Another US Campus mass shooting.
Discussion
Dodgy deal goes wrong in the 'hood? Bar room brawl? Sniper rifle - not much good. The self defence argument is BS. Anyway, you are supposed to be fighting the tyrannical Government, not some local hoodlum. Your itty bitty handgun or semi auto ain't gonna do you much good against the US Army. In other words, CP, your justifications for the love of guns are inconsistent, incoherent, and specious.
Blib said:
Was it on this thread that someone wrote that once Americans had accepted that their children could be slaughtered at gunpoint, that the game was lost?
That seems to be the long and short of it.
"......the seeds of tragedy are thereThat seems to be the long and short of it.
In what we feel we have the right to bear
To watch our children come to harm
There in the safety of our arms......."
REALIST123 said:
Blib said:
Was it on this thread that someone wrote that once Americans had accepted that their children could be slaughtered at gunpoint, that the game was lost?
That seems to be the long and short of it.
"......the seeds of tragedy are thereThat seems to be the long and short of it.
In what we feel we have the right to bear
To watch our children come to harm
There in the safety of our arms......."
blood money.
The NRA’s profit soars as deaths from gun massacres mount
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-nras-profit-s...
The NRA’s profit soars as deaths from gun massacres mount
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-nras-profit-s...
saw this article about australia.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/19/world/us-austral...
'In the 19 years since the announcement of legislation specifically designed to reduce gun massacres, Australia has seen no mass shootings'
only a million guns not the 300+ million in america, but shows it works.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/19/world/us-austral...
'In the 19 years since the announcement of legislation specifically designed to reduce gun massacres, Australia has seen no mass shootings'
only a million guns not the 300+ million in america, but shows it works.
Corpulent Tosser said:
WinstonWolf said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
If I want a gun, have a use for a gun and am a law abiding citizen why should I not be able to own a gun ?
I can think of 406,496 reasons...Corpulent Tosser said:
My post comparing the want for a powerful car against the need for one against the same for guns was refered to as retarded.
That's a bit harsh, but it is simplistic and one dimensional. Yes, it's making the point of want vs need, but the same can be made with cigarettes, alcohol, heroin, the age of consent etc. It requires an individual assessment of each with depth rather than making a superficial point about, 'well we are able to have what we want but not need with item X, so why not item Y?' Corpulent Tosser said:
While I wouldn't use that expression for the content of the graph, why compare gun violence in the US to terrorism against US citizens, it is irrelevant.
But it's not when you consider what the state is willing to do / the citizens are willing to accept reduce the risk and harm from terrorism. Look at the counter-terrorism legislation since 9/11 and the revelations of how intrusive the US government have been in the name of counter-terrorism. How is that rationally and objectively justified to the risk and harm caused by terrorism vs the lack of response to the risk and harm caused by firearms?
That's the point of drawing comparisons. The Americans happily sacrifice 'freedoms' and let the state heavily legislate for something that is exceptionally improbable to occur to them, but offer no such acceptance to something which is X times more likely to occur to them. The psychological and emotive side of terrorism is clearly on a different scale, but that doesn't kill you.
Corpulent Tosser said:
el stovey said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
WinstonWolf said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
If I want a gun, have a use for a gun and am a law abiding citizen why should I not be able to own a gun ?
I can think of 406,496 reasons...TwigtheWonderkid said:
VX Foxy said:
Any analogy between guns and cars or alcohol is disingenuous at very best. Retarded is probably more accurate.
Is that because you don't want to live without cars or alcohol but don't have an interest in guns.How many people die in the UK as a result of either drinking alcohol or at the hands of someone else who's drunk alcohol? Yes, the majority use it sensibly and enjoy it but many don't.
We don't need alcohol. But it's part of our culture and you could never ban it.
Deliberately killed.
creampuff said:
The UK hasn't done particularly well with stopping kids killing other kids however. I live in London. By my count reading the news, there have been 10 teenage knife deaths so far this year just in London. The population of London is only 8 million. It's a comparable death rate to US school shooting deaths. What are you doing about it? Why are you allowing disaffected youths to go around carrying knives?
I think that's a little bit creative with the 'data'. One city (which has the highest youth knife crime) therefore producing extreme data vs the whole of the US.
UK London children in general vs US specific children in schools. The apparent fact you can use extreme, generalised data vs a very specific area of crime in the US (school shootings) and place the on par doesn't really support your position.
Extrapolating youth knife crime in London to say "the UK hasn't done particularity well".
If you were to look at the overall murder data you'd see a down trend over time.
creampuff said:
Why is the the number of knife crimes going up?
They aren't. 
creampuff said:
What are you doing to stop alcohol abuse in the United Kingdom? Alcohol helps kill 40,000 people per year in the UK. Why did the UK allow a pub serving alcohol to open at a motorway services? Some of those 40,000 dead people per year are innocent motorists or pedestrians who happen to get in the way of a drink driver.
Some being about 240, which are combination of individual and third parties. So not a large absolute figure, and that number has been reducing since attitudes, laws and regulation has been gradually introduced. Unlike gun deaths where any rational introduction of such measures are, generally, completely rejected for irrational reasons.
The majority of alcohol-related deaths are the individual abusing it. It is a health problem. It isn't the individual killing someone else.
Apples and oranges.
creampuff said:
Unfortunately it is not going to happen and you can see why. All you have is the anti-gun brigade of which there is a good cross section on this thread saying you cannot compare alcohol and guns because for some reason alcohol related deaths are the wrong kind of death.
It's not that they are wrong, it's that they are totally different. They are health-related individual deaths, not killing other people deaths. The same can be said of smoking, obesity, too much sun or other life-style choices, they don't kill other people in great numbers and are often related to necessities such as eating and driving. Serious question to the people against controls.
Would there be much resistance to limiting a gun to say 3 bullets/cartridges/rounds/FMJs/(insert Rambo-ism for bullet here)?
For hunting, if you're any good, one, maybe two shots should be all you need.
For targets, you've got all the time in the world to reload - there is no real requirement to have more in the gun ready for instant use.
For self-defence, unless you're being mugged by a car full of people, again, a couple of shots should be enough. If you need 12 shots, then you'd need to be Quickdraw McGraw to actually take out half a dozen people - whenever you see YT videos of US cops shooting, they fire a dozen times and barely hit one target. If you're defending your home then one shot would have unarmed burglars running away.
It may not solve the problem (they can carry multiple magazines etc), but it may well reduce the severity of such incidents. As mentioned before, the second amendment was written when people carried single shot muskets, which took an age to reload. I'm happy for everyone to be allowed to carry a musket. They can have their one shot, then while they're cleaning, ramming, powdering etc they will get "their asses [sic] handed to them" by any and everyone nearby.
A 30 second search threw this up: http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/7-MAG557BLK
Note the website name... A 30 round AR15 magazine, the description say it "will work flawlessly every time no matter what conditions you find yourself in." In what circumstance/conditions would you EVER need a 30 round magazine to work flawlessly? I genuinely can't think of one.
(Not anti-gun, by the way, I have a couple of legal-limit air rifles for rabbiting, used to have a shotgun and I installed a gun and ammo safe in my last house, and have in the past been employed in the shooting "game". I just don't understand the need for pseudo-military spec "assault" weapons in a civilians hands in a country with no war)
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/3-0134901?t... About 400 quid. Less than a set of tyres or a decent meal/wine/cab home in London. The mind boggles.
Would there be much resistance to limiting a gun to say 3 bullets/cartridges/rounds/FMJs/(insert Rambo-ism for bullet here)?
For hunting, if you're any good, one, maybe two shots should be all you need.
For targets, you've got all the time in the world to reload - there is no real requirement to have more in the gun ready for instant use.
For self-defence, unless you're being mugged by a car full of people, again, a couple of shots should be enough. If you need 12 shots, then you'd need to be Quickdraw McGraw to actually take out half a dozen people - whenever you see YT videos of US cops shooting, they fire a dozen times and barely hit one target. If you're defending your home then one shot would have unarmed burglars running away.
It may not solve the problem (they can carry multiple magazines etc), but it may well reduce the severity of such incidents. As mentioned before, the second amendment was written when people carried single shot muskets, which took an age to reload. I'm happy for everyone to be allowed to carry a musket. They can have their one shot, then while they're cleaning, ramming, powdering etc they will get "their asses [sic] handed to them" by any and everyone nearby.
A 30 second search threw this up: http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/7-MAG557BLK
Note the website name... A 30 round AR15 magazine, the description say it "will work flawlessly every time no matter what conditions you find yourself in." In what circumstance/conditions would you EVER need a 30 round magazine to work flawlessly? I genuinely can't think of one.
(Not anti-gun, by the way, I have a couple of legal-limit air rifles for rabbiting, used to have a shotgun and I installed a gun and ammo safe in my last house, and have in the past been employed in the shooting "game". I just don't understand the need for pseudo-military spec "assault" weapons in a civilians hands in a country with no war)
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/3-0134901?t... About 400 quid. Less than a set of tyres or a decent meal/wine/cab home in London. The mind boggles.
Corpulent Tosser said:
OpulentBob said:
Serious question to the people against controls.
Would there be much resistance to limiting a gun to say 3 bullets/cartridges/rounds/FMJs/(insert Rambo-ism for bullet here)?
For hunting, if you're any good, one, maybe two shots should be all you need.
For targets, you've got all the time in the world to reload - there is no real requirement to have more in the gun ready for instant use.
For self-defence, unless you're being mugged by a car full of people, again, a couple of shots should be enough. If you need 12 shots, then you'd need to be Quickdraw McGraw to actually take out half a dozen people - whenever you see YT videos of US cops shooting, they fire a dozen times and barely hit one target. If you're defending your home then one shot would have unarmed burglars running away.
I don't think there are any people on here who are against control, the question is what level of control is 1 Sensible. 2 Workable. 3 Has any chance of acceptance.Would there be much resistance to limiting a gun to say 3 bullets/cartridges/rounds/FMJs/(insert Rambo-ism for bullet here)?
For hunting, if you're any good, one, maybe two shots should be all you need.
For targets, you've got all the time in the world to reload - there is no real requirement to have more in the gun ready for instant use.
For self-defence, unless you're being mugged by a car full of people, again, a couple of shots should be enough. If you need 12 shots, then you'd need to be Quickdraw McGraw to actually take out half a dozen people - whenever you see YT videos of US cops shooting, they fire a dozen times and barely hit one target. If you're defending your home then one shot would have unarmed burglars running away.
Your idea of limiting the number of rounds would certainly be fought against in the US, I know I had my .45 rebarrelled to .38 so the magazine could carry a couple of extra rounds, that it actually made it a better gun to use was a bonus.
Just interested. No real axe to grind, a friend had a Beretta handgun here just before they were banned, I had no issue with it, but then I was about 15 and loved the Hollywood aspect of it. Age has obviously made me a little more safety conscious.
5ohmustang said:
I used to be gmp I lost count of the amount of times I had to give fake reassurance to victims. Just call us as soon as possible and we will come.
Yes we will come, an hour after the incident we will come, meanwhile the victim is dead or dying.
Overstretched and underpaid, thank your socialist government for that.
It is also amusing that you think you have the right to tell a former colony how to live, we know what happened last time the crown imposed tyranny on us.
Yet you are still governed by this same evil monarchy, the same once that oversaw the disarming and enslavement of the UK people.
I am so glad I left that socialist s
thole.
Jesus fYes we will come, an hour after the incident we will come, meanwhile the victim is dead or dying.
Overstretched and underpaid, thank your socialist government for that.
It is also amusing that you think you have the right to tell a former colony how to live, we know what happened last time the crown imposed tyranny on us.
Yet you are still governed by this same evil monarchy, the same once that oversaw the disarming and enslavement of the UK people.
I am so glad I left that socialist s
thole.king Christ, do you want some sauce for that chip? Evil monarchy? Imposing tyranny? Enslavement of the UK people? What are you, 200 years old? I'm glad you left too. I think we're all better off without you. You sound unhinged, and dangerous, spouting the sort of s
te that one of these kids would leave in their "manifesto" before shooting up everyone in an English class or something. Sounds like you'll go fking spastic with your gat if you hear a British accent. "We" don't think of "you" as a former colony. That you think that shows what a victim mentality you (personally) have.
Gimp indeed.
Corpulent Tosser said:
I competed in Practical Pistol competitions, the additional rounds meant I could decide when to fit a new magazine, the best time is when moving between shooting stations rather than while shooting at a station, your score is a result of where you hit targets and also the time taken.
Fair enough. Would you (maybe not "you", but the everyday reasonable non-nutty non-survivalist gun-owner) entertain a proposal to limit the number of rounds in a gun you use for your hobby/sport, if it was proposed in the belief that it would reduce the severity (if not the frequency) of incidents like the school shootings? If the proposals were well explained, and not politicised? Maybe a competition centre/range could hold bigger magazines or something. Just musing really. There has got to be a way to stop people going in to schools or cinemas or shopping malls with 4 magazines and 120 bullets and killing stloads of innocent people. (I know the NRA would have us believe MORE guns are the answer, but I also think any sane person can see that it's really not.)ETA re reading that, it sounds like I'm accusing you of being a nutjob. Apologies. That wasn't the intention. I just wanted to get an idea of general opinion rather than drill you too hard on your own personal beliefs. I should have said "not you specifically" in my first sentence. No offence intended.
Edited by OpulentBob on Sunday 4th October 15:48
I didn't realise we could have unlimited semi auto 22 rimfires. I used to plink away with those in my mates garden (his father was the local gamekeeper and we used to go rabbiting on his land all the time), along with 410 shotguns. Although you've got to admit they're piss-weak and struggle to down a mixy rabbit, let alone a fully grown person! 
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. 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.
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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff