The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[Ts RedVeX]

Even if people have less chance of getting guns then they will use machetes, knives, crossbows, hammers, axes, acid, bombs, lorries etc, etc... The last thing our civilisation needs is more bureaucracy and more people in suits and ties cringing losing their posts in their cosy offices.

If you want less crime then bring back teaching the values that used to make our civilisation great to kids at schools, cut the bureaucracy that we have all become slaves of.

I have not abandoned anything, I would still like as free a human being as possible, and I would like the same for everyone.

If you read my ad then you will see I openly state that I have a cannon which is ready to fire in your face, Stavros.

[skirtrustler]

Even if people have less chance of getting guns then they will use machetes, knives, crossbows, hammers, axes, acid, bombs, lorries etc, etc...

”A gun is no more dangerous than a cricket bat in the hands of a madman.” Prince Phillip.

He has used that analogy a couple of times. That was from HRH after one of the tragic UK mass shootings at Dunblane; making the point that it is mainly the perpetrator rather than the weapon.

[Stavros]

If you want less crime then bring back teaching the values that used to make our civilisation great to kids at schools, cut the bureaucracy that we have all become slaves of.
.

I was under the impression that if you want to raise your children in a 'God, family and country' environment that seems close to your version of 'civilization' then Texas is the place to go. I guess if they replaced their governor with a King and their Congress with a Court it would be heaven on earth, as long as nut-cases don't purchase guns and decide to rsolve their mental health issues by killing others. Or could it be that the shooter chose a church to be his memorial because there can be only one God, and at the time, he was God?

[Stavros]

He has used that analogy a couple of times. That was from HRH after one of the tragic UK mass shootings at Dunblane; making the point that it is mainly the perpetrator rather than the weapon.

You could say the same about a paper bag or a piece of string, but the number of people murdered or injured with either of those two objects is so small as to be insignificant, it is also harder to kill someone with those two objects. A gun is a weapon more powerful than a fist, a knife or a cricket bat, which is why there are restrictions on its ownership in the UK and other countries, and also why without those restrictions there are more murders per head of population in the USA.

It is not, as RedVex argues a matter of bureaucracy or a lack of civilized values, but a simple matter of using the law to limit the kind of people who can purchase weapons. President Obama -in the face of fierce opposition from Congress and the (Terrorist) National Rifle Association in 2016 secured an additional provision in the background checks introduced in 1998 to make it hard for people with a mental illness to purchase guns.

One of the first things Obama's successor did after taking office was to rescind that mental health provision, making it easier for people with a mental illness to purchase a gun, so it is no surprise that the same person should in the last 24 hours refer to the massacre in Texas as 'a mental health illness' simply ignoring the fact that he has been in part an architect of these killings because this is a man who never takes responsibility for his own decisions. He has refused to take responsibility for the deaths of US service personnel in the Yemen and Niger, but he has publicly insulted and abused the Gold Star families of the men killed in action, something no other President has done in living memory, if ever.

It is a case of enabling the perpetrator to kill, so the issue must refer back to the means used to prevent the perpetrator from obtaining the weapons that kill and injure more people at a faster rate than any other. Hint- don't give guns to people with mental health issue, and don't sell military grade weapons to any citizen.

Or accept that if you allow this, you are an accomplice to murder.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...mental-n727221

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/tru...-control-rule/

[Ts RedVeX]

It is as I argue. And you are stupid.

[peejaye]

for all intents and purposes a gun ban just isn't going to happen in the usa.
what is most often asked for is stricter controls on gun sales and what types of weapons are available. however it seems that sensible restrictions (to those of us not in a gun culture) are met with cries of horror that the state is trying to restrict fundamental freedoms.
the practical necessity for an overhaul of the rules, regulations and laws just get lost in ideological and fundamentalist fear and rantings.

Yep; Some Pro-establishment cunt from the US as already been on National TV in the UK saying it wasn't guns to blame, it was a mental health issue! I fucking give up

[Aticus100]

It is as I argue. And you are stupid.

Said the person who has utterly and completely lost the debate in every possible aspect.

[blackchubby38]

It's only a mystery to those who refuse to see the obvious. Higher rates of gun ownership are clearly associated with higher rates of gun deaths, both across countries and across US states. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...cs-maps-charts

Almost anything that makes it harder to acquire guns could be expected to reduce the rate of gun deaths over time. An obvious starting point would be to stop people from acquiring arsenals of military-style weapons that allow them to quickly kill large numbers of people. The fact that you avoid this is a good indicator of how disingenuous your response was.

My response wasn't meant to be disingenuous. I was merely trying to point how complicated this issue can be. I actually agree with some of the gun control measures that have been talked about. Especially the one about making sure guns don't wind up in the hands of people with certain mental illness.

The problem is that no matter how many great ideas the gun control side has, they are nowhere near as powerful as the gun lobby is or are as vocal as their supporters. Especially when it comes to where it matters most, the voting booth. For gun owners, if its not "the issue", its one of their most important issues they take into consideration when deciding who they are going to vote for. In a nutshell, the people who oppose any type of new regulations on guns are in for the long fight.

[filghy2]

My response wasn't meant to be disingenuous. I was merely trying to point how complicated this issue can be. I actually agree with some of the gun control measures that have been talked about. Especially the one about making sure guns don't wind up in the hands of people with certain mental illness.

Okay, I accept that you are trying to be genuine, but you did say "nobody seems to know the answer". There is a big difference between not knowing the answers, and knowing the answers but being unable to implement them because of political resistance.

[blackchubby38]

Okay, I accept that you are trying to be genuine, but you did say "nobody seems to know the answer". There is a big difference between not knowing the answers, and knowing the answers but being unable to implement them because of political resistance.

Chalk that up typing a post in haste.