America - Gun Control

[cochise]

May I suggest that you move to the safe stateside environment you espouse amongst your gun loving mates and leave us to cower in fear without them.

I lived there for years. Wonderful country.
May i suggest that you are not without them over here, in fact you are surrounded by them. Guess who has them…

We don't have the high powered assault rifles to the same extend that the U.S.does, guess what else we don't have?

You dont require those rifles to kill. Just ask the gangs in Sydney and Melbourne.

When have those gangs committed mass killings that are seen regularly in the usa, when have we had someone walk into a school and kill a large amount of people. We do not have the mass shootings that the U.S. has, most countries don't.

You keep saying that if they didn't have the guns then they would kill people in other ways. Then answer this, why is their choice of weapon a gun or guns in the vast majority of cases?

 

[earl]

I lived there for years. Wonderful country.
May i suggest that you are not without them over here, in fact you are surrounded by them. Guess who has them…

We don't have the high powered assault rifles to the same extend that the U.S.does, guess what else we don't have?

You dont require those rifles to kill. Just ask the gangs in Sydney and Melbourne.

When have those gangs committed mass killings that are seen regularly in the usa, when have we had someone walk into a school and kill a large amount of people. We do not have the mass shootings that the U.S. has, most countries don't.

You keep saying that if they didn't have the guns then they would kill people in other ways. Then answer this, why is their choice of weapon a gun or guns in the vast majority of cases?

I said previously that you can't argue logically with people who are pro-gun. They can't even see that their arguments are illogical.

We just had a crazy guy who had no signs of being crazy buy so many weapons and go and kill a whole bunch of people he didn't know. The problem clearly was the access to guns and specifically the type of guns he could get.

The pro-gun people state comments like we need to figure out why he felt that way and it doesn't make any sense implying that there was some conspiracy. These comments are completely illogical however these guys can't face the issue so they make stuff up.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

The thing with the pro-gun proponents is that you can't logically argue with them. If there were no guns the massacre wouldn't have occurred. If the guns that nutter could have bought were more reasonable then the massacre wouldn't have been as bad.

They don't though want to face that issue so they come up with crazy side points ala we get comments about multiple gunmen and questions about why people do this as if you can talk sense to them and get them to change.

Unfortunately Earl you cant argue logic with people who have a closed mind and the gun lobby are the perfect example of that.No reasoned arguement will work because they will throw constantly try to sidetrack the debate and refuse to acknowledge that guns are any part of the problem

I see no evidence of that. Gun lobbyists are presenting plenty of alternatives to blanket bans. It is the anti brigade, as it is with any issue, that is laser beam narrow minded.

Not being a smartarse, what are these alternatives proposed?

 

[magpiecol]

The politicians will have to change the constitution. Good luck with that.

 

[Geo]

Somehow I don't think those who wrote that constitution had high powered automatic weapons in mind…

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

The politicians will have to change the constitution. Good luck with that.

Pretty sure that they changed the constitution in the first place to allow arms.

That's why it's called the "second amendment."

And as Geo said, it was a volatile time in history and the highest powered readily available weapons they had at the time were muskets.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Still yet to recognise how semi-automatics will help the populace overthrow a tyrannical government when said government will use automated drones piloted from Cheyenne mountain to strafe fire an armed mob. We're talking about the most technologically advanced military on the planet here, they're going to need more than AR-15's to fight against that.

Maybe they should allow the populace to own RPG's, I can't see that ending in tears?

 

[MG1962]

The politicians will have to change the constitution. Good luck with that.

Pretty sure that they changed the constitution in the first place to allow arms.

That's why it's called the "second amendment."

And as Geo said, it was a volatile time in history and the highest powered readily available weapons they had at the time were muskets.

It was a common sentiment among the founding fathers that their new country may end up being a very short lived entity. Hence the imperative regarding firearms. They were pretty confident the England was going to have another try at rescuing the situation.

 

[Geo]

Still yet to recognise how semi-automatics will help the populace overthrow a tyrannical government when said government will use automated drones piloted from Cheyenne mountain to strafe fire an armed mob. We're talking about the most technologically advanced military on the planet here, they're going to need more than AR-15's to fight against that.

Maybe they should allow the populace to own RPG's, I can't see that ending in tears?

Or everyone gets a Musket..only fair..

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

The politicians will have to change the constitution. Good luck with that.

Pretty sure that they changed the constitution in the first place to allow arms.

That's why it's called the "second amendment."

And as Geo said, it was a volatile time in history and the highest powered readily available weapons they had at the time were muskets.

It was a common sentiment among the founding fathers that their new country may end up being a very short lived entity. Hence the imperative regarding firearms. They were pretty confident the England was going to have another try at rescuing the situation.

Yes, and I appreciate why the Second Amendment was instituted, it was done so to protect the fledgling nation. It is a bit redundant now though since they are a superpower and one of the most militarised nations on the planet. All this nonsense about a tyrannical government is hypocritical as they have a huge underclass which is growing and if they were worried about a government acting in it's own interests over the peoples they would have stormed the White House many years ago.

People over there like their guns and they'll come up with any excuse to hang on to them. I don't think guns should be banned outright, certainly restrictions should be placed on certain firearms. Semi-autos are among the sorts of weapons I don't think the average Joe needs, especially when they tend to feature almost every time some mental patient snaps over there and goes on a rampage.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Still yet to recognise how semi-automatics will help the populace overthrow a tyrannical government when said government will use automated drones piloted from Cheyenne mountain to strafe fire an armed mob. We're talking about the most technologically advanced military on the planet here, they're going to need more than AR-15's to fight against that.

Maybe they should allow the populace to own RPG's, I can't see that ending in tears?

Or everyone gets a Musket..only fair..

Or go back to duelling to sort out petty differences.


 

[Abraham]

These generalisations:

\

Gun proponents are all about what wont work without ever offering solutions.

Gun proponents agree mental stability can be a major factor in many of these mass shootings, yet fought any legislation to stop access by mental disturbed people to guns

Gun proponents agree that criminal access to guns is an issue but successfully fought against electronic chip identification for weapons.

Gun proponents agree that criminal access to guns is an issue but successfully fought against banning guns made from materials that resist leaving finger prints.

Those are not generalizations. They are historical facts

For example:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/20/dem-bill-would-require-all-new-guns-be-personalized.html

The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action says it is not opposed to the development of so-called "smart guns," but rejects government mandates that require the use of grips with fingerprint-reading technology, according to a post on its website.

"[The] NRA recognizes that the "smart guns" issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner's agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology," the group said.

Or this

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/19/2016-30407/implementation-of-the-nics-improvement-amendments-act-of-2007

Repealed by Congress

https://apnews.com/553ff88b430a4334868105f7a943b912

No, in the context of the conversation they are generalizations that 'gun proponents' take these positions.

Some do and some don't.

But no biggie … probably crossed wires.

 

[cochise]

These generalisations:

\

Gun proponents are all about what wont work without ever offering solutions.

Gun proponents agree mental stability can be a major factor in many of these mass shootings, yet fought any legislation to stop access by mental disturbed people to guns

Gun proponents agree that criminal access to guns is an issue but successfully fought against electronic chip identification for weapons.

Gun proponents agree that criminal access to guns is an issue but successfully fought against banning guns made from materials that resist leaving finger prints.

Those are not generalizations. They are historical facts

For example:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/20/dem-bill-would-require-all-new-guns-be-personalized.html

The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action says it is not opposed to the development of so-called "smart guns," but rejects government mandates that require the use of grips with fingerprint-reading technology, according to a post on its website.

"[The] NRA recognizes that the "smart guns" issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner's agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology," the group said.

Or this

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/19/2016-30407/implementation-of-the-nics-improvement-amendments-act-of-2007

Repealed by Congress

https://apnews.com/553ff88b430a4334868105f7a943b912

No, in the context of the conversation they are generalizations that 'gun proponents' take these positions.

Some do and some don't.

But no biggie … probably crossed wires.

Individual "gun proponents" may not take these positions, but the gun lobby groups, most notably the NRA do and profess to speak on behalf of gun owners.

 

[Abraham]

Somehow I don't think those who wrote that constitution had high powered automatic weapons in mind…

Actually they did.

Its a fallacy that only muskets and single shot rifles were in circulation at the time the constitution was written.

Rapid fire assault weapons (belton flintlock and gatling gun, for example) were around long before the 2nd Amendment was written. In fact the Constitution's main writer President Madison ordered a personal warship armed with Cannons. So much for muskets !

The idea of the second amendment was for private citizens to have the same capabilities as the federal government to they could effectively revolt.

 

[Abraham]

Individual "gun proponents" may not take these positions, but the gun lobby groups, most notably the NRA do and profess to speak on behalf of gun owners.

Thanks scoop.

 

[cochise]

Individual "gun proponents" may not take these positions, but the gun lobby groups, most notably the NRA do and profess to speak on behalf of gun owners.

Thanks scoop.

Well stop saying that "gun proponents" don't say this or that or believe this or that because the organisations that say they speak on their behalf do. It's not some do some don't, its the vast majority do.

 

[Abraham]

Having tighter gun registration would have helped police identify some one possibly slipping over the edge. 33 purchases of semi automatic weapons in a 12 month period is extraordinary by any standard.

Ok, say he had to register these guns with the feds, then what next?

They turn up to his house and ask why he needs so many guns. He tells them to either get lost, or makes up some story about guns being his new legal hobby.

Do the feds confiscate his legally obtained guns? No, they aren't allowed to.

Do they place 24/7 long term surveillance on him and every other person who owns alot of guns? Maybe, but that's not really practical for an already stretched intelligence service.

Suggestions like this are fine in principal, but I fail to see the practicality of them being able to stop a crazy man shooting at people. He didn't committ this massacre with 50 guns, he only used 2 (if we believe the ever-changing sequence of events the authorities are feeding the public). So buying alot of guns is a side-issue, not something that actually has anything to do with this tragedy or the ability to prevent it.

 

[Abraham]

Individual "gun proponents" may not take these positions, but the gun lobby groups, most notably the NRA do and profess to speak on behalf of gun owners.

Thanks scoop.

Well stop saying that "gun proponents" don't say this or that or believe this or that because the organisations that say they speak on their behalf do. It's not some do some don't, its the vast majority do.

Again, thanks for your input.

 

[jadtiger]

Somehow I don't think those who wrote that constitution had high powered automatic weapons in mind…

Actually they did.

Its a fallacy that only muskets and single shot rifles were in circulation at the time the constitution was written.

Rapid fire assault weapons (belton flintlock and gatling gun, for example) were around long before the 2nd Amendment was written. In fact the Constitution's main writer President Madison ordered a personal warship armed with Cannons. So much for muskets !

The idea of the second amendment was for private citizens to have the same capabilities as the federal government to they could effectively revolt.

A little research would have told you that the gatling gun was NOT in existence when the 2nd ammendment was introduced in 1791 the inventor wasnt even born till 1818.He must have been truly brilliant to design and build something 27 years before he was born.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

Somehow I don't think those who wrote that constitution had high powered automatic weapons in mind…

Actually they did.

Its a fallacy that only muskets and single shot rifles were in circulation at the time the constitution was written.

Rapid fire assault weapons (belton flintlock and gatling gun, for example) were around long before the 2nd Amendment was written. In fact the Constitution's main writer President Madison ordered a personal warship armed with Cannons. So much for muskets !

The idea of the second amendment was for private citizens to have the same capabilities as the federal government to they could effectively revolt.

A little research would have told you that the gatling gun was NOT in existence when the 2nd ammendment was introduced in 1791 the inventor wasnt even born till 1818.He must have been truly brilliant to design and build something 27 years before he was born.

Now jadtiger, Abraham in debates has many times threatened to wipe me out like feral vermin but seems like his own ammo dump has exploded under his feet.