another school shooting in U.S. of A. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Guns should never be 'ingrained' in any society.

---

Please tell us what that has to do with reality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

You certainly do like to claim meanings not in evidence and quotes out of context, don't you? It basically makes all of your posts not worth reading as they are nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from points which you apparently have no substantive answer to..

---

No, my question was based entirely on the content of your post. You seemed not to understand why anyone would find a shooting of schoolchildren more worthy of comment than, say, a road accident that resulted in the same number of casualties. Several of your posts have sought to downplay the significance of what happened last week by making comparisons with, for example, deaths in other countries, or other events causing comparable death tolls. I would question this. Now do you see why my comment towards you was relevant?

As for my lack of a substantive answer — rubbish. I would have thought my personal view as to the answer was immediately obvious: end the gun culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Please tell us what that has to do with reality?

---

It's the reality in most countries that guns are not 'ingrained' in society. This is what it has to do with 'reality'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Thank you for seeing the truth. Too many people have unrealistic expectations as to what parts of reality it is possible to change. It matters little what you attitude toward guns may be, the reality is that they are ingrained in our society and exist here in larger numbers than can possibly be taken away. Should the government try and seize them, then there will for sure be another civil war here. I am not saying that because I am a gun owner (which I am), but because it is the truth of the matter.

---

But might it perhaps be possible to 'downgrade' the sort of guns owned by members of the general public?
Surely it should never be necessary to have anything more than a handgun for the purpose of home protection, and yet I recently came across something on the telly:
An episode of Sons of Guns (TV-show, I know, but hardly a farfetched fantasy), a man walks in with a revolver and asks for repairs to it, as he had just acquired it from somewhere, cant remember the story of it.. Well, anyway, he is asked what he needs it for, 'Just home protection', and the next thing you hear: 'Have you thought of a shotgun?'. So we now move from a handgun to a shotgun to protect our home? Why does that sound like more of a business decision than a security assessment?
I understand that guns are most likely part of US society, so the only possibility must be reduction as opposed to complete removal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChristianArp

But might it perhaps be possible to 'downgrade' the sort of guns owned by members of the general public?

---

Some of the gun owners on here I wouldn't trust with a knitting needle, so the question of competency is a relevant one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Some of the gun owners on here I wouldn't trust with a knitting needle, so the question of competency is a relevant one.

---

I must profess to not knowing anyone on here well enough to make that assessment, but I totally see your point.
And looking at the sort of small-army-arsenals that some recent nutters have been able to legally procure is where my proposal comes from. Assault rifle ammunition pieces running into the thousands should not be allowed for any private person in my opinion, and yet it seems perfectly reasonable in areas of the States?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChristianArp

But might it perhaps be possible to 'downgrade' the sort of guns owned by members of the general public?

---

Possible to do more of that. It would require a long period of time to achieve, but possible.

Quote:

---

Surely it should never be necessary to have anything more than a handgun for the purpose of home protection, and yet I recently came across something on the telly:
An episode of Sons of Guns (TV-show, I know, but hardly a farfetched fantasy), a man walks in with a revolver and asks for repairs to it, as he had just acquired it from somewhere, cant remember the story of it.. Well, anyway, he is asked what he needs it for, 'Just home protection', and the next thing you hear: 'Have you thought of a shotgun?'. So we now move from a handgun to a shotgun to protect our home? Why does that sound like more of a business decision than a security assessment?

---

From a practical point of view, it's a very reasonable recommendation. A shot gun loaded with 00 buckshot is a very effective close range weapon. Easier to hit an intruder in a stressful situation or in the dark - though the collateral damage to furniture and walls will be greater. Get a pump action one. In many cases just the sound of chambering a round will get that nasty person headed the other way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChristianArp

I must profess to not knowing anyone on here well enough to make that assessment, but I totally see your point.
And looking at the sort of small-army-arsenals that some recent nutters have been able to legally procure is where my proposal comes from. Assault rifle ammunition pieces running into the thousands should not be allowed for any private person in my opinion, and yet it seems perfectly reasonable in areas of the States?

---

A common misconception is that assault weapons are legal here. They are not. Manufacturers make models which resemble them for marketing purposes, but they are assault weapons in appearance only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

From a practical point of view, it's a very reasonable recommendation. A shot gun loaded with 00 buckshot is a very effective close range weapon. Easier to hit an intruder in a stressful situation or in the dark - though the collateral damage to furniture and walls will be greater. Get a pump action one. In many cases just the sound of chambering a round will get that nasty person headed the other way.

---

I see your point, but then by your reasoning an assault rifle makes even more sense - just load up a full magazine and then unload it on the intruder?
Whichever way you look at it, a handgun will still be plenty to injure anyone enough that their primal instincts will have them looking very fast for a way out of your house? With the added benefits that it slows down what seems to be an arms race contested by completely regular people..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

And here is me with the old fashioned deadlock on the front door, burglar alarm with activated zones and a phone by my bed lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Overpriced crap, please!