Another mass shooting in the USA - 10 killed

Tell me how

kildare lad wrote: »

Obama had 8 years in office, what did he do about it....

You may have heard of a little thing called Obamacare, your dreamboat spent his 4 years trying to remove it. And failed.

kildare lad

Tell me how wrote: »

You may have heard of a little thing called Obamacare, your dreamboat spent his 4 years trying to remove it. And failed.

I've never said once on this forum that I supported trump , I think he's an idiot , I still do . It's just funny that ye try and blame him and the republicans for everything . Take Chicago for example , that's been a democrat run city for donkeys years and it's a dump . BLM protest violence costing 2 billions dollars of damage and around 20 deaths , trump's fault again ???

Tell me how

kildare lad wrote: »

I've never said once on this forum that I supported trump , I think he's an idiot , I still do . It's just funny that ye try and blame him and the republicans for everything . Take Chicago for example , that's been a democrat run city for donkeys years and it's a dump . BLM protest violence costing 2 billions dollars of damage and around 20 deaths , trump's fault again ???

lol. You started by asking why didn't Obama do stuff, then when you are shown he did, you pivot to talk about Chicago and BLM and are upset because fingers are pointed at Republicans.
The subject of this thread is mass shootings and as such Republican influence in the narrative and laws around this are relevant.

I have contributed more than enough on the topic of BLM on the thread on that topic and if you want to talk about Democrat run cities, go ahead and start a thread and I'll probably come in and talk about how the vast majority of successful cities in states, red and blue lean democrat.

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

You are trying to deflect and corral the discussion in to specific points which you seem to think means nothing should be done.

80% of guns used in Chicago violence, an area often referred to here as indicative of the real gun problem in America, are bought legally. I think that in itself supports my argument.

Let's see laws to deal with those issues, and in the mean time bring in laws that assault rifles don't ultimately end up being used in mass shootings in schools, shopping centres, etc.

Or is this a case where you think only a single law can be discussed/considered/implemented and must solve all problems?

Source for that claim? Also they may have been bought legally by one party, that doesn't mean they aren't being used illegally by another. Theft or strawman purchases. There are manifold laws in place to try and prevent such actions. I'm not sure what Lawing harder would accomplish. Make illegal use more illegal?

Again you have failed to show how one can prevent a spree killing with laws. Fairly sure driving a truck into a crowd is illegal, yet that didn't prevent the attack in France. Those determined to commit an atrocity are likely to find an avenue to do so if not caught.

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Source for that claim? Also they may have been bought legally by one party, that doesn't mean they aren't being used illegally by another. Theft or strawman purchases. There are manifold laws in place to try and prevent such actions. I'm not sure what Lawing harder would accomplish. Make illegal use more illegal?

Again you have failed to show how one can prevent a spree killing with laws. Fairly sure driving a truck into a crowd is illegal, yet that didn't prevent the attack in France. Those determined to commit an atrocity are likely to find an avenue to do so if not caught.

Here's just one article that discusses the source of guns in chicago and how they originate in gun friendly states.

The Dixie pipeline: Mississippi major source of 'crime guns' on the streets of Chicago

It's simple, do something to stop so many guns being put on the market and you have to see a change in how gun violence incidents end up happening.

What do you suggest doing? Nothing? How will that reduce gun violence? Jail more people? That hasn't worked thus far? Australia, Canada, UK all showed how changing gun laws had an impact on gun crime. By all means, if not this, suggest something.

Snickers Man

joe40 wrote: »

This is a genuine question but do Americans in general benchmark themselves against the rest of the world, or at least other like minded western democracies.
It is a great country in many ways but for me there are two areas where they are seriously out of step with other western countries.

One is use of the death penalty and the other their love affair with guns and gun culture.

Do they ever take a step back and say look at all these functioning societies, which are similar in so many ways, but they're doing better on many social metrics, let's learn from them.

Does that conversation ever take place in American politics.

I mentioned earlier the concept of American Exceptionalism, which is essentially the American self belief that their country is the closest to perfection that human society has ever managed to build.

The belief that their founding fathers left tyrannical regimes in Europe determined to put into effect the ideals of the 18th century Enlightenment that had evolved from the Renaissance of learning that had taken place in Europe in the late Middle Ages but which could not be implemented in Europe because of entrenched hierarchies, hereditary monarchies and, essentially, the monolithic Catholic church.

That America is the world's first true democracy and now leads the world in science, political freedom, technology, business innovation and freedom of conscience to name only a few.

As I stated, there are some tremendous benefits to this Foundation Myth. It breeds a society based on optimism, self reliance, self confidence and faith in an ever improving future.

It's main weakness, (apart from the fact that it is a myth and many aspects of it can easily be debunked) is that it breeds an arrogance which does not lend itself to looking at how well other societies might have approached a problem. After all, "we left those places because they were ****-hole countries in the first place. What have they possibly got that we could learn from?"


So, I guess "No" is the answer to all your questions.

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

Here's just one article that discusses the source of guns in chicago and how they originate in gun friendly states.



It's simple, do something to stop so many guns being put on the market and you have to see a change in how gun violence incidents end up happening.

What do you suggest doing? Nothing? How will that reduce gun violence? Jail more people? That hasn't worked thus far? Australia, Canada, UK all showed how changing gun laws had an impact on gun crime. By all means, if not this, suggest something.

So, as I surmised, folks trying to get around the system by making strawman purchases. Something for which there are many laws, with serious consequences.

To answer your question, better policing for one, both in the cities and investigating these purchases. Quite the opposite from defunding law enforcement.

You haven't yet laid out how banning rifles will reduce suicides, or crime.

Samsonsmasher

AbusesToilets wrote: »

So, as I surmised, folks trying to get around the system by making strawman purchases. Something for which there are many laws, with serious consequences.

To answer your question, better policing for one, both in the cities and investigating these purchases. Quite the opposite from defunding law enforcement.

You haven't yet laid out how banning rifles will reduce suicides, or crime.

Exactly. They can't.

Cosmetic changes were made to firearms to get around the defunct assault weapon ban.

It made no change to the lethality of weapons with the same action and that fired the same same round legally as the weapons that were banned.

It certainly didn't change the mindset of killers.

What it did do was make it harder for law abiding people to defend themselves from criminals and crazy people who don't obey the law.

That's what anti gun or gun control people can never admit.

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

So, as I surmised, folks trying to get around the system by making strawman purchases. Something for which there are many laws, with serious consequences.

What does this mean?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

To answer your question, better policing for one, both in the cities and investigating these purchases. Quite the opposite from defunding law enforcement.

Defunding the police may be what leads to better policing. The militarization of it and mass incarceration models haven't worked.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You haven't yet laid out how banning rifles will reduce suicides, or crime.

Suicides? Who said it would?
Crime? You seem intent on focusing on rifles, I'm in favour of laws to reduce the amount of guns in circulation and if you don't think that that would ultimately influence crime figures positively, then you shouldn't think there is a need for better policing.

AbusesToilets

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Exactly. They can't.

Cosmetic changes were made to firearms to get around the defunct assault weapon ban.

It made no change to the lethality of weapons with the same action and that fired the same same round legally as the weapons that were banned.

It certainly didn't change the mindset of killers.

What it did do was make it harder for law abiding people to defend themselves from criminals and crazy people who don't obey the law.

That's what anti gun or gun control people can never admit.

It's only ever a one way street with those calling for gun control. There's never any real desire for dialogue or practical solutions. You never hear any calling for a change to some of the ridiculous restrictions on barrel length or suppressor ownership that the NFA mandates. Simple common sense ideas are only acceptable if it makes owning a firearm more difficult and costly.

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's only ever a one way street with those calling for gun control. There's never any real desire for dialogue or practical solutions. You never hear any calling for a change to some of the ridiculous restrictions on barrel length or suppressor ownership that the NFA mandates. Simple common sense ideas are only acceptable if it makes owning a firearm more difficult and costly.

The fact that people call for control rather than outright bans is evidence that you are wrong to say that it is a one way street.

Lets' see some 'real desire for dialogue or practical solutions'. Senator John Kennedy tried to cut off the gun control conversation immediately this week by saying that every year thousands are killed by drunk drivers.

Lets enforce the same laws for guns that exist around cars and alcohol. Minimum age of 21 for alcohol, have to be tested before getting a license, have to have insuranace, have to register your car. Have to redo this if you move state etc.

Gun control advocates would be happy to see movement in this direction with guns, but republicans won't hear of it, so, who is stuck on this one way street without any 'real desire for dialogue or practical solutions'?

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

What does this mean?

A strawman purchase is where a person buys a gun legally to then give it to someone who couldn't.

Defunding the police may be what leads to better policing. The militarization of it and mass incarceration models haven't worked.

It's funny who people living in the most crime afflicted neighborhoods want more policing, rather than less. Reform is certainly needed, both in terms of policing and the laws themselves, but that doesn't mean reducing the presence of the police.

Suicides? Who said it would?
Crime? You seem intent on focusing on rifles, I'm in favour of laws to reduce the amount of guns in circulation and if you don't think that that would ultimately influence crime figures positively, then you shouldn't think there is a need for better policing.

If the major driver of firearm related deaths is suicides, then that would be my first priority.

What law are you going to pass that doesn't attack citizens right to own firearms, and that has any practical impact on criminal usage?

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

The fact that people call for control rather than outright bans is evidence that you are wrong to say that it is a one way street.

Lets' see some 'real desire for dialogue or practical solutions'. Senator John Kennedy tried to cut off the gun control conversation immediately this week by saying that every year thousands are killed by drunk drivers.

Lets enforce the same laws for guns that exist around cars and alcohol. Minimum age of 21 for alcohol, have to be tested before getting a license, have to have insuranace, have to register your car. Have to redo this if you move state etc.

Gun control advocates would be happy to see movement in this direction with guns, but republicans won't hear of it, so, who is stuck on this one way street without any 'real desire for dialogue or practical solutions'?

The unwillingness of folks who are in favor of gun ownership to believe the claims of those aren't is borne from decades of experience. Death by a thousand cuts has long been the approach by Feinstein et al when it comes to encroaching on the 2nd Amendment.

There's no desire to compromise, because that only ever results in less freedom, regardless of whether folks would be minded to enact changes or not.

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What law are you going to pass that doesn't attack citizens right to own firearms, and that has any practical impact on criminal usage?

I don't know, mandatory background checks and wait periods for all sellers, shops and gun shows. All gun serial numbers tracked through integrated federal database. Every gun should be identifiable as to where it should be, at all times. If you lose a gun, or have it stolen, you should be investigated and prosecuted if it emerges this happened through your negligence.

I'm not bothered about this 'citizens rights to own firearms' like it's some God given authority. It was an amendment added to the constitution in the years after a revolutionary war and without foresight as to how weaponry would evolve.

1800_Ladladlad

kildare lad wrote: »

I wonder why CNN calls it an accident???


https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1375881068847509504?s=20

CNN was more outraged by an irredeemable hate crime, a child grinning in a maga hat ...... than an innocent man who got viciously murdered. If we were to use the BLM logic ....... you know the rest

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The unwillingness of folks who are in favor of gun ownership to believe the claims of those aren't is borne from decades of experience. Death by a thousand cuts has long been the approach by Feinstein et al when it comes to encroaching on the 2nd Amendment.

There's no desire to compromise, because that only ever results in less freedom, regardless of whether folks would be minded to enact changes or not.

The fact that gun ownership is so prevalent and still frequently unregulated would suggest that this death by a thousand cuts is a fallacy.

Governments worldwide in all societies since the first people said 'let's talk about this' have come up with rules and regulations so as to keep their society safe. America and its guns have no right to expect that they should be absolved from this.

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

I don't know, mandatory background checks and wait periods for all sellers, shops and gun shows. All gun serial numbers tracked through integrated federal database. Every gun should be identifiable as to where it should be, at all times. If you lose a gun, or have it stolen, you should be investigated and prosecuted if it emerges this happened through your negligence.

I'm not bothered about this 'citizens rights to own firearms' like it's some God given authority. It was an amendment added to the constitution in the years after a revolutionary war and without foresight as to how weaponry would evolve.

So you're outlining a combination of things that already exist (background checks and waiting periods), things that are economically non-viable (databases and registries) and things that in violation of the Constitution (not just 2nd Amendment).

One wonders why folks might resist the idea of 'Common Sense" measures. Curious how you square support for such invasions of personal privacy with the goal of a better, safer society?

JP Liz V1

Will Biden change gun laws?

RIP the victims

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

So you're outlining a combination of things that already exist (background checks and waiting periods), things that are economically non-viable (databases and registries) and things that in violation of the Constitution (not just 2nd Amendment).

One wonders why folks might resist the idea of 'Common Sense" measures. Curious how you square support for such invasions of personal privacy with the goal of a better, safer society?

Some things exist in some states, not all, and not across all sellers I mentioned. And not federally structured.
You seriously suggesting the economic cost of the implication of a database would be a stumbling block? Seriously?
What is in violation of the constitution? Please be specific and consider how ownership of cars are handled.
What is such an invasion of personal privacy?

These responses to what I proposed look remarkably weak in substance, will be interested to see how you expand on them.

85603

AbusesToilets wrote: »

There are millions of semi automatic rifles in private hands in the US. Annually they account for ~300 deaths. More people die from fist related injuries per year.

An "assault weapon" (idiotic name) ban, would accomplish nothing, just like the previous one.

so thats 300 dead, and whats the upside exactly? you get to cos-play a bit better? shoot cans quicker? woop de doo.

your investment is 300 deaths, plus the trauma to their loved ones, and the associated economic costs, and the return is what exactly?

the ability to fight the govt?

1. thats immensely unlikely to happen.

2. a slightly fancier rifle isn't going to make a difference if that did happen.

3. they wouldn't even have to fight the civilian population, they'd just turn the population on itself. not like that would be hard in a country where butthurt groups of politics nuts take over the congress.
if anything the prior public distribution of certain weapons would make their job easier.
just bribe or bullsht a few corrupt militias to go do a mission, then get word to another non-corrupt militia. the proliferation of near military grade weapons just speeds the process up.

the logic of being as armed as the govt worked well with muskets. its a fair fight, same weight division.
now the u.s. govt has gone up 3 divisions, its no longer a fight, so the logic is broken.
either citizens have the right to guided munitions and attack choppers, or theres no point, its just a charade with tragic consequences in everyday society.

1776: Govt: musket. VS. People: musket.

the logic of a well armed population works. you have a fighting chance. you're well armed relative to the govt.

2021: Govt: ac-130's, ah-64's, mlrs, drones. VS. People: ar-15. mac-10's.

the logic of an a well armed population doesn't work now, you can no longer be relatively well armed.

AbusesToilets

85603 wrote: »

so thats 300 dead, and whats the upside exactly? you get to cos-play a bit better? shoot cans quicker? woop de doo.

your investment is 300 deaths, plus the trauma to their loved ones, and the associated economic costs, and the return is what exactly?

the ability to fight the govt?

1. thats immensely unlikely to happen.

2. a slightly fancier rifle isn't going to make a difference if that did happen.

3. they wouldn't even have to fight the civilian population, they'd just turn the population on itself. not like that would be hard in a country where butthurt groups of politics nuts take over the congress.
if anything the prior public distribution of certain weapons would make their job easier.
just bribe or bullsht a few corrupt militias to go do a mission, then get word to another non-corrupt militia. the proliferation of near military grade weapons just speeds the process up.

the logic of being as armed as the govt worked well with muskets. its a fair fight, same weight division.
now the u.s. govt has gone up 3 divisions, its no longer a fight, so the logic is broken.
either citizens have the right to guided munitions and attack choppers, or theres no point, its just a charade with tragic consequences in everyday society.

1776: Govt: musket. VS. People: musket.

the logic of a well armed population works. you have a fighting chance. you're well armed relative to the govt.

2021: Govt: ac-130's, ah-64's, mlrs, drones. VS. People: ar-15. mac-10's.

the logic of an a well armed population doesn't work now, you can no longer be relatively well armed.

Cool. So if we're banning dangerous stuff, then you'll have no issue getting rid of all forms of transportation then? The internet, what with it's dangerous ideas and such. Alcohol while we're at it; no benefit to the body in that.

silverharp

85603 wrote: »

1776: Govt: musket. VS. People: musket.

the logic of a well armed population works. you have a fighting chance. you're well armed relative to the govt.

2021: Govt: ac-130's, ah-64's, mlrs, drones. VS. People: ar-15. mac-10's.

the logic of an a well armed population doesn't work now, you can no longer be relatively well armed.

if the headlines were to be believed, there was an unarmed insurrection back in Jan that almost took control of the government, a couple of muskets and they would win :pac:

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

Some things exist in some states, not all, and not across all sellers I mentioned. And not federally structured.
You seriously suggesting the economic cost of the implication of a database would be a stumbling block? Seriously?
What is in violation of the constitution? Please be specific and consider how ownership of cars are handled.
What is such an invasion of personal privacy?

These responses to what I proposed look remarkably weak in substance, will be interested to see how you expand on them.

Go read up on how effective previous State level efforts at databases of the kind you propose worked out. Hint: not great.

I'm also surprised you'd so willingly give up the right to privacy of the citizenry for exercising their constitutional rights. I doubt you'd be so willing if a similar measure was put forth with respect to exercising your right to speech or to vote.

85603

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Cool. So if we're banning dangerous stuff, then you'll have no issue getting rid of all forms of transportation then? The internet, what with it's dangerous ideas and such. Alcohol while we're at it; no benefit to the body in that.

well why not the opposite direction. biological agents, chemicals, radioactive metals and explosives, canons, rocket launchers and mortars, just make them all available.

various forms of transport at least improve peoples lives and are essential.

what good comes from some suped up kalashnikov.

you going to fight a guided weapon with that? you need 30 rds of armor piercing 7.62 to get food or scare off the burglar.
just use an old fart 22 hunting rifle. if crumby old farmyard guns were all people could get their hands on in the u.s. you'd see a lot fewer massacres, with far lower fatalities. they'd probably get a shot or two off and then get a chair over the head.

Tell me how

silverharp wrote: »

if the headlines were to be believed, there was an unarmed insurrection back in Jan that almost took control of the government, a couple of muskets and they would win :pac:

What headlines? We were literally watching it happen live in HD.

No one said they almost took control though, but that they certainly tried to. We're currently waiting for the party of law and order to step up and demand accountability for all involved.

charlie_says

Guns.

Better to have one and not need one than not have one and need one.

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Go read up on how effective previous State level efforts at databases of the kind you propose worked out. Hint: not great.

Note I said this should be federal exercise.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I'm also surprised you'd so willingly give up the right to privacy of the citizenry for exercising their constitutional rights. I doubt you'd be so willing if a similar measure was put forth with respect to exercising your right to speech or to vote.

Way to try to conflate the issue.
And if you don't see the difference in controlling access to what is proven to be a hazardous and detrimental activity (the laissez faire attitude to gun control) versus the right to speech and vote (both activities which are widely in the news already with respect to doing so) then I don't know what to tell you.

The right to drink in public, smoke indoors, take drugs, how we drive, the chemicals we put in to the environment etc are all controlled because of the recognition that not doing so would negatively impact on society, why should guns be any different given the evidence that is available as to the impact they have.

(But, given that you brought it up, why do you think Georgian officials brought in the raft of measures they did last week to impact on people voting and why Republicans (aside from enacting this at the state level) are largely in agreement with it on a national level.

Having to complete a background check before buying a gun at a gun show is an infringement on peoples rights if they are to be believed while giving someone, who might be waiting in line for several hours to vote, food or water is a criminal offence in their book. And you suggest gun control advocates should be the ones coming with reasonable ideas and solutions? Seriously? How does that make any sense?

Tell me how

Here's one for the people that still think America is a bastion of freedom.

Ireland - 9th
United Kingdom - 27th
United States - 61st

Link

Freedom House rates people’s access to political rights and civil liberties in 210 countries and territories through its annual Freedom in the World report. Individual freedoms—ranging from the right to vote to freedom of expression and equality before the law—can be affected by state or nonstate actors.

To keep the table size down, I've removed from position 70 onwards, but they are all presented in the link.

US only scoring 80% in political rights (Ireland 97.5%, UK 97.5% by comparison). I wonder which party is mostly responsible for this absence of rights? I think we all know it's the party screaming that guns be allowed to prevent a tyrannical government. The second amendment is redundant, not fit for purpose and is used by the very people who seek to control and manipulate the electorate as a dog whistle to rally them against Democrats.

Rank Country Total Score and Status Political Rights Civil Liberties
1 Finland 100 Free 40 60
2 Norway 100 Free 40 60
3 Sweden 100 Free 40 60
4 New Zealand 99 Free 40 59
5 Netherlands 98 Free 40 58
6 Uruguay 98 Free 40 58
7 Canada 98 Free 40 58
8 Australia 97 Free 40 57
9 Ireland 97 Free 39 58
10 Luxembourg 97 Free 38 59
11 Denmark 97 Free 40 57
12 Belgium 96 Free 39 57
13 Japan 96 Free 40 56
14 Portugal 96 Free 39 57
15 Switzerland 96 Free 39 57
16 Barbados 95 Free 38 57
17 Slovenia 95 Free 39 56
18 Estonia 94 Free 38 56
19 Germany 94 Free 39 55
20 Cyprus 94 Free 38 56
21 Iceland 94 Free 37 57
22 Taiwan 94 Free 38 56
23 San Marino 93 Free 38 55
24 Tuvalu 93 Free 37 56
25 Austria 93 Free 37 56
26 Marshall Islands 93 Free 38 55
27 United Kingdom 93 Free 39 54
28 Kiribati 93 Free 37 56
29 Andorra 93 Free 38 55
30 Chile 93 Free 38 55
31 Dominica 93 Free 37 56
32 Cabo Verde 92 Free 38 54
33 Palau 92 Free 37 55
34 Micronesia 92 Free 37 55
35 St. Lucia 91 Free 37 54
36 Costa Rica 91 Free 38 53
37 The Bahamas 91 Free 38 53
38 Czech Republic 91 Free 36 55
39 St. Vincent and the Grenadines 91 Free 36 55
40 France 90 Free 38 52
41 Lithuania 90 Free 38 52
42 Slovakia 90 Free 37 53
43 Italy 90 Free 36 54
44 Malta 90 Free 35 55
45 Liechtenstein 90 Free 33 57
46 Spain 90 Free 37 53
47 Grenada 89 Free 37 52
48 St. Kitts and Nevis 89 Free 35 54
49 Latvia 89 Free 37 52
50 Greece 87 Free 37 50
51 Belize 87 Free 34 53
52 Mauritius 87 Free 37 50
53 Croatia 85 Free 36 49
54 Antigua and Barbuda 85 Free 33 52
55 Argentina 84 Free 35 49
56 São Tomé and Príncipe 84 Free 35 49
57 Mongolia 84 Free 36 48
58 South Korea 83 Free 33 50
59 Romania 83 Free 35 48
60 Monaco 83 Free 26 57
61 United States 83 Free 32 51
62 Panama 83 Free 35 48
63 Poland 82 Free 34 48
64 Vanuatu 82 Free 33 49
65 Trinidad and Tobago 82 Free 33 49
66 Ghana 82 Free 35 47
67 Samoa 81 Free 30 51
68 Jamaica 80 Free 34 46
69 Tonga 79 Free 30 49
70 South Africa 79 Free 33 46


It's worth clicking in to the report for each country to see how the scores were determined. Pretty comprehensive assessment across several metrics.

silverharp

Tell me how wrote: »

What headlines? We were literally watching it happen live in HD.

No one said they almost took control though, but that they certainly tried to. We're currently waiting for the party of law and order to step up and demand accountability for all involved.

luckily for the US their system isnt based on who has the conch controls government

BattleCorp

Tell me how wrote: »

The fact that gun ownership is so prevalent and still frequently unregulated would suggest that this death by a thousand cuts is a fallacy.

Governments worldwide in all societies since the first people said 'let's talk about this' have come up with rules and regulations so as to keep their society safe. America and its guns have no right to expect that they should be absolved from this.

Speaking as a gun owner here in Ireland, we have a well regulated licencing system but it's still death by a thousand cuts here.

Every few years we lose something, or some new rule that makes it more difficult to licence a gun.

Our sport/hobby/lifestyle is under constant attack, I see it every day here in Ireland so I can understand why the NRA and other shooting organisations resist at every stage because if you give an inch, the authorities will take a mile.