10 people shot dead in Texas

sarcasticus magnificus

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So you are saying that people are the problem and I would tend to agree.
America is the most violent place in the developed world.
Would you not agree that flooding a population of violent psychopaths with guns is a bad idea?
Americans are quite apparently too childish and volatile to be given guns.

I don't consider Americans to be a population of violent psychopaths.
Every single country in the world has its share of psychopaths and America is not different.
Look at London - knife attacks there occur almost every day, and just recently we have learned that the London murder rate surpassed that of New York.
So how did gun control increase safety in London exactly?
There is a small town in the US I've read about (Kennesaw, Georgia) where it's required by law that every household maintains a firearm. Haven't been murders there for years and gun violence is amongst the lowest in the US.

So do we need more gun control, or more decent law abiding people with guns?

sarcasticus magnificus

steddyeddy wrote: »

If that's true you favor no gun control?

No, I believe that any law abiding, mentally stable adult should be able to buy a gun.
I do believe there should be changes to gun control laws in issues such as licensing procedures, identification & vetting, training, gun keeping and safety, verification of medical, criminal & psychiatric records and more.

lawred2

sarcasticus magnificus wrote: »

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Stricter gun laws do not help. It was proven already in cities like chicago where there are extremely strict gun laws and yet the cities are still in the top list of gun violence.

To fix a problem, you have to address the root cause of the problem, and guns are not the root cause. They're a tool. If a kid wants to kill his schoolmates he will find a way - the internet is full of bomb recipes and manuals on how to construct home made weapons.
Doesn't seem like anyone is really looking for root causes though. Everyone seems to be just following a yes/no agenda in regards to gun laws.

Indeed people kill people.

So why make it easier for them to do so?

dr.fuzzenstein

sarcasticus magnificus wrote: »

No, I believe that any law abiding, mentally stable adult should be able to buy a gun.
I do believe there should be changes to gun control laws in issues such as licensing procedures, identification & vetting, training, gun keeping and safety, verification of medical, criminal & psychiatric records and more.

Yes, because someone who buys guns for the purpose of going on a shooting spree will definitely declare that when buying guns.
How does the clerk at the gun shop make that assertion?
Does he hang out with the customers, invite them round his house, have a few beer and shoot the breeze with them?
Nothing will change, except it will get worse.
Just offer thoughts and prayers and hope your kids aren't next. Because otherwise Americans will do fcuk all about it. God bless America.
You wanted it, you got it, enjoy it.

artvanderlay

There are so many guns in America and nobody is going to give them up willingly. All you can do really is beef up security in schools/universities/places with sitting duck targets. It's not a solution, but it might deter these little sh*ts if they think there is a chance they might get shot before they get to execute their plans.

Even without guns, you can use a car to kill, you can stab/throw acid...it's ****ed up. What is in the minds of these people that carry out these attacks? They feel they have been wronged in some way and they want somebody to pay. Maybe this is all a side effect of the increasingly narcissistic America culture of the past few decades, and the 'everybody is special/a winner' mantra in schools. They are breeding a population of entitled kids who can't handle rejection; rather than looking at themselves and trying to improve themselves, they pick up a gun and "say I'll show them all". I think the media is to blame a lot too, with the blanket news coverage when these shootings happen, plastering the killers face all over the internet/news. They should just say some cowardly loser shot some people and now he is crying for his mummy in police custody. I'd also make the little prick face down the people he shot when he is being sentenced.

sarcasticus magnificus

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yes, because someone who buys guns for the purpose of going on a shooting spree will definitely declare that when buying guns.
How does the clerk at the gun shop make that assertion?
Does he hang out with the customers, invite them round his house, have a few beer and shoot the breeze with them?
Nothing will change, except it will get worse.
Just offer thoughts and prayers and hope your kids aren't next. Because otherwise Americans will do fcuk all about it. God bless America.
You wanted it, you got it, enjoy it.

The clerk at the gun shop should have no decision in anything.
In my opinion, and extremely roughly speaking, the process of buying a firearm should be more or less as follows (monitored and inspected regularly by the government):
1. Get firearm training for the specific firearm you want to buy, and get an official certificate to prove it.
2. Get inspected by a physician to make sure you are physically fit to handle a firearm (eyesight, reflexes, whatever decided by law), and get an official certificate to prove it.
3. Get interviewed by a qualified psychiatrist or even a police officer from a station in your district, and get an official certificate to prove it.
4. Go to the gun shop, present certificates, go home and wait.
5. The gun shop clerk should send the documents to a government agency that approves the gun permit or not based on very specific and rigid criteria - the customer doesn't have a criminal record or violent history, or history of drug abuse or any other relevant thing.

steddyeddy

lawred2 wrote: »

Indeed people kill people.

So why make it easier for them to do so?

I hate this phrase. People do kill people but what facilitates mass shootings? Remove the gun from the mass shooting and the murderer is considerably less capable of killing a lot of people.

2011

steddyeddy wrote: »

Remove the gun from the mass shooting and the murderer is considerably less capable of killing a lot of people.

I will ask the same question again:
How do you "remove the gun" ???

2011

sarcasticus magnificus wrote: »

The clerk at the gun shop should have no decision in anything.
In my opinion, and extremely roughly speaking, the process of buying a firearm should be more or less as follows (monitored and inspected regularly by the government):
1. Get firearm training for the specific firearm you want to buy, and get an official certificate to prove it.
2. Get inspected by a physician to make sure you are physically fit to handle a firearm (eyesight, reflexes, whatever decided by law), and get an official certificate to prove it.
3. Get interviewed by a qualified psychiatrist or even a police officer from a station in your district, and get an official certificate to prove it.
4. Go to the gun shop, present certificates, go home and wait.
5. The gun shop clerk should send the documents to a government agency that approves the gun permit or not based on very specific and rigid criteria - the customer doesn't have a criminal record or violent history, or history of drug abuse or any other relevant thing.

Any American politician try to get these measures through can be assured of not getting elected, end of. It is far more likely that they will revert to the current plan which is stopping bad guys with guns with good guys with guns despite how ludicrous that is.

sarcasticus magnificus

steddyeddy wrote: »

I hate this phrase. People do kill people but what facilitates mass shootings? Remove the gun from the mass shooting and the murderer is considerably less capable of killing a lot of people.

Remove the gun, and they get a truck or a knife or a homemade bomb or any other way you can think of to kill people. Poison in the school cafeteria during lunch? Locking school doors from the outside and lighting a fire?
Endless ways, some much more discrete and unstoppable and damaging than someone with a gun who can be stopped by someone else with a gun and training.

sarcasticus magnificus

2011 wrote: »

I will ask the same question again:
How do you "remove the gun" ???

You start a civil war. With guns.

BeerFarts

sarcasticus magnificus wrote: »

Remove the gun, and they get a truck or a knife or a homemade bomb or any other way you can think of to kill people. Poison in the school cafeteria during lunch? Locking school doors from the outside and lighting a fire?
Endless ways, some much more discrete and unstoppable and damaging than someone with a gun who can be stopped by someone else with a gun and training.

Ah shure next t'will be planes flying into schools and atomic bombs, these kids know no bounds.

sarcasticus magnificus

BeerFarts wrote: »

Ah shure next t'will be planes flying into schools and atomic bombs, these kids know no bounds.

A car bomb is more than enough, and can be easily done with just a little bit of thinking and a little bit of knowledge in electronics and an alarm clock.
Tough, but that's life - where there's a will there's a way.

steddyeddy

sarcasticus magnificus wrote: »

Remove the gun, and they get a truck or a knife or a homemade bomb or any other way you can think of to kill people. Poison in the school cafeteria during lunch? Locking school doors from the outside and lighting a fire?
Endless ways, some much more discrete and unstoppable and damaging than someone with a gun who can be stopped by someone else with a gun and training.

Fortunately we don't have a problem with the other methods you mentioned. We have a problem with mass shootings. Put away the crystal ball and stop predicted what students would do in the absence of guns. We know what would happen because Australia made a move to reduce gun ownership which resulted in less mass shootings.

In other words it's been tried and it works.

steddyeddy

2011 wrote: »

I will ask the same question again:
How do you "remove the gun" ???

Facilitate a change of culture. One of my colleagues in the states a 26 year old girl in Colorado has two assault rifles and 3 handguns. She bought more after the last mass shooting out of fear they may be banned.

People like her need to feel ashamed for promoting this level of gun nut.

BattleCorp

steddyeddy wrote: »

Fortunately we don't have a problem with the other methods you mentioned. We have a problem with mass shootings. Put away the crystal ball and stop predicted what students would do in the absence of guns. We know what would happen because Australia made a move to reduce gun ownership which resulted in less mass shootings.

In other words it's been tried and it works.

The Americans won't give up their guns like the Aussies. Won't happen.

steddyeddy

BattleCorp wrote: »

The Americans won't give up their guns like the Aussies. Won't happen.

Again more mystic meg fortune telling.

BattleCorp

steddyeddy wrote: »

People like her need to feel ashamed for promoting this level of gun nut.

Ashamed for exercising her constitutional right to own firearms?

If she is a law abiding citizen, then I see no problem.

BattleCorp

steddyeddy wrote: »

Again more mystic meg fortune telling.

Heard you the first time. 🀣

Seriously though, the US army wouldn't be able to take back all the guns. It's mission impossible.

steddyeddy

BattleCorp wrote: »

Ashamed for exercising her constitutional right to own firearms?

If she is a law abiding citizen, then I see no problem.

Yes she should be. A mass shooting happens and her first thought is that her assault rifles will be taken. She's deranged.

steddyeddy

BattleCorp wrote: »

Heard you the first time. 🀣

Seriously though, the US army wouldn't be able to take back all the guns. It's mission impossible.

Not all of them. Just promote a culture where gun ownership isn't as sacred as it is now.

jmayo

BattleCorp wrote: »

I have 7 guns here in Ireland, 3 of which are semi automatic. All are fully licensed. I don't have 30 round magazines but I do have 10 round magazines. I have 2 .357 calibre guns. I don't carry any of them around. My guns are used at the range only.

I would say you are very much in the minority in this country owning 10 round semi autos, which btw I assume are something like .22, and especially a .357.
The vast majority of firearms in this country are single, double barrel, over and under shotguns, .22 rifles with just maybe a 5 round magazine.

And what hoops did you have to jump through to get the licenses for those firearms ?
You didn't just go to a gun show and walk out with them there and then.
You can't carry them, well apart from to range or competition, and they have to be stored in gun safes.
We have one of the most tightest control regimes in the world.
And it is tightened everytime some numpty of a politician wants to be seeing doing something about drug gangs killing each other with unlicensed glocks or AKs.

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

It's very difficult to argue a point on these threads with people who have no lived experience or cop on of situation. Saying our healthcare is better than America. I mean that's just embarrassing.

No our healthcare is shyte, but it is also very shyte in the US if you don't have the dosh or the health insurance.
And speaking of nurses in the US, I knew an Irish nurse that had to return home to get healthcare after an injury because her heath insurance would not cover part of the treatment.

kildare lad wrote: »

Its just a vicious cycle, it'll never change. Imagine having to worry about your kids getting shot going to school, and their politicians doing nothing about it. Ive said it before , America has some of the most dumbest, ignorant, backward people in the developed world. They even elected two of the last three presidents who'd fit into that category. You only have to watch Donald Trump speak at a rally, and all the idiots hollering and cheering at every incoherent, bumbling statement he comes out with.

It really is a nation of contrasts.
Very rich and very poor.
Very educated and very uneducated.
Very smart and complete thickos.

Btw the thickos are not necessarily poor and uneducated as indeed the last
two republican presidents have proven.
One has to say it does show how money can buy one an education, but sadly can't do much for intelligence.

2011 wrote: »

Great idea.
One question though: How??

I'm afraid that is like locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.
There are simply too many guns in circulation in the US.

Every time there is a shooting incident such as this guns sales soar because people worry that certain types of firearms will be banned so they want to stock up just in case.

Speaking as a keen target shooter, I don't agree with many aspects of gun laws in the US. However I don't think that the issues they have are simply due to the availability of firearms. Many other countries have high gun ownership and don't have these issues. These countries include Norway, Switzerland and Canada. I don't know what the solution is, but removing guns from the equation with the best will in the world simply isn't an option.

Many would be surprised what can be legally owned by civilians in many countries, for example I know of more than one AR15 licensed in the Republic of Ireland.

Some people have access to some serious firearms in the likes of Serbia, Switzerland, Israel and yet they are no mass shootings every other week.
There just is something in the America psyche.
There is just a paranoid being fed by vested interests and the muppets are buying into it.

BattleCorp

steddyeddy wrote: »

Not all of them. Just promote a culture where gun ownership isn't as sacred as it is now.

You'd have to get rid of the 2nd Amendment first. Then get rid of similar rights in State constitutions too. And once that starts, watch how many millions of guns extra will be sold.

And even if that worked, crazies will still get guns if they want them.

I think the improvements in 3d printing technology will make it even easier to access firearms in the not too distant future.

dr.fuzzenstein

sarcasticus magnificus wrote: »

A car bomb is more than enough, and can be easily done with just a little bit of thinking and a little bit of knowledge in electronics and an alarm clock.
Tough, but that's life - where there's a will there's a way.

Yeah, you've tried nothing and you're all out of ideas.

artvanderlay

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yeah, you've tried nothing and you're all out of ideas.

Off topic, but that's one of my fav Simpsons quotes. Used it last week on myself!

2011

jmayo wrote: »

Some people have access to some serious firearms in the likes of Serbia, Switzerland, Israel and yet they are no mass shootings every other week.
There just is something in the America psyche.
There is just a paranoid being fed by vested interests and the muppets are buying into it.

Agreed. That is exactly, the point I was making. This issue is not simply the ease of access to firearms.

Guns can't simply be removed from the equation, for a start nobody knows how many are in circulation and who has what. Somebody could surrender 10 and still have another 50.

Manic Moran

BattleCorp wrote: »

The Americans won't give up their guns like the Aussies. Won't happen.

The Aussies didn't do it either. It is estimated that over 2/3 of the weapons which were supposed to be turned in for buyback were not. http://www.foaa.com.au/buy-back-statistics-and-australia-stock-of-firearms-compiled-in-1998/ (Actually, they believe compliance to have been about 20%)

They now have more guns than they did before the 1996 buyback. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/australia-has-more-guns-than-before-port-arthur-massacre/7366360

It is the sixth-largest importer of small arms in the world.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/australia-ranked-as-one-of-the-worlds-major-small-arm-importers-and-exporters-20170918-gyjqvt.html

There is an overall increase in lawful firearms ownership nationally.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-11/gun-data-shows-extent-of-private-arsenals-in-suburban-australia/9038350

It is true that semi-auto rifles are now much harder to obtain if you don't already have one in the family. On the other hand, weapons such as those used this week in Santa Fe, or by someone like Cho in Virginia Tech are still obtainable there.

Guns can't simply be removed from the equation, for a start nobody knows how many are in circulation and who has what. Somebody could surrender 10 and still have another 50.

There is a phrase in the US... "I went out into the country, and lost my firearm overboard in a tragic boating accident...". Prohibitions, even if they could be legally enacted, and I don't believe they can be, are practicably unenforceable.

dr.fuzzenstein

Well, so nothing will change.
This has been entertaining, think we can put this one to bed and I'll see ye all next week in the next thread.

Billy86

The fact that mass shootings have skyrocketed since the assault weapons ban was done away with in 2004 and yet not apparent effort has been made across the two parties to reintroduce it or something similar shows just blatantly in the pockets of the terrorism advocating NRA a lot of American politicians are - and they're not even trying to hide it. Some are playing up to it even, mocking dead teenagers and the survivors because their money-masters tell them to. It's beyond pathetic, and it's not that "there is no answer" - it's simply that a lot of Americans and their politicians have no interest in even looking for the answer. That's as definitively not caring as one can be.

BattleCorp

Billy86 wrote: »

The fact that mass shootings have skyrocketed since the assault weapons ban was done away with in 2004 and yet not apparent effort has been made across the two parties to reintroduce it or something similar shows just blatantly in the pockets of the terrorism advocating NRA a lot of American politicians are - and they're not even trying to hide it. Some are playing up to it even, mocking dead teenagers and the survivors because their money-masters tell them to. It's beyond pathetic, and it's not that "there is no answer" - it's simply that a lot of Americans and their politicians have no interest in even looking for the answer. That's as definitively not caring as one can be.

I'm not saying you are wrong but there are two ways to look at it.

The number of casualties from mass shootings has certainly increased but is it correct to blame the rescinding of the assault rifle ban?

The above chart shows that the number of mass shootings was pretty similar before and during the ban. Why was there not more mass shootings before the ban when there was no assault rifle ban in place?

You would imagine that if the problem was assault rifles, then the period before the ban would match the period following the ban, but it doesn't.

TeaBagMania

Well said

is it the lack of an AR ban or sh**y parenting of the snowflake generation?

Greysquirel09

The American culture of glorifying these people doesn't help. The shooter will have every major American news network queuing up to interview them and will be allowed to. The jurors get famous talking to the media afterwards. It's madness.

greencap

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Well said

is it the lack of an AR ban or sh**y parenting of the snowflake generation?

Which to implement: a shtty parenting/snowflake generation ban? OR a ban on certain varieties of weapons*.

Neither seem very easy to implement.

But one sure seems more feasible than the other.



(*which serve no purpose other than acting the dick, or very briefly fighting US govt forces who are armed with satellite guided munitions in a fictional war that only exists in the minds of morons)

steddyeddy

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Aussies didn't do it either. It is estimated that over 2/3 of the weapons which were supposed to be turned in for buyback were not. http://www.foaa.com.au/buy-back-statistics-and-australia-stock-of-firearms-compiled-in-1998/ (Actually, they believe compliance to have been about 20%)

They now have more guns than they did before the 1996 buyback. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/australia-has-more-guns-than-before-port-arthur-massacre/7366360

It is the sixth-largest importer of small arms in the world.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/australia-ranked-as-one-of-the-worlds-major-small-arm-importers-and-exporters-20170918-gyjqvt.html

There is an overall increase in lawful firearms ownership nationally.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-11/gun-data-shows-extent-of-private-arsenals-in-suburban-australia/9038350

It is true that semi-auto rifles are now much harder to obtain if you don't already have one in the family. On the other hand, weapons such as those used this week in Santa Fe, or by someone like Cho in Virginia Tech are still obtainable there.



There is a phrase in the US... "I went out into the country, and lost my firearm overboard in a tragic boating accident...". Prohibitions, even if they could be legally enacted, and I don't believe they can be, are practicably unenforceable.

I've heard this trotted out repeatedly. While there's a reduction in the amount of assault rifles and shotguns in private ownership there's been an increase in handgun ownership.

What's conveniently being ignored is the fact that following the law there was a significant reduction mass shootings and also a reduction in homicides and murder suicides. It involved a change in gun culture and resulted in less murders every year, but something tells me if similar measures were brought in and 100 lives were saved every year in the US gun nuts would fight it.

steddyeddy

Once or twice the people in mass shooting threads reveal their true colors. They're usually the ones who don't issue a word of sympathy for the victims, but instead voice concern that someone might reduce gun ownership.

On previous threads and others a contributor here basically let the mask slip and implied they didn't think they should be lose a gun because someone goes on a killing spree.

Be honest guys when you throw out arguments saying why gun ownership restriction wouldn't work, you basically mean you don't care if lives are saved you won't part with your gun.

steddyeddy

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not saying you are wrong but there are two ways to look at it.

The number of casualties from mass shootings has certainly increased but is it correct to blame the rescinding of the assault rifle ban?

The above chart shows that the number of mass shootings was pretty similar before and during the ban. Why was there not more mass shootings before the ban when there was no assault rifle ban in place?

You would imagine that if the problem was assault rifles, then the period before the ban would match the period following the ban, but it doesn't.

The ban lift on assault rifles resulted in an upwards trend in mass shootings. Don't look exclusively at figures, in research we look at trends, I.E is it going up or down.

evolving_doors

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Well said

is it the lack of an AR ban or sh**y parenting of the snowflake generation?

Naw, just easy access to guns.
Guns kill people... dead.

Manic Moran

steddyeddy wrote: »

The ban lift on assault rifles resulted in an upwards trend in mass shootings. Don't look exclusively at figures, in research we look at trends, I.E is it going up or down.

Yes, but it proves nothing about causation which, as a researcher, I'm sure you also look at. This can easily be demonstrated by the fact that the Federal "Assault Weapons Ban" was nothing of the sort, no matter what the politicians said. During the period of this Federal ban, I first purchased one of these.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_M17S#/media/File:Bushmaster_M17S_right.jpg

I later sold it, replaced it with one of these. https://www.spectergear.com/v/vspfiles/photos/553-2.jpg

There is absolutely no, zero, zilch change in the operational characteristics of a 'banned' weapon vs a non-banned weapon during the 1994-2004 period. Again. Nothing. Absolutely, functionally, practicably, identical in mechanical operation, rate of fire, lethality.... The ban was based on aesthetic characteristics. Note how none of them have a bayonet lug? That's because it was banned. The world was safer for ten years from mass bayonettings. Fantastic. That sort of thing.

California has an assault weapons ban since 1989, and has had one even stricter than the one the Federals used. It is still in place.

Living in California, I also own this... https://i.imgur.com/PkrTCLf.jpg
this... https://i.imgur.com/gTwrASj.jpg
this.. https://i.imgur.com/eCbBSZP.jpg
and this. https://i.imgur.com/jcTBQXW.jpg

(In addition to less controversial things like bolt action rifle, pistols)

Again. These are owned, lawfully, in the State which has historically had the strictest prohibitions on 'assault weapons' for decades. Can you tell the difference between my AK-74 which isn't an assault weapon and one which is?

Neither can politicians writing the bans, which is why the ban had zero practical effect (Except to piss off us owners). Sales of AR-type rifles increased during the ban period.

So whilst people like to say that the weapons were banned, these people don't actually look into what happened. "Assault weapon" is a made-up political term for something which has no definition in the industry. There is no wonder that banning something which doesn't really exist didn't really have an effect.

Is there a similar correlation chart with the rise of both the 24-hour news media cycle and social media, perchance?

TeaBagMania

guns don't kill people, people kill people

Stated a few pages back that gun owners need to be held more responsible for what happens when their guns are accessed, especially by kids

I like Irelands idea that all guns must be locked up in a state approved safe and that the guards need to visit the residence and inspect said safe and installation

greencap

Manic Moran wrote: »

Living in California, I also own this... https://i.imgur.com/PkrTCLf.jpg
this... https://i.imgur.com/gTwrASj.jpg
this.. https://i.imgur.com/eCbBSZP.jpg
and this. https://i.imgur.com/jcTBQXW.jpg

And those are owned for some kind of childish self image or for clowning around with.

Buying and owning an item isn't an achievement.

And as for the clowning, its just a thing that goes bang and spits out a piece of metal. And it takes little in the way of skill.

Weapon fetishes should be grown out of in adolescence.

All your purchases really mean in real world terms is that theres widespread availability of pointless things which can shoot up many people quickly.

And that you're in the vicinity of this availability.

I know you think the gun laws are to your liking, but if you'd be an adult about it you'd probably realize its quite the opposite.

A Pint of Goo

greencap wrote: »

And those are owned for some kind of childish self image or for clowning around with.

Buying and owning an item isn't an achievement.

And as for the clowning, its just a thing that goes bang and spits out a piece of metal. And it takes little in the way of skill.

Weapon fetishes should be grown out of in adolescence.

All your purchases really mean in real world terms is that theres widespread availability of pointless things which can shoot up many people quickly.

And that you're in the vicinity of this availability.

I know you think the gun laws are to your liking, but if you'd be an adult about it you'd probably realize its quite the opposite.

Yours
Maude Flanders

greencap

A Pint of Goo wrote: »

Yours
Maude Flanders

Cheers Arnold.

Manic Moran

greencap wrote: »

I know you think the gun laws are to your liking, but if you'd be an adult about it you'd probably realize its quite the opposite.

Actually, I can think of (and have in past threads) mentioned a number of changes I would make to firearms laws. Some you may approve of, some you may not.

The point is that the "assault weapon ban" law lauded a few posts back is demonstrably pointless. I am demonstrating it with the above images, a point which you seem to have completely missed in order to score a cheap ad hominem attack. Yet there are those who advocate for its renewal as if it did something. It does not do what its advocates claim, and achieves zilch towards public safety.

I may as well pass a law against spoilers on cars in order to increase traffic safety because spoilers on cars make them look like they go faster. There is that much effectiveness.

dr.fuzzenstein

The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms.
I would be in favour that this should only be applied to weapons that are correct for the time period, i.e. flintlock rifles and muzzle loaders.
Because those laws were enacted in a time when you needed a gun to hunt or for self defense because life was tougher then.
No 300 pound yank needs a gun driving his 7 liter pickup truck to Walmart and later the drive-through.
It is come completely pointless to own an assault weapon nowadays. It is a devise that was designed with one and only one purpose.
To kill as many people as effectively as possible.
WTF does anyone need this for?
It's childish and immature, but then again this is America. Just look at their TV.
It's like arming a bunch of monkeys. With the inevitable outcome.
The gun lobby don't care, they are big and powerful enough that they can simply shout down any arguments. I don't buy this sh*t of civil militias starting a civil war if new laws were enacted.
It would simply be a few extremist gun nuts throwing a fit and those who don't immediately surrender, well what chance do a few nuts with guns stand against the US army?
The last skirmishes would be settled fairly quickly and easily. If the will was there, this could be done.

BattleCorp

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms.
I would be in favour that this should only be applied to weapons that are correct for the time period, i.e. flintlock rifles and muzzle loaders.

We'll also bring back slavery as they too were of that time period.

greencap

Manic Moran wrote: »

Actually, I can think of (and have in past threads) mentioned a number of changes I would make to firearms laws. Some you may approve of, some you may not.

The point is that the "assault weapon ban" law lauded a few posts back is demonstrably pointless. I am demonstrating it with the above images, a point which you seem to have completely missed in order to score a cheap ad hominem attack. Yet there are those who advocate for its renewal as if it did something. It does not do what its advocates claim, and achieves zilch towards public safety.

I may as well pass a law against spoilers on cars in order to increase traffic safety because spoilers on cars make them look like they go faster. There is that much effectiveness.

A spoiler is a rather passive, irrelevant piece of kit.

Some kind of nitro booster would make for a more accurate analogy.

As in; why on earth do you want to own a nitro booster engine when our roads have a max 120kmph limit.

steddyeddy

BattleCorp wrote: »

We'll also bring back slavery as they too were of that time period.

Another thing that was considered a right by people back then. If that can change so can attitudes to gun ownership.

dr.fuzzenstein

BattleCorp wrote: »

We'll also bring back slavery as they too were of that time period.

Had slavery been within the remit of the NRA, you could be sure we'd still have it in the US today.
And they would argue that slavery had nothing to do with human rights abuses.
Alas the second amendment has nothing to do with slavery, so it's neither here nor there.
In fact you're making my argument for me.
You're arguing that slavery is abolished because it's an anachronism from centuries ago that is no longer relevant or valid today.
The same can be said about the 2nd.

jmayo

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Aussies didn't do it either. It is estimated that over 2/3 of the weapons which were supposed to be turned in for buyback were not. http://www.foaa.com.au/buy-back-statistics-and-australia-stock-of-firearms-compiled-in-1998/ (Actually, they believe compliance to have been about 20%)

They now have more guns than they did before the 1996 buyback. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/australia-has-more-guns-than-before-port-arthur-massacre/7366360

It is the sixth-largest importer of small arms in the world.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/australia-ranked-as-one-of-the-worlds-major-small-arm-importers-and-exporters-20170918-gyjqvt.html

There is an overall increase in lawful firearms ownership nationally.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-11/gun-data-shows-extent-of-private-arsenals-in-suburban-australia/9038350

It is true that semi-auto rifles are now much harder to obtain if you don't already have one in the family. On the other hand, weapons such as those used this week in Santa Fe, or by someone like Cho in Virginia Tech are still obtainable there.

I can only think of three major killing sprees in Aus.
One was the Port Arthur massacre that initiated the gun law changes. Another was a German visitor that went on shooting spree in Western Australia and to this day no one knows why.
And the last one is the killing of a family of 7 in Margaret River, WA this year.

So dragging in Australia and their guns if anything highlights how there can be high gun ownership, ban on certain categories such as semi auto, and low levels of mass shootings.

Manic Moran wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_M17S#/media/File:Bushmaster_M17S_right.jpg

I later sold it, replaced it with one of these. https://www.spectergear.com/v/vspfiles/photos/553-2.jpg

iving in California, I also own this... https://i.imgur.com/PkrTCLf.jpg
this... https://i.imgur.com/gTwrASj.jpg
this.. https://i.imgur.com/eCbBSZP.jpg
and this. https://i.imgur.com/jcTBQXW.jpg

Again. These are owned, lawfully, in the State which has historically had the strictest prohibitions on 'assault weapons' for decades. Can you tell the difference between my AK-74 which isn't an assault weapon and one which is?

Well your one is probably US manufactured, is made of black polymer, rather than having wood or grey metal and is semi auto

Ah come on they are all offshoots of weapons that were designed primarily as military grade assault rifles.
The first Bushmaster thingy was originally meant to be Australian army weapon of choice, but lost out to the Steyr AUG, a variant of which you appear to have.
You also have what looks like a version of a FN FAL there as well.

Fecks sake people had access to weapons in the US back in the 30s, 40s, 50s and even into the 60s, but there weren't these mass shootings.
But I guess every fecking Tom, Dick and Manic didn't aspire to owning versions of the M1s, M14s, M16s, BARs, AK47s, Fn FAL, HK G3 in those days.

Even taking out the preponderance of military knock offs,
how come years ago you didn't have people going round with weapons shooting up schools and offices ?
How come you didn't have kids even taking their bolt actions to school to kill their schoolmates ?

Something is seriously sick about US society.

Hitman3000

Charge 10 dollars a bullet, sorted.