Another US Campus mass shooting.

[5ohmustang]

Yes the internet troll, the person who does not agree with the majority on a thread, yet the whole purpose of this thread is for a discussion. otherwise why post it on the internet?

However anyone that does not agree with your invalid agrument must be shunned with the troll label. Oh this person is upsetting the direction of this anti gun thread we must bannish him. Typical liberals.

Don't worry everything is jolly in the UK, the BBC said so therefore it must be the truth.

[Matt Harper]

VX Foxy said:

Matt Harper said:

So if the law abiding give up their weapons, the criminals will do too?

How about, "If I attempt a home-invasion robbery here, there's a pretty good chance I could get my head blown off, so I prefer to invade, terrorize and defile the unarmed, if you don't mind...."

Are you suggesting there are fewer robberies due to the chances of the victim having a gun? My guess is that you are very wrong. Fancy digging up some stats?

The reaction Depends on the perp' I guess, but think of it this way; every time a crime is committed the crim risks being locked up - would he prefer to be locked up for murder/armed robbery, or burglary?

No - I'm suggesting a couple of things - firstly, the notion that criminals with access to firearms are less likely to use them in pursuit of their crimes, simply because their victims are unarmed is ridiculous in the extreme. Armed robbers tend to have little sense of fair play.

Secondly, I'm suggesting that criminals (particularly those inclined to home invasion and car-jacking) tend to avoid targets where they know or suspect they may receive armed resistance. I have no stats - just anecdotal experience of my relatives and friends in US law enforcement. My daughter is a tactical firearms specialist in a particularly high-crime area of the US city we live in.

Interestingly there is an argument (not one that I necessarily subscribe to) that households with gun owners provide a layer of protection to their gun-free neighbors, due to the possibility of gun-play, deterrent or protection not offered by, say a noisy dog. In the case of dogs, home invaders tend to target premises where they know or at least suspect there is no danger from dangerous animals.

It's a dilemma of course, because blatantly advertising the fact that you or your household is armed is also asking for trouble - but there are subtle ways by which you can give a potential attacker the nod that they are likely to meet with resistance, if they chance their arm (or their life, even), by kicking your door in.

Edited by Matt Harper on Sunday 4th October 17:03

[Matt Harper]

AW111 said:

Statistically, if you have firearms in the house there is a much higher chance of a family member being killed.

Statistically, I am certain that you are correct - statistically.

Personally, I take the responsibility of firearm ownership very seriously. Statistically, there are many, many gun-owners that don't.

There are no juveniles in my household. Statistically, in cases of family member deaths by shooting, tragically there are.

[anonymous-user]

5ohmustang said:

Yes the internet troll, the person who does not agree with the majority on a thread, yet the whole purpose of this thread is for a discussion. otherwise why post it on the internet?

However anyone that does not agree with your invalid agrument must be shunned with the troll label. Oh this person is upsetting the direction of this anti gun thread we must bannish him. Typical liberals.

Don't worry everything is jolly in the UK, the BBC said so therefore it must be the truth.

Wait. You accuse us of being typical liberals yet you've moved due to the inferred freedoms of the US? Does not compute.

Things are a lot more jolly here for not having gun toting lunatics walking unchecked in to schools and blasting kids in to the next world because they've lost their girlfriend to the football team captain or they've realised it's the only way to appear a big boy with a big willy. We lose kids here and people are genuinely upset, rather than immediately get defensive and call for teachers to have guns.

If or when you lose a loved one to gun crime, I wonder if you will change your tune? As said before, the statistics say there is more of a chance of it happening tomorrow than there was yesterday.

[Matt Harper]

Corpulent Tosser said:

I would like to see every gun being kept in a secure gun safe when not in use, preferably with ammunition in a separate safe.

My guns were either in the safe or locked in the boot (trunk as it was the US) if I was going to/from a competition.

Absolutely no utility in personal or home defense of course. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that - but the whole point of a firearm as a defensive weapon (rather than a sporting tool) is that it be accessible and ready for use.

[anonymous-user]

Having said what I've said, the noisy child in me would absolutely love to go wild on something like a car with a minigun or one of those automatic shotguns.

[longshot]

Also...

5ohmustang said:

In case you forgot what happened the last time you tried to shove tyranny down our throats you got your asses handed to you. I'd fix your own socialist problems first.

I'm not going to debate or discuss gun control with you brainwashed cretins.

Take my rights? Take my guns? I say come get them liberal wkers.

5ohmustang said:

Yes the internet troll, the person who does not agree with the majority on a thread, yet the whole purpose of this thread is for a discussion. otherwise why post it on the internet?

However anyone that does not agree with your invalid agrument must be shunned with the troll label. Oh this person is upsetting the direction of this anti gun thread we must bannish him. Typical liberals.

Don't worry everything is jolly in the UK, the BBC said so therefore it must be the truth.

Anyway....

[anonymous-user]

Matt Harper said:

Corpulent Tosser said:

I would like to see every gun being kept in a secure gun safe when not in use, preferably with ammunition in a separate safe.

My guns were either in the safe or locked in the boot (trunk as it was the US) if I was going to/from a competition.

Absolutely no utility in personal or home defense of course. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that - but the whole point of a firearm as a defensive weapon (rather than a sporting tool) is that it be accessible and ready for use.

The whole point of a firearm as a defensive weapon is to kill or wound humans (I leave aside travelling in areas where there are potentially aggressive bears or other dangerous large animals - I'm talking about firearms held for defence against humans). There is not much sporting use for weapons such as semi-automatic rifles* and automatic pistols (unless you count combat style shooting as a sport, but the whole point of that is to simulate the use of a gun in combat, so the sport is derived from fighty stuff). You can do target shooting with a specialised single shot handgun or rifle. You can shoot game or pest animals with a single shot rifle or single or double barrelled non pumpy shotgun. Why would anyone want a semi auto rifle or a pump action shotgun or a multi shot pistol, especially one of the heavier ones, save as an anti person weapon?

* I gather that in Italy and France some people shoot small low flying birds for fun with semi-automatic weapons, pump actions or whatevs, but that doesn't strike me as very sporting! What next? Olympic fish in barrel shooting?

[creampuff]

Breadvan72 said:

There is not much sporting use for weapons such as semi-automatic rifles* and automatic pistols (unless you count combat style shooting as a sport, but the whole point of that is to simulate the use of a gun in combat, so the sport is derived from fighty stuff). You can do target shooting with a specialised single shot handgun or rifle. You can shoot game or pest animals with a single shot rifle or single or double barrelled non pumpy shotgun. Why would anyone want a semi auto rifle or a pump action shotgun or a multi shot pistol, especially one of the heavier ones, save as an anti person weapon?

For somebody is so convinced you know all about how bad guns are, you don't know a whole lot.

Here is a Youtube vid.

It's the Olympics.

Its the rapid fire pistol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toOlD2xdCa0

[Matt Harper]

Breadvan72 said:

Matt Harper said:

Corpulent Tosser said:

I would like to see every gun being kept in a secure gun safe when not in use, preferably with ammunition in a separate safe.

My guns were either in the safe or locked in the boot (trunk as it was the US) if I was going to/from a competition.

Absolutely no utility in personal or home defense of course. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that - but the whole point of a firearm as a defensive weapon (rather than a sporting tool) is that it be accessible and ready for use.

The whole point of a firearm as a defensive weapon is to kill or wound humans (I leave aside travelling in areas where there are potentially aggressive bears or other dangerous large animals - I'm talking about firearms held for defence against humans). There is not much sporting use for weapons such as semi-automatic rifles* and automatic pistols (unless you count combat style shooting as a sport, but the whole point of that is to simulate the use of a gun in combat, so the sport is derived from fighty stuff). You can do target shooting with a specialised single shot handgun or rifle. You can shoot game or pest animals with a single shot rifle or single or double barrelled non pumpy shotgun. Why would anyone want a semi auto rifle or a pump action shotgun or a multi shot pistol, especially one of the heavier ones, save as an anti person weapon?

* I gather that in Italy and France some people shoot small low flying birds for fun with semi-automatic weapons, pump actions or whatevs, but that doesn't strike me as very sporting! What next? Olympic fish in barrel shooting?

Well...... yeah. I can't argue with anything you have written here - though I do question the suggestion that all US gun-owners should be locking away their firearms and separating them from the ammunition - unless your sole rationale for possession is for recreation, rather than defense.

I am mindful of a recent situation my daughter had to deal with, where a "sportsman shooter" plastered his Facebook with pictures of his arsenal of guns, which he fastidiously locked away when not in use. He obligingly displayed pictures of his gun safe and tutored all and sundry about the need to secure weapons in his home.

The home-invaders that visited him (based on his public profile) poured gasoline over his girlfriend and threatened to set her ablaze unless he unlocked his safe and handed over his weapons (and as a nice parting gesture they frogmarched him to his nearest ATM and cleared-out his checking account too).

I will never criticize anyone for either demonizing guns or using them solely for sport or work. Equally, I understand why some possess them solely for defense of themselves and their sanctuary.

It would certainly (in my opinion) be much, much more interesting to read how gun controls could be initiated and practically enforced, rather than page after page of insults, inaccuracies, uninformed nonsense and pointless comment about how stupid fat Americans are.

[Lucas CAV]

Matt Harper said:

Breadvan72 said:

Matt Harper said:

Corpulent Tosser said:

I would like to see every gun being kept in a secure gun safe when not in use, preferably with ammunition in a separate safe.

My guns were either in the safe or locked in the boot (trunk as it was the US) if I was going to/from a competition.

Absolutely no utility in personal or home defense of course. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that - but the whole point of a firearm as a defensive weapon (rather than a sporting tool) is that it be accessible and ready for use.

The whole point of a firearm as a defensive weapon is to kill or wound humans (I leave aside travelling in areas where there are potentially aggressive bears or other dangerous large animals - I'm talking about firearms held for defence against humans). There is not much sporting use for weapons such as semi-automatic rifles* and automatic pistols (unless you count combat style shooting as a sport, but the whole point of that is to simulate the use of a gun in combat, so the sport is derived from fighty stuff). You can do target shooting with a specialised single shot handgun or rifle. You can shoot game or pest animals with a single shot rifle or single or double barrelled non pumpy shotgun. Why would anyone want a semi auto rifle or a pump action shotgun or a multi shot pistol, especially one of the heavier ones, save as an anti person weapon?

* I gather that in Italy and France some people shoot small low flying birds for fun with semi-automatic weapons, pump actions or whatevs, but that doesn't strike me as very sporting! What next? Olympic fish in barrel shooting?

Well...... yeah. I can't argue with anything you have written here - though I do question the suggestion that all US gun-owners should be locking away their firearms and separating them from the ammunition - unless your sole rationale for possession is for recreation, rather than defense.

I am mindful of a recent situation my daughter had to deal with, where a "sportsman shooter" plastered his Facebook with pictures of his arsenal of guns, which he fastidiously locked away when not in use. He obligingly displayed pictures of his gun safe and tutored all and sundry about the need to secure weapons in his home.

The home-invaders that visited him (based on his public profile) poured gasoline over his girlfriend and threatened to set her ablaze unless he unlocked his safe and handed over his weapons (and as a nice parting gesture they frogmarched him to his nearest ATM and cleared-out his checking account too).

I will never criticize anyone for either demonizing guns or using them solely for sport or work. Equally, I understand why some possess them solely for defense of themselves and their sanctuary.

It would certainly (in my opinion) be much, much more interesting to read how gun controls could be initiated and practically enforced, rather than page after page of insults, inaccuracies, uninformed nonsense and pointless comment about how stupid fat Americans are.

The suggestion posted earlier of making ammunition extremely expensive might be a step in the right direction -

Edited by Lucas CAV on Sunday 4th October 18:30

[creampuff]

Matt Harper said:

It would certainly (in my opinion) be much, much more interesting to read how gun controls could be initiated and practically enforced, rather than page after page of insults, inaccuracies, uninformed nonsense and pointless comment about how stupid fat Americans are.

I think you have summed up this thread!

[VX Foxy]

creampuff said:

About 80% of homicides are gangbangers killing other gangbangers. Most people are not gangbangers and are very unlikely to be the victim of violent crime.

The graph also misses out the homicide rate in Mexico. Mexico has very restrictive laws for private gun ownership which would give the anti-gun owning brigade on this

If you want your quoted stats to be taken seriously you need to give the source...

[VX Foxy]

YankeePorker said:

Just for the record, 2/3rds of victims of gunfire in the US are suicides. Guns are a damned sight more efficient than paracetamol and whisky!

Edited by YankeePorker on Sunday 4th October 15:42

Source please.

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

Breadvan72 said:

There is not much sporting use for weapons such as semi-automatic rifles* and automatic pistols (unless you count combat style shooting as a sport, but the whole point of that is to simulate the use of a gun in combat, so the sport is derived from fighty stuff). You can do target shooting with a specialised single shot handgun or rifle. You can shoot game or pest animals with a single shot rifle or single or double barrelled non pumpy shotgun. Why would anyone want a semi auto rifle or a pump action shotgun or a multi shot pistol, especially one of the heavier ones, save as an anti person weapon?

For somebody is so convinced you know all about how bad guns are, you don't know a whole lot.

Here is a Youtube vid.

It's the Olympics.

Its the rapid fire pistol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toOlD2xdCa0

Why not read what I wrote? Rapid fire pistol shooting is a sport derived from fighty shooting. A pistol is usually pretty useless for shooting your dinner, unless you fancy Kentucky Fried Rat, perhaps. BTW, great (as in rubbish) attempt at diverting the argument, yet again. I notice that it's something you do a lot.

[longshot]

creampuff said:

Matt Harper said:

It would certainly (in my opinion) be much, much more interesting to read how gun controls could be initiated and practically enforced, rather than page after page of insults, inaccuracies, uninformed nonsense and pointless comment about how stupid fat Americans are.

I think you have summed up this thread!

Support your President!

[Matt Harper]

Lucas CAV said:

The suggestion posted earlier of making ammunition extremely expensive might be a step in the right direction -

Edited by Lucas CAV on Sunday 4th October 18:30

Yes, I agree that this would be a good start. That said, I know a guy, who lives quite close to me and I have no doubt whatsoever is an otherwise, sensible, responsible and likable individual who has a stockpile of about 8,000 rounds of 9 mm and .45 APC ammunition. He gives no rational explanation - just jokes about zombie apocalypse etc.

My 2c worth as a start-point would be registration of all firearms - i.e. it becomes a felony to possess an unregistered hand-gun, shot-gun or rifle - or ammunition for them. That would cause absolute uproar in itself - but would make us all accountable and give law enforcement the means to arrest and deal with those who fail to register their guns. The objection to this has been stated already - registration potentially leads to means of regulation and confiscation.

Many lawful and responsible gun owners feel (rightly or wrongly) that confiscation of their firearms leaves them vulnerable to attack - not from their tyrannical government, but from the local lawless thuggery, for whom no firearms laws/regulations are recognized anyway.

The NRA/GOA 2nd Amendment argument is laughable, but an easy band-wagon to hop on to.

Psychological evaluation is also a potential mitigating strategy - but also fraught with difficulty. I'm not clinically qualified to know if this is even possible, but I would support removal of firearms from everyone, who has ever been diagnosed with a psychological disorder, temporary, transient or otherwise.

Any other suggestions?

[Gandahar]

Matt Harper said:

Equally, I understand why some possess them solely for defense of themselves and their sanctuary.

Defence of themselves and their sanctury? How do you defend your sanctury if you are at work most of the day, or doing the shopping etc? Or do you just stay at home 24/7? It's a really poor argument if you think about it. I have a gun so can defend my homestead, but only the times I am there. Which is not often, I'm at work or down the bar, or doing the shopping.

Most people are shot, in the their "sanctury" by themselves, their relations, their friends or neighbours. Lets just gloss over that though.

[Corpulent Tosser]

Breadvan72 said:

There is not much sporting use for weapons such as semi-automatic rifles* and automatic pistols (unless you count combat style shooting as a sport, but the whole point of that is to simulate the use of a gun in combat, so the sport is derived from fighty stuff). You can do target shooting with a specialised single shot handgun or rifle.

Practical Pistol is probably what you are calling combat style shooting, it is a competition so why would you not considered it as sport ?

You are correct that target shooting can be done with a single shot handgun or rifle, but to be honest it is a bit of a pain in the arse doing it.

[TankRizzo]

5ohmustang said:

Yes the internet troll, the person who does not agree with the majority on a thread, yet the whole purpose of this thread is for a discussion. otherwise why post it on the internet?

However anyone that does not agree with your invalid agrument must be shunned with the troll label. Oh this person is upsetting the direction of this anti gun thread we must bannish him. Typical liberals.

Don't worry everything is jolly in the UK, the BBC said so therefore it must be the truth.

GLOL don't worry son, in a few years you'll have all shot each other to death anyway so you won't matter.

Every westernised country and your own president is laughing at your stupid gun obsession.