gun zealots that it's the people and not the gun that is the problem.

I find the notion of being 'pro-gun', as though it's in any sense a positive item, very troubling. It's like saying one is 'pro-plastic explosives' or 'pro-landmines'. These are weapons and their use as such is nothing to be proud of.

[Mintexmemory]

Are you suggesting the lad that killed his skin and blister was a nutter???

Oi me ol china, cut aht the 'mockney' or I'll have to get unnecessary!

[Starter]

I'm sure many here are sick of the whole gun debate being brought up every time something happens by now. We should try a new stance here where next time a couple of dozen kids are executed in their classrooms, we just don't acknowledge it. I for one probably wouldn't give it a second thought unless I saw a thread with views I disagreed with :)
There is also the little asked question of just how much the public rehashing in the media of all the details of those events encourages others to do the same in order to get their fifteen minutes of fame.

[Firstgear]

Starter, give it up. You will never convince anti-gun zealots that it's the people and not the gun that is the problem.

It's the people? The US has what, about 10X (or more) the number of gun murders per capita as most other developed nations? Are you saying that, per capita, you guys have 10X as many nut-cases? Maybe it's the water - but I think more likely it's the easy access to firearms.

[BDunnell]

There is also the little asked question of just how much the public rehashing in the media of all the details of those events encourages others to do the same in order to get their fifteen minutes of fame.

Ah, yes — blame everybody except those who are actually to blame. 'It's the media'. 'It's the lack of mental health provision'.

[mr nobody]

I find the notion of being 'pro-gun', as though it's in any sense a positive item, very troubling. It's like saying one is 'pro-plastic explosives' or 'pro-landmines'. These are weapons and their use as such is nothing to be proud of.


It's not my fault that you are a hoplophobic but yet you want to make me feel bad that I am not?

[mr nobody]

It's the people? The US has what, about 10X (or more) the number of gun murders per capita as most other developed nations? Are you saying that, per capita, you guys have 10X as many nut-cases? Maybe it's the water - but I think more likely it's the easy access to firearms.

Oh you seemed ot want to just on the "nut case" angle in the 10X per capita but yet you failed to mention the say 10X per capita increase in criminals. Interesting that the comment was slanted towards your belief rather then a broad statement in the increase of ratios in America.

[mr nobody]

Ah, yes — blame everybody except those who are actually to blame. 'It's the media'. 'It's the lack of mental health provision'.

Then who do you blame? You can't say guns or access to guns because that itsn't a person and a perosn has to make a decision to pull the trigger.

[mr nobody]

It would be a massive task to dis-arm civilian America, but from a logical standpoint less guns in circulation results in less deaths.

Yes because guns play a part in a DUI crash where someone is killed. Guns are involved in a stabbing death/ Guns are involved in lung cancer deaths. Guns are involved in suicide by intentional overdose. Guns are involved in drowning deaths. Guns are involved in medical malpractice. Guns are involved in deaths from natural cuases. Wow, you are completely right. Less guns in circulation will drastically bring down the death rates once those all evil all killing guns are simply removed from circulation as they have caused so much death as I have point out here.

[BDunnell]

It's not my fault that you are a hoplophobic but yet you want to make me feel bad that I am not?

If I do have a fear of guns, it's in part because they and their use are so enthusiastically promoted by people such as you, who can barely write coherently yet feel you should be allowed unlimited access to firearms.

[mr nobody]

If I do have a fear of guns, it's in part because they and their use are so enthusiastically promoted by people such as you, who can barely write coherently yet feel you should be allowed unlimited access to firearms.

So you are saying that I am dumb, that I am an idiot and that I shouldn't have a gun becasue of that? WOW, does your view from your pedastal ever make you dizzy? I'm so glad that I am being able to speak with such an elite person who feel the need to degrade and insult someone just to justify themselves and how they feel.

I'm done with entire discussion. You all can rip and insult me however you feel if that menas it makes you feel better about your own situaitons in whatever country it is you live in.

[BDunnell]

So you are saying that I am dumb, that I am an idiot and that I shouldn't have a gun becasue of that?

Well, to put it another way: do you think that 'idiots', as you put it, should be allowed to have guns? I don't.

[henners88]

Yes because guns play a part in a DUI crash where someone is killed. Guns are involved in a stabbing death/ Guns are involved in lung cancer deaths. Guns are involved in suicide by intentional overdose. Guns are involved in drowning deaths. Guns are involved in medical malpractice. Guns are involved in deaths from natural cuases. Wow, you are completely right. Less guns in circulation will drastically bring down the death rates once those all evil all killing guns are simply removed from circulation as they have caused so much death as I have point out here.
Although I don't agree with any of the examples you give for half of your post as guns don't play a part in any IMO, it's pleasing to see you agree I am right. :)

[schmenke]

I accept the fact that firearms are part of the U.S. culture and that will not change, with the vast majority of gun owners in the U.S. being responsible, law-abiding citizens who use their firearms safely.

What I find difficult understanding is the passion for a device whose sole purpose is the killing, with as much lethality as possible, of another human being. Consider the bullet that is designed to enter a human body, tear apart flesh, tissue and organs, then exiting the other side leaving a hole the size of a saucer. It is the acceptance of this device as a household item, as part of the American psyche, that I find difficult to understand :mark: .

[D-Type]

So you are saying that I am dumb, that I am an idiot and that I shouldn't have a gun becasue of that? WOW, does your view from your pedastal ever make you dizzy? I'm so glad that I am being able to speak with such an elite person who feel the need to degrade and insult someone just to justify themselves and how they feel.

I'm done with entire discussion. You all can rip and insult me however you feel if that menas it makes you feel better about your own situaitons in whatever country it is you live in.
Just for interest, what country do you live in? Your profile doesn't say.

[BDunnell]

What I find difficult understanding is the passion for a device whose sole purpose is the killing, with as much lethality as possible, of another human being. Consider the bullet that is designed to enter a human body, tear apart flesh, tissue and organs, then exiting the other side leaving a hole the size of a saucer. It is the acceptance of this device as a household item, as part of the American psyche, that I find difficult to understand :mark: .

Exactly.

[henners88]

What I find difficult understanding is the passion for a device whose sole purpose is the killing, with as much lethality as possible, of another human being. Consider the bullet that is designed to enter a human body, tear apart flesh, tissue and organs, then exiting the other side leaving a hole the size of a saucer. It is the acceptance of this device as a household item, as part of the American psyche, that I find difficult to understand :mark: .
You've asked the question that is the main reason for our confusion. For some its a sporting good because they live in the countryside, but for others they own one for protection and because they can. I don't get the second example at all. A gun isn't a dangerous mode of transport, a tool used in the kitchen or any other daily necessity, it's a device designed to kill. Why you'd want one in your home, especially when there are young children around is something i'll never fathom. Teaching children under 18 how to shoot is something that appals me, but possibly because it would be greeted by mass public condemnation over here and it's not in our culture. :)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Teaching children under 18 how to shoot is something that appals me, but possibly because it would be greeted by mass public condemnation over here and it's not in our culture. :)

Let's not overreact. I live in a rural area and I knew quite a few kids at school who went game shooting with their dads, and it seemed fairly normal to us. We often used to play with toy plastic BB-guns as kids too, and sometimes got to shoot tin cans with an Air-rifle under parental supervision.

So yes, it's not our culture to glorify weapons to children, but in some parts traditional hobbies are passed down the generations.

[ioan]

As to why armed robbery happens every day over here, the access to guns has no effect on that. You can and will get robbed overhere by guys wielding guns, knives, swords, ball bats, hammers, broken bottles, canes, clubs, crutches, flares, prostetic limbs, hockey sticks and pipes. I take it you have none of thsoe things over there? It's not the weapon that commits the crime, it's the person wielding such weapon that commits the crime. Any object can be used as a weapon when it's in the hands of a perosn who is hell bent on committing a crime.

Sure sure, so how many robberies are done using fire arms and how many with those prosthetic limbs, hammers, shoes, socks etc...? I guess you also know it why the favorite ones are fire arms and not crutches for example.

[ioan]

That is the NRA's primary purpose with a secondary purpose of protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of US citizens.

How can you protect something which you do not understand?!

Oh and the NRA's primary purpose is to promote guns, nothing else.

[ioan]

Then who do you blame? You can't say guns or access to guns because that itsn't a person and a perosn has to make a decision to pull the trigger.

The idiots who support access to guns? Those are persons right?

[ioan]

So you are saying that I am dumb, that I am an idiot and that I shouldn't have a gun becasue of that? WOW, does your view from your pedastal ever make you dizzy? I'm so glad that I am being able to speak with such an elite person who feel the need to degrade and insult someone just to justify themselves and how they feel.

I'm done with entire discussion. You all can rip and insult me however you feel if that menas it makes you feel better about your own situaitons in whatever country it is you live in.

Oh well, there goes the whole discussion.
It somehow always ends with all these 'meanies' against poor dear US who do nothing wrong.

[Starter]

The idiots who support access to guns? Those are persons right?
That is a personal insult to several members of this board and is against forum rules.

[Rollo]

Nice try at distorting things. None of that money went to the politicians.

Read through the disclosure forms yourself then, if you don't believe me:
http://images.nictusa.com/pdf/575/13020171575/13020171575.pdf

42 of 45 Senators who voted "no" against gun control reform legislation all recorded "donations" from firearms lobbyists.

"distorting the truth" now must mean actually bothering to look at source documents and reading them :eek:

[Starter]

Read through the disclosure forms yourself then, if you don't believe me:
http://images.nictusa.com/pdf/575/13020171575/13020171575.pdf

42 of 45 Senators who voted "no" against gun control reform legislation all recorded "donations" from firearms lobbyists.

"distorting the truth" now must mean actually bothering to look at source documents and reading them :eek:
Sorry, thought you meany under the table donations. The ones to which you refer are all perfectly legal under existing law.

[ioan]

That is a personal insult to several members of this board and is against forum rules.

How can it be a personal insult if I didn't name any person specifically? Calm down and don't feel insulted by anything not meant to you.

[ioan]

Sorry, thought you meany under the table donations. The ones to which you refer are all perfectly legal under existing law.

Because the law is created specifically by those who benefit by these 'legal' donations. It's called a conflict of interests.

[Rollo]

Sorry, thought you meany under the table donations. The ones to which you refer are all perfectly legal under existing law.

Yes, "perfectly legal". Doesn't make it right, or even contribute to the overall utility of democracy does it? Politicians are simple folk and of course if you pay them enough money, they'll vote in ways you want.
"Perfectly legal" in this context just means that bribery has been legalised.

[BDunnell]

That is a personal insult to several members of this board and is against forum rules.

No worse than many other comments made in this and other threads.

[Starter]

Yes, "perfectly legal". Doesn't make it right, or even contribute to the overall utility of democracy does it? Politicians are simple folk and of course if you pay them enough money, they'll vote in ways you want.
"Perfectly legal" in this context just means that bribery has been legalised.
Perhaps, but it's been that way since the beginning back in the 1700's. It's the right to petition Congress. A huge number of member organizations do it including, just starting at the beginning of the alphabet, AAA and AARP.

[Rollo]

I'm perfectly aware that the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is contained within the First Amendment. The word petition though at common law and by dictionary definition is a formal request; usually with signature. Surely that's a very different concept to making a request backed with cash?

[Starter]

I'm perfectly aware that the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is contained within the First Amendment. The word petition though at common law and by dictionary definition is a formal request; usually with signature. Surely that's a very different concept to making a request backed with cash?
Don't tell me, explain it to the politicians who have taken the money over the last two hundred plus years and the courts who have upheld it. I didn't say I supported it, just that it was legal.

[Roamy]

I don't know why you TIREs are so obsessed with us having guns. It is not like we can shoot across the pond. You should be happy that we just like shooting each other. A good percentage of the gun deaths involve scum that deserve what they get. The press just like to blow up all the reports to support there liberal views. If a bunch of gang or drug deals so south because of guns i really don't give a sh!t. Matter of fact any of these druggies that get killed i like it. Also the media doesn't give you a toxlogy report either. Many of the the gun deaths are due to meth and as long as no law abiding citizens are not killed then I don't give a sh!t either. Every bad guy that gets killed by a gun is a good thing. Quite frankly we don't shoot enough!!

[henners88]

Let's not overreact. I live in a rural area and I knew quite a few kids at school who went game shooting with their dads, and it seemed fairly normal to us. We often used to play with toy plastic BB-guns as kids too, and sometimes got to shoot tin cans with an Air-rifle under parental supervision.

So yes, it's not our culture to glorify weapons to children, but in some parts traditional hobbies are passed down the generations.
I don't think you had quite followed the flow of the thread Jon. I wasn't referring to the types of shooting you refer to and I myself used to fire air rifles and had rural friends who went game shooting with their fathers. I talked about that earlier. I was referring to children firing hand guns and high powered military designed weapons from very early ages and its something I don't personally agree with. I own an air rifle myself which is tucked away in my loft and brought out if we ever have starlings in the roof or a rat problem in the garden. I haven't used it for years though and don't own it for protection. It would be a little difficult went it takes about 30 seconds to load the damn thing lol. When I was a teen we used to set cans up on fences in a field behind my mates house and shoot them off, or shoot the odd pigeon off a power-line, but I think that is about as far as it went. I've never had any desire to fire anything stronger and glad that choice isn't there. So there you have it Jon, we are not overreacting and are quite similar after all. :)

[henners88]

There is also the little asked question of just how much the public rehashing in the media of all the details of those events encourages others to do the same in order to get their fifteen minutes of fame.
I think you join a slippery slope if you start the blame game like that. After Columbine Marilyn Manson got much of the blame for singing songs with dark lyrics amusingly, and then you have those who blamed violent video games and movies. For the weak minded I'm sure influence is drawn from multiple areas, but pinning it solely on the media is a unfounded really. These shooters could equally be influenced by countries governments who kill people in acts of war or when hunting terrorists for all we know. The thirst to kill and the ease in which they can do it plays a major part IMO. I'm not defending the media because much of what they report is sensationalised, but they need material in order to report in the first place.

[SGWilko]

Perhaps, but it's been that way since the beginning back in the 1700's.

Silly me, so that makes it alright then. It's all so clear now!

[Starter]

Silly me, so that makes it alright then. It's all so clear now!
So pleased I was able to bring enlightenment to you. ;)

[slorydn1]

This thread had been pretty tame so far (as far as gun threads go), but y'all are beginning to get a little loud. Keep it down, we're trying to sleep over here :p

[Roamy]

Man I have these triton night sights on my Glock. They are like a Christmas Tree. I had a crimson trace on the rail but I took it off because the sights are soooo good

[D-Type]

Man I have these triton night sights on my Glock. They are like a Christmas Tree. I had a crimson trace on the rail but I took it off because the sights are soooo good
Eh! I don't know shooter's terms or brand names. I can guess at: triton (not capitalised so presumably a description of a type of gunsight), Glock (make of gun?), Christmas Tree (as it's capitalised is it a make of gunsight?), crimson trace (presumably not a mark on a living creature from a near miss so is it another type of gunsight), rail (part of a gun, or the part of a fence you put your cans on to shoot at) ? Can you please explain.

And how does this posting relate to a 5-year old fatally shooting his 2-year old sister?

[slorydn1]

Man I have these triton night sights on my Glock. They are like a Christmas Tree. I had a crimson trace on the rail but I took it off because the sights are soooo good


Eh! I don't know shooter's terms or brand names. I can guess at: triton (not capitalised so presumably a description of a type of gunsight), Glock (make of gun?), Christmas Tree (as it's capitalised is it a make of gunsight?), crimson trace (presumably not a mark on a living creature from a near miss so is it another type of gunsight), rail (part of a gun, or the part of a fence you put your cans on to shoot at) ? Can you please explain.

And how does this posting relate to a 5-year old fatally shooting his 2-year old sister?


Forgive me D-Type as I am a little rusty-I haven't bought any toys for my guns in a long time, but I'll take a stab at it:


The sights he was referring to are night sights; they glow in the dark and are highly effective. I love 'em, but I'm not willing to spend any more money right now-besides the last time I night qualified with my Glock 27 .40 caliber I scored a 90-not too shabby.

Glock is the Austrian gun manufacturer that makes some of the best handguns in the world. I could drop mine in a river, fish it out and it will still work :D

The crimson trace I'm not too sure about, sounds like a laser sight that mounts in the rail under the barrel. Wherever the red dot is on the target, that is where the bullet will end up (unless the target moves). :eek:

As for your last question: Nothing, nothing at all, I'm afraid :s mokin:

[Spafranco]

Try caused by malfunctioning people. The guns were the instrument, not the cause.

"Ever read a coroners report that the person shot was killed by person A.

[Starter]

"Ever read a coroners report that the person shot was killed by person A.
And the autopsy was the result of the knife and not the coroner using the knife?

[BDunnell]

Silly me, so that makes it alright then. It's all so clear now!

The word 'slavery' springs to mind. If we still practiced it, I'd hope it would be the cause of international opprobrium.

[airshifter]

You've asked the question that is the main reason for our confusion. For some its a sporting good because they live in the countryside, but for others they own one for protection and because they can. I don't get the second example at all. A gun isn't a dangerous mode of transport, a tool used in the kitchen or any other daily necessity, it's a device designed to kill. Why you'd want one in your home, especially when there are young children around is something i'll never fathom. Teaching children under 18 how to shoot is something that appals me, but possibly because it would be greeted by mass public condemnation over here and it's not in our culture. :)

You mention an issue that most have ignored... the culture and what society accepts. Here in the US the legal drinking age is higher than in most if not all of the developed EU countries. Does that mean we care more about alcohol related deaths? No. It simply means we set the legal age to buy alcohol higher than what is accepted as OK in much of the world.

As for seeing how people living in the countryside would have more justification to own a gun... I live in the suburbs of a large city and have legal ranges to shoot at within a couple miles of me. Any legal and safe place to shoot is just that, regardless of where a person lives.

My 14 year old will be shooting soon. After debate with my wife about the issue we decided to let her decide if she wanted to try it. Not that I would have ever forced it on her regardless, but my wife saw this as an easy win for her side of the debate, and it backfired on her. As a very bright and intelligent kid for her it will be another life example of responsibility. If she chooses to never shoot a gun after that first trip I'm fine with that, but if she enjoys it for sport I'm fine with that as well.

[Rollo]

You mention an issue that most have ignored... the culture and what society accepts.

Here we find something deeply sad.
More than 10,000 people a year is an "acceptable" cost of so called freedom. The economic cost of firearms (which is paid for in increased medical premiums) is also deemed "acceptable".

Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
- John Donne

I think it's reflected in American society including how it deals with other nations, that it's less humane than other nations.

Getting back to the first post here:

I have got to the point where I honestly believe people deserve to keep having these things happen to them and their families and will continue to justify it with some spurious links to rights and freedoms.

I don't think that people "deserve" to keep having these things happen to them but society itself has deemed it "acceptable".

[Koz]

I don't think you had quite followed the flow of the thread Jon. I wasn't referring to the types of shooting you refer to and I myself used to fire air rifles and had rural friends who went game shooting with their fathers. I talked about that earlier. I was referring to children firing hand guns and high powered military designed weapons from very early ages and its something I don't personally agree with. I own an air rifle myself which is tucked away in my loft and brought out if we ever have starlings in the roof or a rat problem in the garden. I haven't used it for years though and don't own it for protection. It would be a little difficult went it takes about 30 seconds to load the damn thing lol. When I was a teen we used to set cans up on fences in a field behind my mates house and shoot them off, or shoot the odd pigeon off a power-line, but I think that is about as far as it went. I've never had any desire to fire anything stronger and glad that choice isn't there. So there you have it Jon, we are not overreacting and are quite similar after all. :)

What do you mean by a high powered military designed weapon?

Being semiautomatic? Or because it looks like something out of Rambo?

I fired my first rifle at age 6, on my birthday in fact. It some French .22 rifle. Semi-automatic. The magazine carried 7 rounds, IIRC.
(The next time was 7 years later, a 30-06)
Is that a military grade weapon according to you?

Most rural kids are exposed to firearms.
My father has 3 rifles as do his brothers. My grandmother hasn't given away all of my grandfather's guns yet, some of them are semi automatics, too.

This is probably different in Britain where the controls are far very strict.
Saying it takes 30-seconds to load a an airgun which makes it safe is bull****. If someone is intent on causing damage or doing evil they will, they are called psychopaths.

What kind of retard lets kids play with guns? What kind of retards leave guns lying around where kids can access them?
There are plenty of idiots on this planet. And this idiot now has to live with the fact that they lost a child due to their negligence. And a kid has to live the rest of his life knowing that he killed his sister.

This is the same as those people who lets kids drive around their farms at age 5, too. They could kill, too.
Responsible parenting is the issues in this case.

[gadjo_dilo]

You mention an issue that most have ignored... the culture and what society accepts.
.................................................. .........................
As for seeing how people living in the countryside would have more justification to own a gun... I live in the suburbs of a large city and have legal ranges to shoot at within a couple miles of me. Any legal and safe place to shoot is just that, regardless of where a person lives.


Never thought of this...
Whenever I’m at my cousin’s holiday home in the countryside needing a gun is the last thing that I’d think of . Matter of fact I really can’t understand what makes somebody need to own a gun.

I’m surprised to see that many of you started to shoot when you were kids. The last and only time when I had to keep a gun in my hands was when I was about 17 y.o. and in the high school we had to attend mandatory premilitary classes ( in fact a waste of time). Once they took us to a military camp, gave us an old rifle ( think it was from the first WW ) and 5 bullets and we were ordered to shoot. I almost weed my pants not to mention that being a natural born unskilful person I lost one of the bullet caps. It was a horrible experience and I was happy to get a dispense for the mandatory military service in the university.

[henners88]

You mention an issue that most have ignored... the culture and what society accepts. Here in the US the legal drinking age is higher than in most if not all of the developed EU countries. Does that mean we care more about alcohol related deaths? No. It simply means we set the legal age to buy alcohol higher than what is accepted as OK in much of the world.
On the topic of alcohol I think the UK have the legal age far too low IMO. I would support the age going up to 21 as I feel people are slightly more mature than they are at 18. Most people learning to drive pass their tests around their 18th birthday if you take into account all the lessons and the pass rate. I passed a couple of days after my 18th birthday and although I was never tempted to drink and drive, a few of my friends often did. I think if the drinking age and driving age was distanced a little more, we'd see slightly less drink related deaths on our roads. Off topic but thought I'd clear that up. I think Europeans tend to be bigger drinkers in general compared to you yanks (hope I can use that word, seeing as we are nicknamed Euro's and Tires). Having visited America several times I have noticed alcohol is tightly controlled in many areas and although I think its a little over the top, its also an area where where you seem to have as much trouble as us. A recent documentary here claimed that more units of alcohol are consumed in Cardiff, the city where I live, on a weekend than anywhere else in the world. The Brits have a bad reputation abroad where drinking is concerned and its definitely a problem for the future. Imagine if we were allowed to own handguns and other concealed weapons!! :eek:


As for seeing how people living in the countryside would have more justification to own a gun... I live in the suburbs of a large city and have legal ranges to shoot at within a couple miles of me. Any legal and safe place to shoot is just that, regardless of where a person lives.
I'll be honest, if shooting ranges allowed member to shoot their weapons for sport with the condition the weapons had to be stored safely at the range and not be taken home, I think that would be a solution. many of you have admitted you don't keep weapons for protection and simply enjoy shooting, so perhaps this type of legalisation would suit and go towards a safer society? I really don't know.


What do you mean by a high powered military designed weapon?

Being semiautomatic? Or because it looks like something out of Rambo?

I fired my first rifle at age 6, on my birthday in fact. It some French .22 rifle. Semi-automatic. The magazine carried 7 rounds, IIRC.
(The next time was 7 years later, a 30-06)
Is that a military grade weapon according to you?
Lets bear in mind before I answer this that unlike yourself I haven't grown up around the type of weapons you are referring to. I suppose in my view a military style weapon is anything that holds more than 4 rounds and isn't designed to kill a deer. So I would include handguns as military standard because they have a very different purpose to your average hunting rifle or shotgun. Anything that is semi automatic and allows the user to fire off rounds quickly to me is far too powerful to be owned in suburbia yes. Just my view.



Most rural kids are exposed to firearms.
My father has 3 rifles as do his brothers. My grandmother hasn't given away all of my grandfather's guns yet, some of them are semi automatics, too.

This is probably different in Britain where the controls are far very strict.
Saying it takes 30-seconds to load a an airgun which makes it safe is bull****. If someone is intent on causing damage or doing evil they will, they are called psychopaths.
Most rural kids here are exposed to firearms too, and yes it is far stricter here in the UK. As I previously said shotguns are common in these areas but there are strict rules for owning one and storing such items. I agree an air rifle can be a very dangerous weapon, I won't allow my children anywhere near mine and I doubt it will come out of the loft any time soon, perhaps if I decide to sell it. If I went mental and strolled into a public place with the intent to cause serious damage, I doubt an air rifle would be high on the list of any psychopath. Mine holds one single pellet and to load it you have to release the clip on the side which releases the side loading arm. Then seeing as its so stiff you have to wedge it between your feet and pull it back nearly 180 degrees until it clicks. This then releases the pellet chamber and allows you to place one single pellet in the barrel. Not the most convenient weapon to use in a mass killing but like the story in this thread it could perhaps cause serious injury with one shot. Certainly not as dangerous as your average kitchen knife when used to cause multiple injuries as I doubt victims would be standing around waiting for the person to reload the damn thing. If they banned air guns tomorrow I would willingly hand it in as I don't have much use for it.



What kind of retard lets kids play with guns? What kind of retards leave guns lying around where kids can access them?
There are plenty of idiots on this planet. And this idiot now has to live with the fact that they lost a child due to their negligence. And a kid has to live the rest of his life knowing that he killed his sister.

This is the same as those people who lets kids drive around their farms at age 5, too. They could kill, too.
Responsible parenting is the issues in this case.
Well we well know the opinions on this thread against gun ownership are not based solely from the events of the story in the opening post. The story here is a tragic one and just one of many that add to the shocking statistics of gun related deaths. The parents have lost a child through complete and utter negligence and should really have their surviving child taken off them IMO. I suppose if any positives can be drawn from the story its the child killed was from within the family and its only one family affected. The poor little boy has the guilt for the rest of his life and its something no child should have to deal with from such a young age too. Its all very different to school shootings where often many families are affected by the selfish acts of someone who has had enough of this life and decides to take their loved ones with them.

[BDunnell]

Most rural kids are exposed to firearms.
My father has 3 rifles as do his brothers. My grandmother hasn't given away all of my grandfather's guns yet, some of them are semi automatics, too.

This is probably different in Britain where the controls are far very strict.

It's not just to do with the controls. The culture regarding guns is very different.

[BDunnell]

On the topic of alcohol I think the UK have the legal age far too low IMO. I would support the age going up to 21 as I feel people are slightly more mature than they are at 18. Most people learning to drive pass their tests around their 18th birthday if you take into account all the lessons and the pass rate. I passed a couple of days after my 18th birthday and although I was never tempted to drink and drive, a few of my friends often did. I think if the drinking age and driving age was distanced a little more, we'd see slightly less drink related deaths on our roads. Off topic but thought I'd clear that up.

I don't agree. It's unenforceable enough as it is without raising the age and therefore the number of people who would be brought into the realm of illegal behaviour. 18 strikes me as a perfectly sensible legal age.

[henners88]

I don't agree. It's unenforceable enough as it is without raising the age and therefore the number of people who would be brought into the realm of illegal behaviour. 18 strikes me as a perfectly sensible legal age.
Fair enough we don't have to agree on that :)

[SGWilko]

I don't agree. It's unenforceable enough as it is without raising the age and therefore the number of people who would be brought into the realm of illegal behaviour. 18 strikes me as a perfectly sensible legal age.

It is, surely, price and availability of alcohol that is the main issue - the big chains selling below cost etc.

That, and alcopops aimed at young people, who manage to get served...... but I digress.

[BDunnell]

It is, surely, price and availability of alcohol that is the main issue - the big chains selling below cost etc.

That, and alcopops aimed at young people, who manage to get served...... but I digress.

Yes, those are all very good points. But there is also a genuine problem regarding the ability of the authorities to enforce the law regarding under-age drinking. It's always going to happen.

Maybe this is a topic best served by a separate thread?

[Koz]

Most rural kids here are exposed to firearms too, and yes it is far stricter here in the UK. As I previously said shotguns are common in these areas but there are strict rules for owning one and storing such items. I agree an air rifle can be a very dangerous weapon, I won't allow my children anywhere near mine and I doubt it will come out of the loft any time soon, perhaps if I decide to sell it. If I went mental and strolled into a public place with the intent to cause serious damage, I doubt an air rifle would be high on the list of any psychopath. Mine holds one single pellet and to load it you have to release the clip on the side which releases the side loading arm. Then seeing as its so stiff you have to wedge it between your feet and pull it back nearly 180 degrees until it clicks. This then releases the pellet chamber and allows you to place one single pellet in the barrel. Not the most convenient weapon to use in a mass killing but like the story in this thread it could perhaps cause serious injury with one shot. Certainly not as dangerous as your average kitchen knife when used to cause multiple injuries as I doubt victims would be standing around waiting for the person to reload the damn thing. If they banned air guns tomorrow I would willingly hand it in as I don't have much use for it.

But that's the thing, there are plenty of airguns of various calibres that can and do kill people. You can even get CO2 powered semi automatic air guns.

Fast loading Air rifles were in service of German armies in the Napoleonic wars, and they were no joke then nor now.

[BleAivano]

"you know a gun never killed nobody,you can ask anyone, people get shot by people, people with guns."

[henners88]

But that's the thing, there are plenty of airguns of various calibres that can and do kill people. You can even get CO2 powered semi automatic air guns.

Fast loading Air rifles were in service of German armies in the Napoleonic wars, and they were no joke then nor now.
That's very true, although I'm not sure what the law here is regarding semi automatic air weapons.

We also don't seem to have the gun culture here that exists in the States even if Brits are free to go out and apply for shotguns or buy air rifles straight off the shelf. Most households here don't own an air weapon, yet you can buy them for as little as 30 quid. I think the fundamental question that needs to be asked is why a large percentage of Americans feel they need to exercise their rights to bear arms?

[ioan]

I think the fundamental question that needs to be asked is why a large percentage of Americans feel they need to exercise their rights to bear arms?

Fear.

[race aficionado]

. . . . . . I think the fundamental question that needs to be asked is why a large percentage of Americans feel they need to exercise their rights to bear arms?

I will use this quote as an opportunity to quote our friend Eki.
Every time a forum member mentioned the right of human beings to bear arms, Eki would retort with "Why not then give the right to arm bears"

:s mokin:

[chuck34]

I don't agree. It's unenforceable enough as it is without raising the age and therefore the number of people who would be brought into the realm of illegal behaviour. 18 strikes me as a perfectly sensible legal age.

Wow! My irony meter just pegged so hard that the needle broke clean off.

But by all means, please continue to regale us all with tales of how the US should outlaw guns.

[henners88]

Trying to make the connection here.

[BDunnell]

Wow! My irony meter just pegged so hard that the needle broke clean off.

But by all means, please continue to regale us all with tales of how the US should outlaw guns.

Please explain. I fail to see any reasonable correlation between alcohol, which is not intended to cause harm, and firearms, which most certainly are.

[chuck34]

Please explain. I fail to see any reasonable correlation between alcohol, which is not intended to cause harm, and firearms, which most certainly are.

Really? You don't see the correlation? You don't see the irony in your statements? Really????

You want to ban guns in the US even though there will be "a genuine problem regarding the ability of the authorities to enforce the law regarding (banning guns)." Even though people will always have guns.

And yet, changing the drinking age is a no-no for the exact same reasons.

Tell all those people who have lost a loved one to drunk driving, liver disease, or other alcohol related issues that alcohol causes no harm, and see what they say about that.

But you, as always, will not see the inherent flaw and inconsistency in your arguments. And more than likely you will berate me for not being "enlightened" and "living in fear", etc. It gets old. I've already posted more than I wanted, but your statement just made me laugh so hard I couldn't resist.



**** for the record I do not have a problem with alcohol, and do not advocate for any tightening of the regulation thereof. ****

[ioan]

Trying to make the connection here.

Useless exercise.

[BDunnell]

Really? You don't see the correlation? You don't see the irony in your statements? Really????

You want to ban guns in the US even though there will be "a genuine problem regarding the ability of the authorities to enforce the law regarding (banning guns)." Even though people will always have guns.

And yet, changing the drinking age is a no-no for the exact same reasons.

Tell all those people who have lost a loved one to drunk driving, liver disease, or other alcohol related issues that alcohol causes no harm, and see what they say about that.

But you, as always, will not see the inherent flaw and inconsistency in your arguments. And more than likely you will berate me for not being "enlightened" and "living in fear", etc. It gets old. I've already posted more than I wanted, but your statement just made me laugh so hard I couldn't resist.



**** for the record I do not have a problem with alcohol, and do not advocate for any tightening of the regulation thereof. ****

The gun is an implement designed to cause harm. Alcohol is not in the same league. It's as if you were seeking to draw a comparison between, I don't know, regulations regarding dangerous dogs and the ban on landmines.

[Rollo]

This whole subject is an aside:

18 strikes me as a perfectly sensible legal age.

18 is perfectly sensible.
18 is the legal age of majority, after which things like contracts can be enforced and an individual can be prosecuted with the full weight of the law etc.

18 was chosen as the drinking age and the voting age because soldiers during the First World War could be on the battlefield and die for their nation (and after 1916 be conscripted) yet couldn't vote or drink.

[Koz]

I think the fundamental question that needs to be asked is why a large percentage of Americans feel they need to exercise their rights to bear arms?

Yes and no. It is the fanaticism about rather than their rights that the issue. The Swiss have more people with guns, yet these American problems don't really exist. Like BDunnell said, it is something very wrong with American gun culture.

[airshifter]

Wow! My irony meter just pegged so hard that the needle broke clean off.

But by all means, please continue to regale us all with tales of how the US should outlaw guns.


It's really a shame we can no longer use quotes in signatures! :laugh:

It's apparent you can count on one hand those people from other nations that make any attempt to understand the differences in how the US lives. The rest spend their days thinking everyone over here is going to be swayed by someone on an internet forum, and defending even the most trivial aspects of what their country does.

Even stranger to me is the fact that so many from those countries seem to have a real fear of "big brother" having too much authority, yet they oppose our strongest measure in making sure "big brother" can't get too far out of hand.

Maybe if we started drinking at younger ages we would understand!

[chuck34]

As much as I love watching you twist trying to "get me" particularly with the whole worn out "guns are only for killing" bit, let me walk you through this s l o w l y so maybe you can keep up.



Someone suggested that the drinking age should be raised. Thus tightening controls on something already legal. Somewhat like you suggesting tighter gun control laws.

You say that this will be unenforceable. This is much like the argument that tighter gun control laws will be practically unenforceable in any meaningful way because criminals will continue to buy, own, and possess guns regardless of laws.

You then go on to say that tighter alcohol controls will simply make people illegal tomorrow that are legal today. "When you outlaw alcohol, only outlaws will be drunks", or something like that.


But please continue on telling me how guns are only for killing and alcohol isn't so there is no irony in your statements. Please go on telling me how you pitty me for "living somewhere so dangerous, I am so afraid that I need a gun". Enlighten us again with how you are so much safer without guns, even though violent crime in the US is lower than many other industrialized nations(particularly the UK)

Go on, keep spinning your worn out arguments without feeling the least bit self conscious about yourself. Keep telling tales about how "superior" you and your culture are without even trying to understand the US. Please keep going because I have not laughed this hard in a really long time, and I have needed a good hearty laugh.

[anthonyvop]

Let the outrage begin!!!

http://ttag.zippykidcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/how_are_guns_used_by_citizensvia-infothread-dot-org.jpg

[Spafranco]

Try caused by malfunctioning people. The guns were the instrument, not the cause.

"There are none so blind as those who cannot see".

[Rollo]

Let the outrage begin!!!

Let the idiocy begin:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime
violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault

In contrast:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116226/user-guide-crime-statistics.pdf
The violent offences of: Homicide; Attempted murder; Intentional destruction of an unborn
child; the five offences of Causing death by driving; Endangering life at sea; Possession of
weapons; Harassment; Cruelty to or neglect of children; Abandoning a child under the age of
two years; Child abduction; Procuring illegal abortion; Concealment of birth; All sexual
offences; Non-domestic burglary; Proceeds of crime; Theft in a dwelling; Theft by an
employee; Theft of mail; Abstracting electricity; Theft from shops; Theft from automatic
machine or meter; Handling stolen goods; Other theft; all Fraud and forgery; Threat etc. to
commit criminal damage; all Drug offences and all "Other" offences.

If you want to start comparing crimes like "theft of mail" with "forcible rape" then be my guest because clearly the moron who compiled this thought they they were comparable.

[henners88]

I fail to see the irony of what BDunnell says to be honest because its comparing things of a vastly different purpose. Alcohol, and cars are very different to a gun IMHO. Alcohol is a drink that provides a certain pleasure to the drinker and is used throughout the world. Cars are modes of transport and are a necessary everyday object used by people like me to get to work. A gun is a weapon and is designed with one purpose in mind and that is to cause maximum damage. Sure there is a certain level of responsibility required when enjoying alcohol, but its is not a tool intended to kill somebody.

I think we should thank Mr Vop for supplying that rather lovely poster too. When you look past some of its glaring spelling mistakes you get on to some very carefully picked statistics that don't really paint a great image of America. Although the bibliography at the end should probably have been left off especially considering its British sources are lacking considerably. Out of the three used, the 2005 dated BBC article is probably the most credible and the Daily Fail possibly the least so. Then again much of the stats on the page appear to come from the NRA statistic source. The study in the BBC article suggests a small independent research team from Middlesex University conclude that 24% of youngsters in the UK carry knives. That's a quarter apparently! well 8 years ago it was and I hardly call a study of London representative of the UK's overall youth. Since 2005 we've had a massive knife amnesty and laws have been changed regarding the carrying of offensive weapons such as knives. People found in possession of a knife on the street can face up to 2 years in prison. So although he propaganda in that poster tell a very reassuring tale to NRA members, it also shows sources that are very much out of date and does not take into account the measures that have been taken in the last decade here.

As I keep saying, we are not afraid to amend our laws to attempt to make society safer.

[henners88]

Yes and no. It is the fanaticism about rather than their rights that the issue. The Swiss have more people with guns, yet these American problems don't really exist. Like BDunnell said, it is something very wrong with American gun culture.
Why is the fanaticism there in the first place? Not necessarily asking you to answer that question but I think its very valid. The Swiss have more guns in relation to its population but don't seem to have the reputation the Americans do. I don't know if guns are glorified in the same way? The Swiss have a high suicide rate when compared to the rest of Europe but other countries have high attempted suicide rate where those individuals have been unsuccessful too. Is Switzerland really that bad a place to live or is it because its a lot easier to take your life with a gun therefore more people get their wish? I think the answer to that is fairly obvious. As you say the Swiss also don't have the problem America have and I think that stems from deep underlying problems within society.

We've seen many examples here from gun owning Americans as to why they own guns. Airshifter sounds like a guy who enjoys shooting and is the model gun owner and very responsible with it. If everyone in America was like him I think we'd have a similar situation we have in Switzerland where responsible gun ownership is recognised. Others have suggested they own their guns because the constitution allows them to and they'll be damned if anyone is going to stop them exercising their right. Self defence has been given too but the most absurd to date was the admission an individual owns their gun because they may need to defend themselves against their own government! Wow, well the mind boggles.

Its been a great discussion though and very civil, I doff my hat fella's :)

[markabilly]

Let the outrage begin!!!

http://ttag.zippykidcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/how_are_guns_used_by_citizensvia-infothread-dot-org.jpg

Shut up. You are only confusing the whinnies from the formerly Great Britney and from other crapped out places with the truth.

That truth is simple: You can stand and if necessary, die on your feet or live and die on your knees while getting screwed. :vader:


Rollo and the rest of them have made their choice. They just do not have the guts to say so, but they are willing to ban kitchen knives and blame the victim for standing up for themselves, rather than the scum that live everywhere like cockroaches.





A perfect example of perfect society in Britney and its criminalization of victims: Tony Martin for killing scum that had repeatedly broken into his home while the cops sat on their asses
Legal aid for burglar shot by Tony Martin | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/06/tonymartin.ukcrime)

Martin burglar back in custody | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/sep/05/tonymartin.ukcrime)

Legal action by burglar 'in doubt' | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/aug/20/tonymartin.ukcrime)

yep, that's right, whinney Britney GIVING PUBLIC MONEY TO THIEVING SCUM WHO GOT THEMSELVES SHOT BREAKING INTO A HOME-a scumbag heroin dealing criminal who subsequently gets arrested again, but who claimed he had lost income due to his being wounded. I guess he was not able to break into houses with the same ease that he had before he got shot---of course he could still go around riding his bicycle....






The only sadness I feel is that as soon as there are any problems in the world, they expect us to come to their rescue at a cost that they are not willing to pay.

This country is such a terrible place to live is the reason why there are so many wanting to come live here.

[gadjo_dilo]

The only sadness I feel is that as soon as there are any problems in the world, they expect us to come to their rescue at a cost that they are not willing to pay.


Now no offence but most of the times your country come to their "rescue" although nobody asked for it. It's your national interest that comes first and I don't blame you for this.

[markabilly]

Now no offence but most of the times your country come to their "rescue" although nobody asked for it. It's your national interest that comes first and I don't blame you for this.

If it were up to me, I would not be "rescuing" any of you....or doing anything like Libya or Iraq.

[gadjo_dilo]

If it were up to me, I would not be "rescuing" any of you....or doing anything like Libya or Iraq.
Great. Because nobody "rescue" without getting something in return.

[henners88]

I spoke a little too soon. The Tony Martin case was complicated in the respect he openly bragged before the killing that he would kill anyone who entered his property. The Gypsy burglars were foolish in the extreme since it was apparently common knowledge Martin kept shotguns and was known as a strange individual. This case caused a big stir here with many supporting Martin and many who thought his actions were way over the top.

The law has since received an amendment where reasonable force can be used against intruders, shooting them dead not being classed as reasonable force.

I'll use a more recent case here in the UK as it seems Google doesn't show up modern cases to use as examples over there in the United States. A guy recently walked free after stabbing a burglar in self defence. Our Prime Minister even supported the man when interviewed so I hate to bring up an inconvenient example.

Incidents of people killing burglars or burglars killing home owners is thankfully extremely rare here in the UK. Its not a matter of not having the guts to own a gun in order to defend ourselves and making the choice not to be tough enough to have the ability to shoot someone. Its taken me way too long to write this I've laughed so much. Is the guy in the story a coward because he used a household object rather than a gun that would have extended his manhood down at the firing range? What is your opinion on this one Billy?
BBC News - Woman whose husband killed burglar says laws not needed

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1415373/Burglar-lawfully-killed-by-homeowner.html (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20444885)

CLEARED: MAN WHO KILLED A BURGLAR | UK | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/260562/CLEARED-MAN-WHO-KILLED-A-BURGLAR)

[henners88]

For interest here is a case where a home owner like Tony Martin was arrested for shooting at a Burglar as he fled from his home. This wasn't in the UK as you'd expect. This time it was in Utah in the US of A.!

Quoting for balance :D


Residents in a northern Utah city are coming to the defense of a man who was arrested and faces charges for shooting at burglars as they drove away from his property.
Layton police arrested Clare Niederhauser, 64, last week after he fired one shot at a car and another at a fleeing burglar, said Layton Police Lt. Shawn Horton. He was arrested on suspicion of two counts of reckless endangerment.

Like the Martin case these guys were running away. Martin was jailed because self defence was difficult to claim as the burglars were at that point leaving his property, much like our American friend in this article. Both cases seem to mirror each other in the respect the home owners were acting in revenge rather than protecting themselves against a threat.


Read more: Community rallies behind homeowner arrested for shooting at burglar | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/08/community-rallies-behind-homeowner-arrested-for-shooting-at-burglar/#ixzz2Ssyijal6)

[markabilly]

I spoke a little too soon. The Tony Martin case was complicated in the respect he openly bragged before the killing that he would kill anyone who entered his property. The Gypsy burglars were foolish in the extreme since it was apparently common knowledge Martin kept shotguns and was known as a strange individual. This case caused a big stir here with many supporting Martin and many who thought his actions were way over the top.

The law has since received an amendment where reasonable force can be used against intruders, shooting them dead not being classed as reasonable force.

I'll use a more recent case here in the UK as it seems Google doesn't show up modern cases to use as examples over there in the United States. A guy recently walked free after stabbing a burglar in self defence. Our Prime Minister even supported the man when interviewed so I hate to bring up an inconvenient example.

Incidents of people killing burglars or burglars killing home owners is thankfully extremely rare here in the UK. Its not a matter of not having the guts to own a gun in order to defend ourselves and making the choice not to be tough enough to have the ability to shoot someone. Its taken me way too long to write this I've laughed so much. Is the guy in the story a coward because he used a household object rather than a gun that would have extended his manhood down at the firing range? What is your opinion on this one Billy?


BBC News - Woman whose husband killed burglar says laws not needed

Burglar lawfully killed by homeowner - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1415373/Burglar-lawfully-killed-by-homeowner.html)

CLEARED: MAN WHO KILLED A BURGLAR | UK | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/260562/CLEARED-MAN-WHO-KILLED-A-BURGLAR)





I thought you all were gonna ban kitchen knives??

I wish they would ban them here, cause my life would be a lot more safer around donKey's momma and speaking of "extending range", my stuff would be a couple of inches longer..... :eek:

[markabilly]

For interest here is a case where a home owner like Tony Martin was arrested for shooting at a Burglar as he fled from his home. This wasn't in the UK as you'd expect. This time it was in Utah in the US of A.!

Quoting for balance :D



Like the Martin case these guys were running away. Martin was jailed because self defence was difficult to claim as the burglars were at that point leaving his property, much like our American friend in this article. Both cases seem to mirror each other in the respect the home owners were acting in revenge rather than protecting themselves against a threat.


Read more: Community rallies behind homeowner arrested for shooting at burglar | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/08/community-rallies-behind-homeowner-arrested-for-shooting-at-burglar/#ixzz2Ssyijal6)



I think them there police been listening too much to the news from liberal TV stations who in turn, are listening too much to you English and bama, to have any brains

[anthonyvop]

And people actually believe them when Obama and his Brown Shirt minions say that they don't want to take away our guns.

US State Department Halts 3-D Gun Production: Demands Removal Of All Online Blueprints | Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-09/us-state-department-halts-3-d-gun-production-demands-removal-all-online-blueprints)

[Rollo]

Rollo and the rest of them have made their choice. They just do not have the guts to say so, but they are willing to ban kitchen knives and blame the victim for standing up for themselves, rather than the scum that live everywhere like cockroaches.


No, I'd rather live with professional police who are properly trained and where criminals don't have access to anywhere near as many weapons in the first place.
Thankfully I live in a country where the rate of homicide per 100,000 is just a fiftieth that of yours, where universal health care is accessible by all and out of the entire OECD was the only country which didn't go into recession.

Oh and for the record:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf
In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR). That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR.

It seems that "the victim for standing up for themselves" is something of a lie anyway if statistics are anything to go by. It seems that for all the yelling and posturing, guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes in the United States anyway.

You choose to believe a lie.

[anthonyvop]

No, I'd rather live with professional police who are properly trained and where criminals don't have access to anywhere near as many weapons in the first place.
Thankfully I live in a country where the rate of homicide per 100,000 is just a fiftieth that of yours, where universal health care is accessible by all and out of the entire OECD was the only country which didn't go into recession.



You would have LOVED Nazi Germany.


And the Violence Policy Center is a violently unstable organization that hates people having any weapon so much that they have actually called for the banning and confiscation of Archery equipment.

I guess this is in case Robin Hood was to plot a return

[Starter]

Great. Because nobody "rescue" without getting something in return.
An interesting point. Please tell us all what America got in return for being in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other than trillions of taxpayer dollars spent and thousands of American soldiers killed and maimed. Oil? Other natural resources? What? Please do tell.

[Starter]

"There are none so blind as those who cannot see".
True, and I am so glad you have finally come around. :D

[henners88]

I thought you all were gonna ban kitchen knives??

I wish they would ban them here, cause my life would be a lot more safer around donKey's momma and speaking of "extending range", my stuff would be a couple of inches longer..... :eek:
No I think the only people who have suggested banning kitchen knives here are those claiming if they ban their guns, they should ban kitchen knives too. Ironically it's not been the Brits calling for a ban on the everyday tools we need to use. This is one of those moments where you think perhaps you should have read the thread a little more carefully. :)

Ps: did you like my quotes? You haven't mentioned them :p

[Gregor-y]

This whole subject is an aside:


18 is perfectly sensible.
18 is the legal age of majority, after which things like contracts can be enforced and an individual can be prosecuted with the full weight of the law etc.

18 was chosen as the drinking age and the voting age because soldiers during the First World War could be on the battlefield and die for their nation (and after 1916 be conscripted) yet couldn't vote or drink.
Funny that it was Reagan that pretty much trod all over state drinking age laws forcing a national age of 21 on the US. But if I recall you can drink sooner if you join the military.

[Spafranco]

And people actually believe them when Obama and his Brown Shirt minions say that they don't want to take away our guns.

US State Department Halts 3-D Gun Production: Demands Removal Of All Online Blueprints | Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-09/us-state-department-halts-3-d-gun-production-demands-removal-all-online-blueprints)

You are now comparing the President of the United States by inference to the Nazi regime. The Nazi party under Hitlers rule and prior to it was a right wing organization. So stop your demonizing everything that is liberal and that you enjoy the benefits of every day of your life. liberal+liberated= free.

[Spafranco]

It's really a shame we can no longer use quotes in signatures! :laugh:

It's apparent you can count on one hand those people from other nations that make any attempt to understand the differences in how the US lives. The rest spend their days thinking everyone over here is going to be swayed by someone on an internet forum, and defending even the most trivial aspects of what their country does.

Even stranger to me is the fact that so many from those countries seem to have a real fear of "big brother" having too much authority, yet they oppose our strongest measure in making sure "big brother" can't get too far out of hand.

Maybe if we started drinking at younger ages we would understand!

Maybe if you listened to what has been posted by our overseas friends you might sit back and think, what is it that we are doing wrong. I look at the post of Anthonyprop (not a post but a piece of propaganda#130) that takes up most of the page. Why don't the moderators take that offensive piece of garbage and just post the link? If everyone is allowed to do that, then we should start posting 'photos of people killed by guns, blood strewn street and funerals of children killed because of the easily obtained guns in our society.
One of the references to give credibilty to that piece of offensive tripe is the CDC. The CDC has not conducted any research on gun violence in years because their funding was dropped when they give their conclusion on the cost of crime to the US. What he has shown here (Anthony Prop) with reference to the CDC results taken to provide legitimacy is just that, use the CDC because it is legitimate.

It is most disconcerting to me that people use idiotic comparisons to death by accident or design. Any legitimate study has to have comparable components with which to test the positive and negative aspects. Otherwise the study is useless.
People talking about banning knives and refrigerator, cars, alcohol, meds and other objects which can cause death or injury are studies all to themselves. Therefore the car, knife refrigerator argument is juvenile, ignorant and trivializing the deaths of ,for example the 2 year old.
Where have I seen the shock at the event? Nowhere, except from our overseas posters.

[BDunnell]

You are now comparing the President of the United States by inference to the Nazi regime. The Nazi party under Hitlers rule and prior to it was a right wing organization. So stop your demonizing everything that is liberal and that you enjoy the benefits of every day of your life. liberal+liberated= free.

I should imagine that, in response to this, you will receive a beautifully crafted post with the phrase 'National SOCIALIST' prominent within it, though probably not written correctly.

[BDunnell]

"There are none so blind as those who cannot see".

The quote to which you are referring with the above statement is unbelievable in its intellectual deficiency.

[gadjo_dilo]

An interesting point. Please tell us all what America got in return for being in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other than trillions of taxpayer dollars spent and thousands of American soldiers killed and maimed. Oil? Other natural resources? What? Please do tell.

Well, I won't mention only some petty economical opportunities or the changes of unfriendly leaders and regimes. I'd rather relate it to this very thread. Your country is a remarkable military force and when you have such a military potential why don't you use it and show to the world who's the universal gendarme? Esp. when you fight against small countries and when the entire world can be seen like a target. I don't think your taxpayers ( who BTW are fans of owning and using guns ) would mind too much as long as such interventions show to the rest of us your power.

[anthonyvop]

You are now comparing the President of the United States by inference to the Nazi regime. The Nazi party under Hitlers rule and prior to it was a right wing organization. So stop your demonizing everything that is liberal and that you enjoy the benefits of every day of your life. liberal+liberated= free.

One more time

The NAZIS WERE A LEFT WING POLITICAL PARTY
The Believed in the State over the individual. Centralized Governmental control of the Economy. Socialized Medicine, Gun Control and total political correctness.

And last but not least. Government attacks on opposition parties and organizations.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups

So now tell me how I am far off.

[anthonyvop]

Why don't the moderators take that offensive piece of garbage and just post the link?

Only a fascist would find facts "Offensive"

[BDunnell]

The NAZIS WERE A LEFT WING POLITICAL PARTY
The Believed in the State over the individual. Centralized Governmental control of the Economy. Socialized Medicine, Gun Control and total political correctness.

Ah yes, that was the big problem with the Nazis, wasn't it — their 'political correctness'. The gas chambers were so 'politically correct', weren't they?

[BDunnell]

Only a fascist would find facts "Offensive"

Really? There are many things one could say about an individual that may be factual, but are also offensive. I wouldn't lower myself to offer any examples, though.

[anthonyvop]

Ah yes, that was the big problem with the Nazis, wasn't it — their 'political correctness'. The gas chambers were so 'politically correct', weren't they?


If you knew what political correctness was then you wouldn't have asked such a silly question.


politically correct
adj. Abbr. PC
1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.

The NAZIS blamed the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Homosexuals and others for all the worlds problems. They just took it to the extreme.

Funny how the left likes to connect racism and bigotry with Conservatism when Historically it was the Left who has committed the most acts.

Stalin wasn't a Libertarian now was he?
Hitler didn't embrace the right of the Individual.
The KKK wasn't created by the members the party of Lincoln.
It wasn't a Republican standing at the top of the steps of a University in an attempt to block blacks from enrolling(It was a Republican President that sent the National Guard to make it happen)

That is not to say that there hasn't been any conservatives who were or are bigoted. I am am saying that left institutionalize it.

[BDunnell]

If you knew what political correctness was then you wouldn't have asked such a silly question.

If you knew what irony was you wouldn't make such a silly point.

[donKey jote]

One more time

The NAZIS WERE A LEFT WING POLITICAL PARTY

One more time

REPEAT BULL**** OFTEN ENOUGH AND YOU'LL END UP BELIEVING IT

:laugh:

[ioan]

An interesting point. Please tell us all what America got in return for being in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other than trillions of taxpayer dollars spent and thousands of American soldiers killed and maimed. Oil? Other natural resources? What? Please do tell.

Have a look at the companies that got the best deals in Iraq. Sure the taxpayers are the ones screwed, but the US companies control your politicians so this was expected anyway.

[ioan]

One more time

The NAZIS WERE A LEFT WING POLITICAL PARTY

:rotflmao:
Pure comedy gold! :rotflmao:

[anthonyvop]

One more time

REPEAT BULL**** OFTEN ENOUGH AND YOU'LL END UP BELIEVING IT

:laugh:

:rotflmao:
Pure comedy gold! :rotflmao:

You are both more than welcome to dispute what I say with facts instead of just insults and name calling.

[anthonyvop]

If you knew what irony was you wouldn't make such a silly point.


Do you know what Irony is?

[BDunnell]

You are both more than welcome to dispute what I say with facts instead of just insults and name calling.

You (according to your own definition, namely that only a fascist is offended by facts) fascist.

Furthermore, in neither of the posts you quote are you called any names.

[BDunnell]

Do you know what Irony is?

I do know there's no need to write it with a capital letter.

[pino]

Insults, personal comments, names calling and far away from original topic...that's more than enough to close it ! :rolleyes: