The U.S.A. Mass Shootings Thread
Discussion
red_slr said:
Part of the issue in the states is that their laws are so complex. You have federal laws and state laws and sometimes county/city laws too. Its sometimes very illegal to have a certain firearm in one town, drive 5 minutes to another and its totally legal.
Its not quite the firearms owning utopia most Brits think is it. Yes if you live in somewhere like Arizona or Vermont its very much a free for all - but if you intend to travel or if you live somewhere like California then its a big hassle.
Doesn't Chicago have relatively restrictive gun control, but you just need to travel 40 miles to the neighbouring state to have far easier legal access to firearms? Its not quite the firearms owning utopia most Brits think is it. Yes if you live in somewhere like Arizona or Vermont its very much a free for all - but if you intend to travel or if you live somewhere like California then its a big hassle.
Boom78 said:
This thread has gone mental, it was started because of the shocking gun crime in the states, waves of mass killings of innocents and a chance to debate how to stop it all, now all of sudden it’s a bunch of gun boner nuts showing off their military grade guns, fave rounds choices and ‘whataboutism’. Bunch of high grade walts! Bonkers!!
And how many postings do we have on PH showing high performance cars, giving advice on breaking the law and making the already ridiculously fast cars even faster?Don't see any debates on how to stop that madness.
Possibly another mass shooting averted today - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ajc.com/news/brea...
Who would take 3 pistols, 2 long guns and body armour into a supermarket?
The whole Atlantic Station complex is a gun free zone, plus Publix had previously announced they no longer welcomed customers open carrying firearms in their stores ( https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tampabay.com/news... ).
Quite odd place to potentially carry out an attack - it's a quite a nice part of Atlanta, with a fairly visible security presence. I can think of at least a dozen more likely locations there for that sort of incident.
Who would take 3 pistols, 2 long guns and body armour into a supermarket?
The whole Atlantic Station complex is a gun free zone, plus Publix had previously announced they no longer welcomed customers open carrying firearms in their stores ( https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tampabay.com/news... ).
Quite odd place to potentially carry out an attack - it's a quite a nice part of Atlanta, with a fairly visible security presence. I can think of at least a dozen more likely locations there for that sort of incident.
jimmyjimjim said:
Something you've likely not considered here is that a lot of the people with guns in the US are both ex-military, so highly trained themselves and actually spend significantly more time on the range once they retire, than they did while in the military.
Ah yes, and all ‘good guys’ because they have been in the military.I should have a gun because I’m a ‘good guy’. Yes you are, until you aren’t.
I worked with USA colleagues quite extensively f2012-2017) Spent a fair bit of time there.
This whole ‘good guy’ fallacy often came up.
People in the military aren’t any more likely to ‘good guys’ than anyone else.
I had a colleague who’s (unarmed) father was shot an wounded by, obviously, a ‘bad guy’. The bad guy was a retired police officer., In a dispute over something to do with a garden fence or boundary (I can’t remember exactly). So policeman went from ‘good guy’ to ‘bad guy’ in an instant.
I used to use an example of where I’m definitely the sort of chap that would have no problems getting a gun in USA - none at all. Good job, never had trouble with police, stable relationship, would have great character references, had put life on line to help others before....a ‘good-guy’.
I went from good-guy to what could be seen as a bad-guy in seconds whilst doing a good-guy act. I think three lads and one girl that would have been see as ‘bad guys’ could in the USA legitimately have shot me dead. So they would have been good-guys with guns rightly defending themselves against a bad-guy.
Thankfully no one had guns, seeing this was in the UK.
I had colleagues from Florida that absolutely saw themselves as the good-guys with concealed guns. I never could get them to understand that most people are good until they are bad. These were bright successful people, not red-neck types. Just had this idea that good-guys should have guns, and ‘bad guys’ should not.
Could not see that they might change over the years, develop a mental health issue, become angry when wife left them.....etc etc...
The other position I struggled with is what counts as a good-guy and bad. A white-collar guy is good and should be able to defend his home, despite embezzling cash from employers but a bloke who deals in stolen car parts shouldn’t have a gun to defend his family at home?
The other I view I found hard to understand was the ‘well it’s mostly people from the bad part of town shooting each other’ so it doesn’t matter. Tell that to their mothers or the sister they really looked out for. Like these guys should have left the area and gone to Harvard and then Wall Street.
The reason that crime is high in those areas is incredibly complex, not just that these people are all ‘bad guys’ and therefore their lives just don’t matter and screw the effect on their families. That’s actually quite sick, in my opinion.
rscott said:
Doesn't Chicago have relatively restrictive gun control, but you just need to travel 40 miles to the neighbouring state to have far easier legal access to firearms?
Metro Chicago spills over into Indiana which has virtually no firearms restrictions. Chicago has very restrictive gun laws. Pretty ridiculous and obviously doesn’t work. Gun laws need to be stricter at the federal level. Then there’s at least a minimum baseline throughout the country, rather than the ultra fragmented, wildly different from place to place way things currently are.dvs_dave said:
rscott said:
Doesn't Chicago have relatively restrictive gun control, but you just need to travel 40 miles to the neighbouring state to have far easier legal access to firearms?
Metro Chicago spills over into Indiana which has virtually no firearms restrictions. Chicago has very restrictive gun laws. Pretty ridiculous and obviously doesn’t work. Gun laws need to be stricter at the federal level. Then there’s at least a minimum baseline throughout the country, rather than the ultra fragmented, wildly different from place to place way things currently are.Shootings by police or civilians are very rare.
In the province of 5.2m where I live, which has a very densely populated region, there has been one fatal shooting in five years. That was of a guy who stabbed a police officer to death when they tried to arrest him.
That’s it.
We need more guns!
Boom shot a cadet version of the SA80... The reason for the images is to show that some have more experience than you in firearms. That doesn't mean that your opinion isn't valid, but some of your arguments are.
For the record, the problem isn't with guns. Responsible owners in all other countries don't generally cause the issues. I've owned guns for years, have represented my country at shooting, enjoy the opportunity to shoot different guns, which is why I understand their capabilities and understand why restrictions are necessary.
The problem is the culture of guns in the US, the ease of which you can get a gun in the US is ridiculous. Whats even more difficult is the wide range of laws thats spread across each state, it really isn't united states at all, but a series of connected fiefdoms, with everyone making up their own laws.
There needs to be a national database of ownership. The House has passed a bill extending the checks on people wanting to buy a gun up to ten days, that probably won't get through the senate as the GOP are by default saying no to everything. At the moment, if the check isn't returned within three days the default is to grant the gun ownership. The form the firearms dealer fills in is on paper and then sent off.
There should be national restrictions on who can own semi autos, magazine sizes, quantities of guns and ammo...
The gun lobby has been strong, especially to the GOP and their donations given. Money speaks a lot in US politics. It's why the russians pumped money through the NRA to support trump and the GOP in 2016, because there was a route there already. It's why nothing gets done, rules don't get changed.
Until the US politics isn't dominated by money, lobbiests will always rule.
There's been opportunities so many times, after each new mass shooting, school shooting but nothing gets done, and there's deniers who claim its false flags, actors, and enough people who believe them...
And I can't see it changing, not whilst there's so much money in US politics
For the record, the problem isn't with guns. Responsible owners in all other countries don't generally cause the issues. I've owned guns for years, have represented my country at shooting, enjoy the opportunity to shoot different guns, which is why I understand their capabilities and understand why restrictions are necessary.
The problem is the culture of guns in the US, the ease of which you can get a gun in the US is ridiculous. Whats even more difficult is the wide range of laws thats spread across each state, it really isn't united states at all, but a series of connected fiefdoms, with everyone making up their own laws.
There needs to be a national database of ownership. The House has passed a bill extending the checks on people wanting to buy a gun up to ten days, that probably won't get through the senate as the GOP are by default saying no to everything. At the moment, if the check isn't returned within three days the default is to grant the gun ownership. The form the firearms dealer fills in is on paper and then sent off.
There should be national restrictions on who can own semi autos, magazine sizes, quantities of guns and ammo...
The gun lobby has been strong, especially to the GOP and their donations given. Money speaks a lot in US politics. It's why the russians pumped money through the NRA to support trump and the GOP in 2016, because there was a route there already. It's why nothing gets done, rules don't get changed.
Until the US politics isn't dominated by money, lobbiests will always rule.
There's been opportunities so many times, after each new mass shooting, school shooting but nothing gets done, and there's deniers who claim its false flags, actors, and enough people who believe them...
And I can't see it changing, not whilst there's so much money in US politics
Edited by Byker28i on Thursday 25th March 07:06
Denver Post
Boulder shooting suspect’s gun would’ve been illegal under city’s now-void assault-weapon ban
The 2018 ban was never enforced and allowed people to keep banned weapons in their cars
A gun used by a man suspected of shooting and killing 10 people at a Boulder King Soopers would have been illegal under the city’s assault weapon ban that was recently blocked by a judge, though nobody ever had been cited under the ban while it was active.
The suspect purchased a Ruger AR-556 pistol on March 16, six days before the mass killing, according to his arrest affidavit. Police recovered a rifle and a handgun inside the grocery store next to the tactical vest believed to be worn by the suspect, according to the affidavit, though it’s not clear whether the Ruger gun is the handgun or the rifle referenced in the document.
The Ruger AR-556 pistol is not technically a rifle, though many features of its design echo a rifle’s set-up.
“It’s not a sporting rifle, it’s not a hunting rifle,” said Joseph Vince, a professor at Mount St. Mary’s University who worked as a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent for more than 30 years. “It’s made for the military and short-range combat.”
The gun comes in two barrel lengths — either 9.5 or 10.5 inches — that are both shorter than the 12-inch definition of a handgun under Colorado law. The gun also has a brace on the back, which allows users to hold the gun against their shoulder for stabilization. Users can also equip a scope and, unlike many other pistols, ammunition is fed to the gun through a detachable magazine that is separate from the pistol’s grip.
It can be fitted with magazines of various capacities, and some retailers sell a Colorado-specific version of the gun that comes with a magazine that holds fewer than 15 rounds. State law bans magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. It’s unclear what kind of magazine the King Soopers suspect purchased.
https://www.denverpost.com/2021/03/23/boulder-shoo...
Boulder shooting suspect’s gun would’ve been illegal under city’s now-void assault-weapon ban
The 2018 ban was never enforced and allowed people to keep banned weapons in their cars
A gun used by a man suspected of shooting and killing 10 people at a Boulder King Soopers would have been illegal under the city’s assault weapon ban that was recently blocked by a judge, though nobody ever had been cited under the ban while it was active.
The suspect purchased a Ruger AR-556 pistol on March 16, six days before the mass killing, according to his arrest affidavit. Police recovered a rifle and a handgun inside the grocery store next to the tactical vest believed to be worn by the suspect, according to the affidavit, though it’s not clear whether the Ruger gun is the handgun or the rifle referenced in the document.
The Ruger AR-556 pistol is not technically a rifle, though many features of its design echo a rifle’s set-up.
“It’s not a sporting rifle, it’s not a hunting rifle,” said Joseph Vince, a professor at Mount St. Mary’s University who worked as a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent for more than 30 years. “It’s made for the military and short-range combat.”
The gun comes in two barrel lengths — either 9.5 or 10.5 inches — that are both shorter than the 12-inch definition of a handgun under Colorado law. The gun also has a brace on the back, which allows users to hold the gun against their shoulder for stabilization. Users can also equip a scope and, unlike many other pistols, ammunition is fed to the gun through a detachable magazine that is separate from the pistol’s grip.
It can be fitted with magazines of various capacities, and some retailers sell a Colorado-specific version of the gun that comes with a magazine that holds fewer than 15 rounds. State law bans magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. It’s unclear what kind of magazine the King Soopers suspect purchased.
https://www.denverpost.com/2021/03/23/boulder-shoo...
I wonder how far this will get?
President Biden on Tuesday called for tightening of the nation’s gun laws, plunging him into an impassioned debate that he largely tiptoed around until it erupted anew after two mass shootings.
But Biden and Democratic leaders tempered their push for swift action with some doubt about their ability to enact new restrictions, even with party control of the White House and Congress, underlining the political volatility that has long surrounded efforts to overhaul gun laws.
In hastily arranged remarks less than 24 hours after a shooting rampage in Boulder, Colo., that left 10 people dead, Biden proposed a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, as well as an expansion of background checks during gun sales. Gun-control advocates have tried to push through all these initiatives over the past decade, but strong cultural and political divisions have stymied their efforts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-gun-...
Remember when trump talked about gun control after Parkland, then backed down after talks with the NRA at the WH
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-trump-...
Remember when he did the same after mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, after talks with the NRA
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gun-control-...
Lets see where this goes this time...
President Biden on Tuesday called for tightening of the nation’s gun laws, plunging him into an impassioned debate that he largely tiptoed around until it erupted anew after two mass shootings.
But Biden and Democratic leaders tempered their push for swift action with some doubt about their ability to enact new restrictions, even with party control of the White House and Congress, underlining the political volatility that has long surrounded efforts to overhaul gun laws.
In hastily arranged remarks less than 24 hours after a shooting rampage in Boulder, Colo., that left 10 people dead, Biden proposed a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, as well as an expansion of background checks during gun sales. Gun-control advocates have tried to push through all these initiatives over the past decade, but strong cultural and political divisions have stymied their efforts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-gun-...
Remember when trump talked about gun control after Parkland, then backed down after talks with the NRA at the WH
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-trump-...
Remember when he did the same after mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, after talks with the NRA
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gun-control-...
Lets see where this goes this time...
Another disturbed man with a gun (identified as Larry Harris of AZ, 66) was arrested Monday morning in Lubbock County, Texas, after Harris successfully ambushed a caravan of three National Guardsmen vans carrying Covid vaccines, holding 11 guardsmen at gunpoint when police arrived.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2...
A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that states may restrict the open carrying of guns in public, a major ruling that is certain to be appealed to a US Supreme Court hostile to limits on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in a 7-4 ruling upheld Hawaii's limits on openly carrying firearms in public, rejecting a challenge from Hawaii resident George Young, who had sued the state for denying his bid to carry a handgun outside the home.
"There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment," Judge Jay Bybee, a nominee of George W. Bush, wrote in the majority opinion.
The ruling comes at a time of heightened national discussion over the scope of the Second Amendment following mass shootings in Colorado and Atlanta this month. The White House is weighing whether to issue a number of gun safety measures through executive action even as they publicly press Congress to move ahead on legislation aimed at curbing violence.
Hawaii's law specifically bans residents from openly carrying firearms if they don't have a license to do so. Licenses are given only to residents who can prove they need a firearm because of "reason to fear injury" to "person or property."
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/24/politics/states...
It's a long read but the ruling is here:
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/24/politics/read-9...
The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in a 7-4 ruling upheld Hawaii's limits on openly carrying firearms in public, rejecting a challenge from Hawaii resident George Young, who had sued the state for denying his bid to carry a handgun outside the home.
"There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment," Judge Jay Bybee, a nominee of George W. Bush, wrote in the majority opinion.
The ruling comes at a time of heightened national discussion over the scope of the Second Amendment following mass shootings in Colorado and Atlanta this month. The White House is weighing whether to issue a number of gun safety measures through executive action even as they publicly press Congress to move ahead on legislation aimed at curbing violence.
Hawaii's law specifically bans residents from openly carrying firearms if they don't have a license to do so. Licenses are given only to residents who can prove they need a firearm because of "reason to fear injury" to "person or property."
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/24/politics/states...
It's a long read but the ruling is here:
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/24/politics/read-9...
Byker28i said:
Boom shot a cadet version of the SA80... The reason for the images is to show that some have more experience than you in firearms. That doesn't mean that your opinion isn't valid, but some of your arguments are.
For the record, the problem isn't with guns. Responsible owners in all other countries don't generally cause the issues. I've owned guns for years, have represented my country at shooting, enjoy the opportunity to shoot different guns, which is why I understand their capabilities and understand why restrictions are necessary.
The problem is the culture of guns in the US, the ease of which you can get a gun in the US is ridiculous. Whats even more difficult is the wide range of laws thats spread across each state, it really isn't united states at all, but a series of connected fiefdoms, with everyone making up their own laws.
There needs to be a national database of ownership. The House has passed a bill extending the checks on people wanting to buy a gun up to ten days, that probably won't get through the senate as the GOP are by default saying no to everything. At the moment, if the check isn't returned within three days the default is to grant the gun ownership. The form the firearms dealer fills in is on paper and then sent off.
There should be national restrictions on who can own semi autos, magazine sizes, quantities of guns and ammo...
The gun lobby has been strong, especially to the GOP and their donations given. Money speaks a lot in US politics. It's why the russians pumped money through the NRA to support trump and the GOP in 2016, because there was a route there already. It's why nothing gets done, rules don't get changed.
Until the US politics isn't dominated by money, lobbiests will always rule.
There's been opportunities so many times, after each new mass shooting, school shooting but nothing gets done, and there's deniers who claim its false flags, actors, and enough people who believe them...
And I can't see it changing, not whilst there's so much money in US politics
Why not just ban guns from private ownership full stop? Fun and sport are not ‘musts’ especially with the horrid daily death toll backdrop in the states. 109 people have died in the last 24 hours because of them not to mention the suicides on top. For the record, the problem isn't with guns. Responsible owners in all other countries don't generally cause the issues. I've owned guns for years, have represented my country at shooting, enjoy the opportunity to shoot different guns, which is why I understand their capabilities and understand why restrictions are necessary.
The problem is the culture of guns in the US, the ease of which you can get a gun in the US is ridiculous. Whats even more difficult is the wide range of laws thats spread across each state, it really isn't united states at all, but a series of connected fiefdoms, with everyone making up their own laws.
There needs to be a national database of ownership. The House has passed a bill extending the checks on people wanting to buy a gun up to ten days, that probably won't get through the senate as the GOP are by default saying no to everything. At the moment, if the check isn't returned within three days the default is to grant the gun ownership. The form the firearms dealer fills in is on paper and then sent off.
There should be national restrictions on who can own semi autos, magazine sizes, quantities of guns and ammo...
The gun lobby has been strong, especially to the GOP and their donations given. Money speaks a lot in US politics. It's why the russians pumped money through the NRA to support trump and the GOP in 2016, because there was a route there already. It's why nothing gets done, rules don't get changed.
Until the US politics isn't dominated by money, lobbiests will always rule.
There's been opportunities so many times, after each new mass shooting, school shooting but nothing gets done, and there's deniers who claim its false flags, actors, and enough people who believe them...
And I can't see it changing, not whilst there's so much money in US politics
Edited by Byker28i on Thursday 25th March 07:06
If people want to shoot at ranges then fine, the guns could be rented out for the session by the range, no need to take them into a civilian world. There is no such thing as good guy/bad guy when to comes down to it, anyone is capable of both within a split second, mostly bad. If people need them as a tool (farmer, woodsmen etc) then there should be strict rules on the type of gun people can have, the quantity they keep and ammo used with annual police checks and thorough application process.
Just for the record, I am not anti firearms, they have a strict purpose, just anti private ownership.
As for my comments about waltism I do stand by this, military look firearms and associated tactical gear are an unhealthy fetish and pure wannabe commando.
Boom78 said:
Byker28i said:
Boom shot a cadet version of the SA80... The reason for the images is to show that some have more experience than you in firearms. That doesn't mean that your opinion isn't valid, but some of your arguments are.
For the record, the problem isn't with guns. Responsible owners in all other countries don't generally cause the issues. I've owned guns for years, have represented my country at shooting, enjoy the opportunity to shoot different guns, which is why I understand their capabilities and understand why restrictions are necessary.
The problem is the culture of guns in the US, the ease of which you can get a gun in the US is ridiculous. Whats even more difficult is the wide range of laws thats spread across each state, it really isn't united states at all, but a series of connected fiefdoms, with everyone making up their own laws.
There needs to be a national database of ownership. The House has passed a bill extending the checks on people wanting to buy a gun up to ten days, that probably won't get through the senate as the GOP are by default saying no to everything. At the moment, if the check isn't returned within three days the default is to grant the gun ownership. The form the firearms dealer fills in is on paper and then sent off.
There should be national restrictions on who can own semi autos, magazine sizes, quantities of guns and ammo...
The gun lobby has been strong, especially to the GOP and their donations given. Money speaks a lot in US politics. It's why the russians pumped money through the NRA to support trump and the GOP in 2016, because there was a route there already. It's why nothing gets done, rules don't get changed.
Until the US politics isn't dominated by money, lobbiests will always rule.
There's been opportunities so many times, after each new mass shooting, school shooting but nothing gets done, and there's deniers who claim its false flags, actors, and enough people who believe them...
And I can't see it changing, not whilst there's so much money in US politics
Why not just ban guns from private ownership full stop? Fun and sport are not ‘musts’ especially with the horrid daily death toll backdrop in the states. 109 people have died in the last 24 hours because of them not to mention the suicides on top. For the record, the problem isn't with guns. Responsible owners in all other countries don't generally cause the issues. I've owned guns for years, have represented my country at shooting, enjoy the opportunity to shoot different guns, which is why I understand their capabilities and understand why restrictions are necessary.
The problem is the culture of guns in the US, the ease of which you can get a gun in the US is ridiculous. Whats even more difficult is the wide range of laws thats spread across each state, it really isn't united states at all, but a series of connected fiefdoms, with everyone making up their own laws.
There needs to be a national database of ownership. The House has passed a bill extending the checks on people wanting to buy a gun up to ten days, that probably won't get through the senate as the GOP are by default saying no to everything. At the moment, if the check isn't returned within three days the default is to grant the gun ownership. The form the firearms dealer fills in is on paper and then sent off.
There should be national restrictions on who can own semi autos, magazine sizes, quantities of guns and ammo...
The gun lobby has been strong, especially to the GOP and their donations given. Money speaks a lot in US politics. It's why the russians pumped money through the NRA to support trump and the GOP in 2016, because there was a route there already. It's why nothing gets done, rules don't get changed.
Until the US politics isn't dominated by money, lobbiests will always rule.
There's been opportunities so many times, after each new mass shooting, school shooting but nothing gets done, and there's deniers who claim its false flags, actors, and enough people who believe them...
And I can't see it changing, not whilst there's so much money in US politics
Edited by Byker28i on Thursday 25th March 07:06
If people want to shoot at ranges then fine, the guns could be rented out for the session by the range, no need to take them into a civilian world. There is no such thing as good guy/bad guy when to comes down to it, anyone is capable of both within a split second, mostly bad. If people need them as a tool (farmer, woodsmen etc) then there should be strict rules on the type of gun people can have, the quantity they keep and ammo used with annual police checks and thorough application process.
Just for the record, I am not anti firearms, they have a strict purpose, just anti private ownership.
As for my comments about waltism I do stand by this, military look firearms and associated tactical gear are an unhealthy fetish and pure wannabe commando.
Good luck trying to change that! People don't seem to believe you can amend an amendment
This probably gets rolled out in every gun thread.
Boom78 said:
Why not just ban guns from private ownership full stop? Fun and sport are not ‘musts’ especially with the horrid daily death toll backdrop in the states. 109 people have died in the last 24 hours because of them not to mention the suicides on top.
If people want to shoot at ranges then fine, the guns could be rented out for the session by the range, no need to take them into a civilian world. There is no such thing as good guy/bad guy when to comes down to it, anyone is capable of both within a split second, mostly bad. If people need them as a tool (farmer, woodsmen etc) then there should be strict rules on the type of gun people can have, the quantity they keep and ammo used with annual police checks and thorough application process.
Just for the record, I am not anti firearms, they have a strict purpose, just anti private ownership.
As for my comments about waltism I do stand by this, military look firearms and associated tactical gear are an unhealthy fetish and pure wannabe commando.
Because, as I have pointed out several times already, banning stuff only makes the law abiding surrender their firearms, the criminals, surprise, surprise, don't. Now I know this may come as a shock, but banning stuff doesn't mean it stops existing. In the UK, private ownership of firearms is already very heavily restricted, we already have limits on quantities of ammunition held as you suggest above. Does that mean that our gun crime has reduced? No, gun crime is still very much a problem, oh, and the most popular style of gun used is a handgun, you know, the type of gun that they almost completely banned from private ownership in the 90's.If people want to shoot at ranges then fine, the guns could be rented out for the session by the range, no need to take them into a civilian world. There is no such thing as good guy/bad guy when to comes down to it, anyone is capable of both within a split second, mostly bad. If people need them as a tool (farmer, woodsmen etc) then there should be strict rules on the type of gun people can have, the quantity they keep and ammo used with annual police checks and thorough application process.
Just for the record, I am not anti firearms, they have a strict purpose, just anti private ownership.
As for my comments about waltism I do stand by this, military look firearms and associated tactical gear are an unhealthy fetish and pure wannabe commando.
As for your comment
Boom78 said:
As for my comments about waltism I do stand by this, military look firearms and associated tactical gear are an unhealthy fetish and pure wannabe commando.
full cammo and tactical gear is not a requirement for owning a military style rifle, to be honest, people I shoot with don't wear cammo and would get the mick taken mercilessly if they did, For full disclosure, I only wear cammo when shooting pigeons as they are canny little beggers.NMNeil said:
Boom78 said:
This thread has gone mental, it was started because of the shocking gun crime in the states, waves of mass killings of innocents and a chance to debate how to stop it all, now all of sudden it’s a bunch of gun boner nuts showing off their military grade guns, fave rounds choices and ‘whataboutism’. Bunch of high grade walts! Bonkers!!
And how many postings do we have on PH showing high performance cars, giving advice on breaking the law and making the already ridiculously fast cars even faster?Don't see any debates on how to stop that madness.
My bow is perfectly capable of killing in the wrong hands yet I’m not called a make believe Robin Hood.
I spend money trying and buying different bows/equipment to improve my shooting and heighten my enjoyment.
I can’t see the difference between buying better bows and better guns as long as the end result is a bigger enjoyment factor.
jdw100 said:
Ah yes, and all ‘good guys’ because they have been in the military.
I should have a gun because I’m a ‘good guy’. Yes you are, until you aren’t.
I worked with USA colleagues quite extensively f2012-2017) Spent a fair bit of time there.
This whole ‘good guy’ fallacy often came up.
People in the military aren’t any more likely to ‘good guys’ than anyone else.
I had a colleague who’s (unarmed) father was shot an wounded by, obviously, a ‘bad guy’. The bad guy was a retired police officer., In a dispute over something to do with a garden fence or boundary (I can’t remember exactly). So policeman went from ‘good guy’ to ‘bad guy’ in an instant.
I used to use an example of where I’m definitely the sort of chap that would have no problems getting a gun in USA - none at all. Good job, never had trouble with police, stable relationship, would have great character references, had put life on line to help others before....a ‘good-guy’.
I went from good-guy to what could be seen as a bad-guy in seconds whilst doing a good-guy act. I think three lads and one girl that would have been see as ‘bad guys’ could in the USA legitimately have shot me dead. So they would have been good-guys with guns rightly defending themselves against a bad-guy.
Thankfully no one had guns, seeing this was in the UK.
I had colleagues from Florida that absolutely saw themselves as the good-guys with concealed guns. I never could get them to understand that most people are good until they are bad. These were bright successful people, not red-neck types. Just had this idea that good-guys should have guns, and ‘bad guys’ should not.
Could not see that they might change over the years, develop a mental health issue, become angry when wife left them.....etc etc...
The other position I struggled with is what counts as a good-guy and bad. A white-collar guy is good and should be able to defend his home, despite embezzling cash from employers but a bloke who deals in stolen car parts shouldn’t have a gun to defend his family at home?
The other I view I found hard to understand was the ‘well it’s mostly people from the bad part of town shooting each other’ so it doesn’t matter. Tell that to their mothers or the sister they really looked out for. Like these guys should have left the area and gone to Harvard and then Wall Street.
The reason that crime is high in those areas is incredibly complex, not just that these people are all ‘bad guys’ and therefore their lives just don’t matter and screw the effect on their families. That’s actually quite sick, in my opinion.
You've gone on a massive tangent/rant about good guys and bad guys but from I can see, he didn't mention the character of the ex-military at all.I should have a gun because I’m a ‘good guy’. Yes you are, until you aren’t.
I worked with USA colleagues quite extensively f2012-2017) Spent a fair bit of time there.
This whole ‘good guy’ fallacy often came up.
People in the military aren’t any more likely to ‘good guys’ than anyone else.
I had a colleague who’s (unarmed) father was shot an wounded by, obviously, a ‘bad guy’. The bad guy was a retired police officer., In a dispute over something to do with a garden fence or boundary (I can’t remember exactly). So policeman went from ‘good guy’ to ‘bad guy’ in an instant.
I used to use an example of where I’m definitely the sort of chap that would have no problems getting a gun in USA - none at all. Good job, never had trouble with police, stable relationship, would have great character references, had put life on line to help others before....a ‘good-guy’.
I went from good-guy to what could be seen as a bad-guy in seconds whilst doing a good-guy act. I think three lads and one girl that would have been see as ‘bad guys’ could in the USA legitimately have shot me dead. So they would have been good-guys with guns rightly defending themselves against a bad-guy.
Thankfully no one had guns, seeing this was in the UK.
I had colleagues from Florida that absolutely saw themselves as the good-guys with concealed guns. I never could get them to understand that most people are good until they are bad. These were bright successful people, not red-neck types. Just had this idea that good-guys should have guns, and ‘bad guys’ should not.
Could not see that they might change over the years, develop a mental health issue, become angry when wife left them.....etc etc...
The other position I struggled with is what counts as a good-guy and bad. A white-collar guy is good and should be able to defend his home, despite embezzling cash from employers but a bloke who deals in stolen car parts shouldn’t have a gun to defend his family at home?
The other I view I found hard to understand was the ‘well it’s mostly people from the bad part of town shooting each other’ so it doesn’t matter. Tell that to their mothers or the sister they really looked out for. Like these guys should have left the area and gone to Harvard and then Wall Street.
The reason that crime is high in those areas is incredibly complex, not just that these people are all ‘bad guys’ and therefore their lives just don’t matter and screw the effect on their families. That’s actually quite sick, in my opinion.
He was just pointing out that they are trained and have an interest in them due to their past.
Slow down. Your fervour is taking over control of your fingers.
Dagnir said:
You've gone on a massive tangent/rant about good guys and bad guys but from I can see, he didn't mention the character of the ex-military at all.
He was just pointing out that they are trained and have an interest in them due to their past.
Slow down. Your fervour is taking over control of your fingers.
It wasn’t supposed to all be in response to his comment, sorry.He was just pointing out that they are trained and have an interest in them due to their past.
Slow down. Your fervour is taking over control of your fingers.
I went out for a coffee then lunch and came back to this and banged on, forgetting the original post. Blame caffeine and a lychee martini.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff