Rugeley Villa Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 Desperate stuff from Isis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 America has a gun culture problem. Loads of countries including the UK have plenty of guns. But in the UK, a gun is never a weapon. It's a tool or it's for sport. A shotgun to shoot critters or target shooting rifles and pistols. There might be a minority of people that like the macho gun thing, but it's not part of mainstream culture. In America it's clearly quite common to want a gun for 'self defense'. I think they need to tackle that perception to start with. But that won't happen without less weapons on the street and less gun crime. If America banned guns outright tomorrow, it would probably take decades to see a difference. It wouldn't be met happily by large parts of the country either. It's a catch 22. I don't see anything changing for Americans so they might as well tool up if they want, it won't make them safer though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 17 hours ago, LakotaDakota said: $54 million is really nothing though is it. Netflix pay Adam Sandler that... If everyone in California chipped in $2 a year it would be way more than that.... Pretty much unrestricted gun access because politicians don't want to risk losing $50mil? If every celeb that spends their time calling trump a f**kwit on twitter put 0.25% of their earnings in a pot they could make the NRA contributions looks like loose change Whilst I agree that politicians are surprisingly cheap to buy, I don't agree with how you would combat it. Asking rich individuals to combat corporations by countering large bribes with larger bribes just moves politics further and further away from the people they are supposed to represent. 90% of Americans (latest polls indicate, but has been in the high 80's for some years) support greater regulation on background checks and limits on people like the mentally ill having access to guns, yet Trump is busily supporting the 10%. Thinking about it Trump may be supporting less than 10% of the population as I have not seen the stats on who supports the rolling back of the gun controls that were already there preventing the mentally ill from having guns. It is worth asking the question why with public opinion so one sided on the issue that the political class are doing the exact opposite of what the people that elected them, that they are supposed to represent want them to do. If you want to get into the stats, I'll link the results of one poll here: Gun control poll results Just one poll I know, but if you care to look for more you will find them fairly consistent. To me asking for bigger bribes to counteract already large bribes is up there with the NRA argument that the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. It just escalates something that is already wrong. Get the money and the disproportionate representation out of politics and we have a chance of a sensible debate. Quote Washington (CNN)Support for tighter gun control laws increased 9 percentage points after the Orlando terror attack, and support for background checks and other measures being debated in the Senate hovered around 90%, according to CNN/ORC poll released Monday. The support for tougher gun laws rose to 55% in the newest poll -- the highest number since just one month after the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, in January 2013. But support for specific gun control measures was very strong, with 92% saying they wanted expanded background checks, 87% supporting a ban for felons or people with mental health problems and 85% saying they would ban people on federal watchlists from buying guns. Among Republicans, that number is even higher -- 90% say they favor preventing people on the terror watch list or "no fly" list from buying a gun. That number is at 85% for Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted October 6, 2017 Moderator Share Posted October 6, 2017 It’s never going to change, ever. If kids in a school being shot wasn’t enough to bring about change nothing will. It is what it is, a stupid legacy from the countries past people are too stupid, corrupt or self motivated to do anything about. It is moronic but it won’t change. I’m just waiting for inevitable follow up to this as it seems whenever there is a mass shooting like this in the US another follows pretty rapidly as if the coverage encourages people. Strange country the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 They need to say 2 guns max per household. 1 handgun, 1 semi automatic rifle (with a max of say 10 rounds per clip) and only sell 100 bullets. Make it unlawful to have anymore than that in 1 household. Make it like the Swiss laws and say it must be kept in a locked cupboard. Allow people to go and shoot whatever the hell they want at a shooting range. Have M249 days with your kids and shoot coco the clown and his balloons. Cook bacon on the barrel of a WW2 Bar. That way, it would still allow folk like @Dom_Wren to pick and choose his fave weapons, maybe even start a trading culture whereby you can legally trade weapons with legal documentation (like buying a car privately). And it help the people who need them for protection to feel protected. It would also restrict (unfortunately not get rid of totally) the amount of threat to life for civilians. No one has come out with any arguments which hold any water as to why anyone would need an assault rifle with 40 rounds per clip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 19 minutes ago, TrentVilla said: It’s never going to change, ever. If kids in a school being shot wasn’t enough to bring about change nothing will. It is what it is, a stupid legacy from the countries past people are too stupid, corrupt or self motivated to do anything about. It is moronic but it won’t change. I’m just waiting for inevitable follow up to this as it seems whenever there is a mass shooting like this in the US another follows pretty rapidly as if the coverage encourages people. Strange country the US. Yes if Sandy Hook wasn't enough to change anything then this event certainly won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakotaDakota Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 24 minutes ago, Straggler said: Whilst I agree that politicians are surprisingly cheap to buy, I don't agree with how you would combat it. Asking rich individuals to combat corporations by countering large bribes with larger bribes just moves politics further and further away from the people they are supposed to represent. Not really sure it's about that. every time something like this happens and the gun control issue comes up such a huge deal is made about not being able to do anything due to the NRA being so powerful as they donate huge sums of money. $50 million simply isn't a huge sum of money in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 41 minutes ago, TrentVilla said: It’s never going to change, ever. If kids in a school being shot wasn’t enough to bring about change nothing will. It is what it is, a stupid legacy from the countries past people are too stupid, corrupt or self motivated to do anything about. It is moronic but it won’t change. This is almost certainly true. As a description of likely reality, I can't argue persuasively otherwise. Sandy Hook was a real eye-opener with regards to the barriers to change. Nevertheless, I'm glad there are people trying and I hope people don't stop supporting them. Cynicism is a natural response, but it shouldn't be the only response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 (edited) 35 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said: Not really sure it's about that. every time something like this happens and the gun control issue comes up such a huge deal is made about not being able to do anything due to the NRA being so powerful as they donate huge sums of money. $50 million simply isn't a huge sum of money in America. $50 million was just the 2016 election cycle. It's not like that is the total they have ever spent, they donate to the point where politicians are virtually salaried employees over year after year. Combating it with more money from well meaning individuals is a lot harder than you make it sound. The NRA represents gun manufacturers which treat bribing politicians as a business investment. They expect and seem to make a profit by purchasing the influence they have. They also have the stick approach, which is that they can threaten not just to withdraw their money, but they will threaten to primary anyone who does not toe the line by funding A N Other republican candidate who is a "2nd amendment guy" and put their well funded and somewhat rabid grass routes groups into action. On top of the above, I just can't get round the willingness you seem to have to allow the laws to be written by the highest bidder. It seems to me like you would be comfortable with say Bill Gates coming along and outbidding the NRA by so far that they become an irrelevance (which I suppose is possible). Bill Gates is effectively the king of America at that point, and democracy is exposed as an utter sham. For me the issue (and to stay on topic) is how to stop the next Mandalay Bay. If the answer is offer a bigger bribe then the country is screwed anyway and you may as well give up now. I don't doubt that taking money out of politics and making the politicians accountable to the people that actually vote for them is the harder thing to do, but surely it is the right thing to do? Edited October 6, 2017 by Straggler speling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 16 hours ago, Dom_Wren said: I feel 100% comfortable living the life i do in the environment I do, with the guns that i own and the safety and recreation it provides me and my family. Out of interest, what "safety" do you feel owning a gun has for you and your family? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 1 hour ago, bobzy said: Out of interest, what "safety" do you feel owning a gun has for you and your family? You know, 'safety'. It's why I always carry a knife. You're safer in a confrontation if you have a knife. I've got 26 hunting knives up my trouser legs and a particularly impressive sword concealed in my jockeys. I'm the safest guy here. Safe as ****. Not mental. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dom_Wren Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 2 hours ago, bobzy said: Out of interest, what "safety" do you feel owning a gun has for you and your family? Firearms are legal in SC, criminals also have illegal firearms. If someone was to break into my house, i am not in that persons mind, I have no idea why they are breaking into my house. All i know is its probably not for a nice single malt and to chat about life. It is legal in SC to use deadly force if you feel threatened for yours or anybody else's life in the house. Breaking into my house is against the law. Hence if a criminal breaks into my house and the only opportunity for him to stop hurting or worse me and my family is protecting myself using my legally owned firearms and executing my rights then I want to have that opportunity. I never ever want to have to pull my gun, ever. But if i didn't take the maximum opportunities available to myself and i or my family became a victim then that's on me to some extent. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dom_Wren Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 21 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: You know, 'safety'. It's why I always carry a knife. You're safer in a confrontation if you have a knife. I've got 26 hunting knives up my trouser legs and a particularly impressive sword concealed in my jockeys. I'm the safest guy here. Safe as ****. Not mental. No need to brag.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted October 6, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted October 6, 2017 Statistically, the gun makes you less safe, by a considerable amount. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dom_Wren Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 8 minutes ago, Chindie said: Statistically, the gun makes you less safe, by a considerable amount. As i mentioned before, I'm a 100% comfortable with my environment i live in. Statistics or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 Quote “My right to protect my child with my gun trumps your fear of my gun.” Jamie Gilt, firearm advocate. Quoted shortly before her 4 year old child shot her in the back. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 2 hours ago, Dom_Wren said: As i mentioned before, I'm a 100% comfortable with my environment i live in. Statistics or not. Sure . . . I get that. But I'm pretty comfortable with my ability to drive to my parent's house after four or five pints; society sensibly doesn't take my word for it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dom_Wren Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 17 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Sure . . . I get that. But I'm pretty comfortable with my ability to drive to my parent's house after four or five pints; society sensibly doesn't take my word for it. Eh? Pretty sure that’s illegal. Everything I’ve talked about in my personal situation is fully legal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 1 minute ago, Dom_Wren said: Eh? Pretty sure that’s illegal. Everything I’ve talked about in my personal situation is fully legal? I think the point made was that statistics prove that it's less safe to drink drive (even if an individual drink-driver genuinely believes they are being safe) so governments have restricted it and the majority of each society accept it. Would you accept a firearms ban based on the same logical process, even though you think you are safer owning firearms than not? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dom_Wren Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 Id abide by the law for sure. But to say statics are the be all and end all of any situation. In my experience and opinion is dangerously blind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts