Without running afoul of the Constitution and the rulings from the USSC, what can be done either by the Feds or the States?
The problem, imho, lies in that just about anyone, without training or qualifications can buy a gun.
Can this be changed?
There are lots of guns laws in the states. Things like restrictions on types of firearms, kinds of ammo. Number of weapons that can be purchased per month, all sorts of pre-purchase requirements (e.g. letters of reference). Much is this has been upheld as constitutional after Heller (the big 2nd amendment supreme court case). The states still have a lot of leeway for regulation - some use it, some don't.
I would like to think this problem can solved from a public health perspective, much like smoking. In 1952, more than 50% of Americans smoked tobacco. Since then, it has taken decades of long-term advertising campaigns, consistent messaging, constant outreach at all levels with engagement, awareness and education from kindergartens to expectant mothers to one's own life expectancy--and only when the Federal and state governments decided to pull one of the most magnificently cynical fuck-your-buddy reversals on an industry ever, did the anti-smoking movement begin to get traction for true change on a societal level. Has it eliminated it, no. But it has made a tremendous dent and continues to do so.
But guns aren't cigarettes. They're not scalable consumables like cigarettes; they're more of a permanent and simply unavoidable aspect of everyday modern society, just like traffic.
Never mind the industry, the NRA, the politicians and all the issues endemic to the politics of nonsense; the fact is that guns and gun ownership are too ingrained into the fabric of American society and what it means to be an American. It isn't a matter of being an aspect of culture or even a dysfunctional aspect of culture: it is our culture. Like Japanese and sushi, Russians and criminal activity or Europeans and killing Jews, it is simply a unique and unfortunate element of permanent cultural identity. And for every wife killer, drug deal shootout or mass shooting event, you've still got millions of derfetusfacefuckers arguing, donating and voting with zero-tolerance zealotry for the unfettered access to all manner of ridiculous and incredibly unnecessary combat firearms, all to maintain a well-regulated militia for fighting the government and shooting large dogs with antlers.
Even after decades of massacres, if this nation can't be bothered to do anything after 20 first graders get their skulls canoed like exploding cantaloupes by a psychopath with unfettered access to ridiculous and incredibly unnecessary combat firearms, then it simply can't be bothered. Hell, the exponential growth of the Sandy Hook truthers and conspiracy industry makes the moon landing nutters look minor league, and the lack of any movement on legislation only demonstrated both the true strength of the political resistance and lack of political will. There will be no tremendous dents made in this public health issue. Not now, not ever.
Your best course of action in avoiding gun violence is to be aware and vigilant in regards to your surroundings, hope it doesn't happen to you that day--and if it does, to place your faith in luck, fate, Fortuna, a higher power or whatever, and emergency first aid to survive. You know, just like traffic.
Is that why debates on gun laws invariably end up looking like a car crash?
Quote from: lustindarkness on December 04, 2015, 04:02:40 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 13, 2015, 10:59:35 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2015, 10:53:37 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 13, 2015, 10:52:28 AM
You guys are kind of making me think that having people in on earth means our planet's days are numbered.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Typical.
I think the planet's best chance is to get rid of humans, we are back to nuking from orbit, only way to make sure.
So, can someone run the numbers and tell me just how many nukes we need to get rid of all humanity please. Thank you.
Either amend the Constitution or require a person submit to psychological testing prior to purchase.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 06, 2015, 04:21:09 PM
Either amend the Constitution or require a person submit to psychological testing prior to purchase.
I am under the impression that amending the Constitution is not feasible. As for psy testing, can it be done with the current laws?
Quote from: viper37 on December 06, 2015, 04:24:15 PM
I am under the impression that amending the Constitution is not feasible. As for psy testing, can it be done with the current laws?
To quote the emminent legal thinker Al Gore, I don't think there's any controlling authority on the question of psych testing.
My response to the question is Seedy's avatar :sleep:
Would ammo control ala switzerland work?
And if guns can't be gotten rid of then at the least surely the problem can be greatly reduced by making more human cities (yes. Completely redesigning your wife of life is easier than getting rid of a little bit of metal. Pfff)
Quote from: Tyr on December 06, 2015, 07:26:48 PM
And if guns can't be gotten rid of then at the least surely the problem can be greatly reduced by making more human cities
Wrong. The vast majority of gun violence on this planet is committed by humans.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 06, 2015, 07:50:08 PM
Wrong. The vast majority of gun violence on this planet is committed by humans.
So you concede the point about wife of life?
Quote from: mongers on December 06, 2015, 03:24:07 PM
Is that why debates on gun laws invariably end up looking like a car crash?
More like the aftermath of one. One side has it exactly right and another one has it exactly wrong, but the exactly wrong side will sill ruthlessly bullshit about what happened and why it happened.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 06, 2015, 08:12:53 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 06, 2015, 07:50:08 PM
Wrong. The vast majority of gun violence on this planet is committed by humans.
So you concede the point about wife of life?
Sure. People trade those in for new models all the time.
Force them to register the weapons with the government. Make the database public like we have with sex offenders.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2015, 09:37:17 PM
Force them to register the weapons with the government. Make the database public like we have with sex offenders.
All non-classified government databases are public.
But the feds forcing registration of weapons would violate the 2d Amendment.
States can have gun registries, and many do.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2015, 09:37:17 PM
Force them to register the weapons with the government. Make the database public like we have with sex offenders.
isn't that against the Constitution and its current interpretation?
Also, can a Supreme Court judgement on the Constitution can be reversed after some years, or is stuck in time for the next 200 years?
My understanding is that under current interpretation of law the Feds can do very little. Which puzzles me why the conservatives freak out about Obama and all his gun control schemes. I am not aware of any gun control schemes and even if he did have some surely they would have to be actual laws passed in Congress, not Executive Orders.
But the gun issue has zero to do with anything other than driving partisan donations. Both party's partisan hacks are going nuts about it. I guess eventually blue states will have very strict gun laws and red states will be Mad Max with all the hysteria going on. Should be fun.
Quote from: Scipio on December 07, 2015, 10:54:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2015, 09:37:17 PM
Force them to register the weapons with the government. Make the database public like we have with sex offenders.
All non-classified government databases are public.
But the feds forcing registration of weapons would violate the 2d Amendment.
States can have gun registries, and many do.
How would that violate the 2nd amendment? :huh:
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2015, 11:15:48 AM
How would that violate the 2nd amendment? :huh:
They key to a well regulated militia is the lack of regulation.
Quote from: Valmy on December 07, 2015, 11:09:39 AM
My understanding is that under current interpretation of law the Feds can do very little. Which puzzles me why the conservatives freak out about Obama and all his gun control schemes. I am not aware of any gun control schemes and even if he did have some surely they would have to be actual laws passed in Congress, not Executive Orders.
But the gun issue has zero to do with anything other than driving partisan donations. Both party's partisan hacks are going nuts about it. I guess eventually blue states will have very strict gun laws and red states will be Mad Max with all the hysteria going on. Should be fun.
Can I have big metal spikes on my truck?! :w00t:
Quote from: lustindarkness on December 07, 2015, 11:34:30 AM
Can I have big metal spikes on my truck?! :w00t:
Of course. With a giant Confederate Flag.
Quote from: Valmy on December 07, 2015, 11:37:46 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on December 07, 2015, 11:34:30 AM
Can I have big metal spikes on my truck?! :w00t:
Of course. With a giant Confederate Flag.
You ruined it, It will be hard enough to see with my blood bag chained to the front of the truck already, now you want me to add a giant flag? Can it be a small one at least?
Quote from: Valmy on December 07, 2015, 11:09:39 AM
My understanding is that under current interpretation of law the Feds can do very little. Which puzzles me why the conservatives freak out about Obama and all his gun control schemes. I am not aware of any gun control schemes and even if he did have some surely they would have to be actual laws passed in Congress, not Executive Orders.
But the gun issue has zero to do with anything other than driving partisan donations. Both party's partisan hacks are going nuts about it. I guess eventually blue states will have very strict gun laws and red states will be Mad Max with all the hysteria going on. Should be fun.
once Pennsylvania realizes its mass shootings comes from deranged Virginia citizens that have easy access to weapons, will they build a fence to protect themselves?
Quote from: viper37 on December 07, 2015, 02:06:00 PM
once Pennsylvania realizes its mass shootings comes from deranged Virginia citizens that have easy access to weapons, will they build a fence to protect themselves?
As far as I know shooters have not crossed state lines yet. More likely shooters in Pennsylvania will be buying them in Virginia or whatever.
Mass shooters aren't crossing state lines. But aren't most of the regular criminals in DC using guns from elsewhere?
Would be interesting to see if gun control works better in a decent sized state rather than just a city. Hate the way gun nuts completely fail to see logic and use gun crime in cities as proof gun control doesn't work :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2015, 11:15:48 AM
Quote from: Scipio on December 07, 2015, 10:54:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2015, 09:37:17 PM
Force them to register the weapons with the government. Make the database public like we have with sex offenders.
All non-classified government databases are public.
But the feds forcing registration of weapons would violate the 2d Amendment.
States can have gun registries, and many do.
How would that violate the 2nd amendment? :huh:
No idea, and I tend to be more in favor of gun rights than most people here.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2015, 11:15:48 AM
Quote from: Scipio on December 07, 2015, 10:54:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2015, 09:37:17 PM
Force them to register the weapons with the government. Make the database public like we have with sex offenders.
All non-classified government databases are public.
But the feds forcing registration of weapons would violate the 2d Amendment.
States can have gun registries, and many do.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The militia is a creature of the states; they are the ones who regulate it. Not the feds. I could bore you with a copy of each state's militia statute, but I suggest you read United States v. Miller to understand how non-radical DC v. Heller was.
Here's a link, in case your Google broke: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174
How would that violate the 2nd amendment? :huh:
Quote from: Scipio on December 07, 2015, 09:24:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2015, 11:15:48 AM
Quote from: Scipio on December 07, 2015, 10:54:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2015, 09:37:17 PM
Force them to register the weapons with the government. Make the database public like we have with sex offenders.
All non-classified government databases are public.
But the feds forcing registration of weapons would violate the 2d Amendment.
States can have gun registries, and many do.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The militia is a creature of the states; they are the ones who regulate it. Not the feds. I could bore you with a copy of each state's militia statute, but I suggest you read United States v. Miller to understand how non-radical DC v. Heller was.
Here's a link, in case your Google broke: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174)
How would that violate the 2nd amendment? :huh:
None of this says there can't be a federal database. I did some looking myself, there already are databases that come from the Gun Control Act of 1968 but this information is not open to the public. Lets make it all public, and let every one know if they are living next a gun fanatic who could be building an arsenal to murder his neighbors.
I don't see why the public needs to know how many guns their neighbors own.
Yeah, I think that is a pretty clear invasion of privacy.
Quote from: Berkut on December 07, 2015, 10:03:09 PM
Yeah, I think that is a pretty clear invasion of privacy.
Next they'll have a registry of voters or automobile owners or tax payers!
The purpose of this is public safety. Make it harder for straw purchases or to simply give guns away, you know like what happened in the San Bernadino case. Of course stigmatizing gun owners is nice as well.
Quote from: Scipio on December 07, 2015, 09:24:54 PM
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The militia is a creature of the states; they are the ones who regulate it. Not the feds. I could bore you with a copy of each state's militia statute, but I suggest you read United States v. Miller to understand how non-radical DC v. Heller was.
Heller repudiated Miller - that was one of the things that made it radical. Miller held that gun regulations would run afoul of the 2nd amendment if and only if the regulation impaired use or possession in such a way to impair the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated state militia. It rejected the personal right formulation that Heller embraced.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2015, 10:09:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 07, 2015, 10:03:09 PM
Yeah, I think that is a pretty clear invasion of privacy.
Next they'll have a registry of voters or automobile owners or tax payers!
The purpose of this is public safety. Make it harder for straw purchases or to simply give guns away, you know like what happened in the San Bernadino case. Of course stigmatizing gun owners is nice as well.
How would it stigmatize gun owners? If everybody actually registered their guns, it would probably do more to stigmatize those who don't own guns (plus let potential thieves know which homes they could burglarize without getting shot). And I'm not sure how it would eliminate shadow purchases or giving guns away. After all, you have to register a car, but you can still let someone else use it.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2015, 09:50:09 PM
Quote from: Scipio on December 07, 2015, 09:24:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2015, 11:15:48 AM
Quote from: Scipio on December 07, 2015, 10:54:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2015, 09:37:17 PM
Force them to register the weapons with the government. Make the database public like we have with sex offenders.
All non-classified government databases are public.
But the feds forcing registration of weapons would violate the 2d Amendment.
States can have gun registries, and many do.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The militia is a creature of the states; they are the ones who regulate it. Not the feds. I could bore you with a copy of each state's militia statute, but I suggest you read United States v. Miller to understand how non-radical DC v. Heller was.
Here's a link, in case your Google broke: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174)
How would that violate the 2nd amendment? :huh:
None of this says there can't be a federal database. I did some looking myself, there already are databases that come from the Gun Control Act of 1968 but this information is not open to the public. Lets make it all public, and let every one know if they are living next a gun fanatic who could be building an arsenal to murder his neighbors.
I say, let's make it public so I can know who's a gunless twat who wants their house burglarized.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2015, 10:09:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 07, 2015, 10:03:09 PM
Yeah, I think that is a pretty clear invasion of privacy.
Of course stigmatizing gun owners is nice as well.
Hence your real agenda. :lol:
By that maybe we should do the same with aids patients/STD or mentally ill. He'll throw in Muslims while you at it. Alcoholics, suspected gang members, etc, etc, on and on.
Great idea.
Raz is technically in the militia, under US Code. :P
But seriously, it's more than just 2nd amendment, or sporting or any other stuff like that.
It's like taking the sword from a samurai. Now he's a peasant. It's a class thing. Part of a classless society. There are no peasants. Only samurai.
Quote from: Scipio on December 07, 2015, 11:00:33 PM
I say, let's make it public so I can know who's a gunless twat who wants their house burglarized.
Since guns are a prime target for thieves, I'm cool with that. It's something like a quarter million guns are stolen every year mostly from burglaries. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fshbopc0510pr.cfm (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fshbopc0510pr.cfm) I wonder how that compares to "legitimately used a fire arm to drive away criminals" per year. I do love the idea guns actually dissuade theft. It's cute and quint, like the idea that your 20 shotguns are somehow going to "keep government honest". I'm glad we could find common ground on this issue.
Quote from: dps on December 07, 2015, 10:56:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2015, 10:09:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 07, 2015, 10:03:09 PM
Yeah, I think that is a pretty clear invasion of privacy.
Next they'll have a registry of voters or automobile owners or tax payers!
The purpose of this is public safety. Make it harder for straw purchases or to simply give guns away, you know like what happened in the San Bernadino case. Of course stigmatizing gun owners is nice as well.
How would it stigmatize gun owners? If everybody actually registered their guns, it would probably do more to stigmatize those who don't own guns (plus let potential thieves know which homes they could burglarize without getting shot). And I'm not sure how it would eliminate shadow purchases or giving guns away. After all, you have to register a car, but you can still let someone else use it.
If Twitchy Tim suddenly buys two AR-15, 3 shotguns and six handguns maybe you don't invite him to the office party? Maybe a renter doesn't want guns on their property, and won't rent to Twitchy Tim.
Quote from: Scipio on December 07, 2015, 11:00:33 PM
I say, let's make it public so I can know who's a gunless twat who wants their house burglarized.
Seriously? Is that the booze talking or "
just being on the internet" talking?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 07, 2015, 11:50:19 PM
Raz is technically in the militia, under US Code. :P
But seriously, it's more than just 2nd amendment, or sporting or any other stuff like that.
It's like taking the sword from a samurai. Now he's a peasant. It's a class thing. Part of a classless society. There are no peasants. Only samurai.
The problem is in the mind of the gun owner. The gun makers don't sell effect crime deterrents. They sell fantasy. The fantasy that guns make a man's family safer, fantasy that they can be effectively used to the government, the fantasy they make the owner more of a man.
Might as well ask people to stop buying homes then.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 08, 2015, 12:59:19 AM
Might as well ask people to stop buying homes then.
Children outgrow their toys, I think a small subsection of American adults can make that transition as well.
Quote from: Scipio on December 07, 2015, 11:00:33 PM
I say, let's make it public so I can know who's a gunless twat who wants their house burglarized.
I don't have a gun Scipio.
At least now I know who to send the cops after once you rob me. Just a warning though my stuff is neither easily portable nor particularly valuable.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 07, 2015, 11:04:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2015, 10:09:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 07, 2015, 10:03:09 PM
Yeah, I think that is a pretty clear invasion of privacy.
Of course stigmatizing gun owners is nice as well.
Hence your real agenda. :lol:
By that maybe we should do the same with aids patients/STD or mentally ill. He'll throw in Muslims while you at it. Alcoholics, suspected gang members, etc, etc, on and on.
Great idea.
Indeed. All of those would be much more feasible than a gun owner database.
[Singing]
My whole family are gunless twats
Most of my friends are gunless twats
Many of my neighbors are gunless twats
I'm living in a gunless twat world!
[/Singing]
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2015, 01:16:29 AM
Quote from: Scipio on December 07, 2015, 11:00:33 PM
I say, let's make it public so I can know who's a gunless twat who wants their house burglarized.
I don't have a gun Scipio.
At least now I know who to send the cops after once you rob me. Just a warning though my stuff is neither easily portable nor particularly valuable.
Maybe one is only a twat if they live in MS without a gun? Though I think I'd want to have my own personal army before I'd move to MS.
Call me a transphobe if you must, but I prefer twats to be gunless.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't constitutional rights then refined by national and state law? Because every person here has the right to bear arms in their own country. But only certain types of weapons and only after a rigorous screening process.
In the UK we did have a mass killing; the Dunblane school massacre in 1996. We banned effectively banned handguns afterwards. There has been one spree killing since; the Cumbria shootings in June 2010, which were carried out with a shotgun.
I'm not sure if it was ever relaxed for sport, but the ban on handguns was so stringent even the Team GB Olympic pistol team had to go to Zurich to practice ahead of the 2012 games.
The Supreme Court's history is replete with examples of fucking state law in the ass: Civil Rights, abortion, capital punishment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2015, 03:26:39 PM
The Supreme Court's history is replete with examples of fucking state law in the ass: Civil Rights, abortion, capital punishment.
Sometimes state law deserves it.
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2015, 03:36:05 PM
Sometimes state law deserves it.
Absolutely. I was responding to Brazen's question about the relationship between the Constitution and state law.
Quote from: Brazen on December 08, 2015, 05:26:54 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't constitutional rights then refined by national and state law? Because every person here has the right to bear arms in their own country. But only certain types of weapons and only after a rigorous screening process.
In the UK we did have a mass killing; the Dunblane school massacre in 1996. We banned effectively banned handguns afterwards. There has been one spree killing since; the Cumbria shootings in June 2010, which were carried out with a shotgun.
I'm not sure if it was ever relaxed for sport, but the ban on handguns was so stringent even the Team GB Olympic pistol team had to go to Zurich to practice ahead of the 2012 games.
You guys just had one a few days ago. With a knife.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 08, 2015, 04:48:15 PM
You guys just had one a few days ago. With a knife.
"One" what? Are you talking about Leytonstone? One nutcase with a craft knife that doesn't even register as a weapon (though you do have to show ID to buy one). It wasn't even a killing, let alone a mass killing, no-one died. And it's only speculation that it was terror related as people who knew the perpetrator say he had a history of mental health issues.
Some might say mental health issues don't preclude you from being a terrorist...
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2015, 09:37:17 PM
Force them to register the weapons with the government. Make the database public like we have with sex offenders.
Wouldn't that make very easy for criminals to procure weapons?
Quote from: Iormlund on December 08, 2015, 06:27:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2015, 09:37:17 PM
Force them to register the weapons with the government. Make the database public like we have with sex offenders.
Wouldn't that make very easy for criminals to procure weapons?
It would make millions of people instant criminals. So in a sense, yes. :P
Quote from: Iormlund on December 08, 2015, 06:27:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2015, 09:37:17 PM
Force them to register the weapons with the government. Make the database public like we have with sex offenders.
Wouldn't that make very easy for criminals to procure weapons?
Uh, why would it do that.
Well it seems a great way to pinpoint which homes to hit if you are interested in using or selling weapons.
Quote from: Iormlund on December 08, 2015, 07:19:52 PM
Well it seems a great way to pinpoint which homes to hit if you are interested in using or selling weapons.
Public databases are always a terrible idea. They're so convenient for people with grudges, and they aren't made for the kind of people who don't tend to be subject to grudges. Felons, sex offenders, gun owners, cops, judges, political contributors, prosecutors, legislators, gays, teachers, whatever. Put them on a list and there will be somebody who will use it for evil.
Quote from: Iormlund on December 08, 2015, 07:19:52 PM
Well it seems a great way to pinpoint which homes to hit if you are interested in using or selling weapons.
Skip tells me that won't be a problem.
*rubs his SKS real hard*
Quote from: Scipio on December 07, 2015, 11:00:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2015, 09:50:09 PM
Quote from: Scipio on December 07, 2015, 09:24:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2015, 11:15:48 AM
Quote from: Scipio on December 07, 2015, 10:54:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2015, 09:37:17 PM
Force them to register the weapons with the government. Make the database public like we have with sex offenders.
All non-classified government databases are public.
But the feds forcing registration of weapons would violate the 2d Amendment.
States can have gun registries, and many do.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The militia is a creature of the states; they are the ones who regulate it. Not the feds. I could bore you with a copy of each state's militia statute, but I suggest you read United States v. Miller to understand how non-radical DC v. Heller was.
Here's a link, in case your Google broke: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174)
How would that violate the 2nd amendment? :huh:
None of this says there can't be a federal database. I did some looking myself, there already are databases that come from the Gun Control Act of 1968 but this information is not open to the public. Lets make it all public, and let every one know if they are living next a gun fanatic who could be building an arsenal to murder his neighbors.
I say, let's make it public so I can know who's a gunless twat who wants their house burglarized.
Path of least resistance. Much less left to chance for the criminal.
Yeah, cause an empty home with a gun in it is that much more of a hassle to burglarize then an empty home without a gun.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2015, 10:13:40 PM
Yeah, cause an empty home with a gun in it is that much more of a hassle to burglarize then an empty home without a gun.
Indeed :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2015, 10:13:40 PM
Yeah, cause an empty home with a gun in it is that much more of a hassle to burglarize then an empty home without a gun.
Which is why your public database will make it easier to steal guns.
I think we can all agree that a public database of gun owners is dumb enough not to warrant much discussion around it.
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2015, 09:21:31 AM
I think we can all agree that a public database of gun owners is dumb enough not to warrant much discussion around it.
So it's 50/50% some legislature will vote for that?
Heh.
Gun Rights people staging performance art fake massacre at UT to show that we need more guns:
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/gun-rights-groups-to-stage-mock-mass-shooting-at-u/npf38/
QuoteGun rights groups say they will conduct a mock mass shooting this weekend at the University of Texas campus as they try to end gun-free zones.
The Open Carry Walk and Crisis Performance Event will involve actors "shot" by perpetrators armed with cardboard weapons, said Matthew Short, a spokesman for the gun rights groups Come and Take It Texas and DontComply.com.
"It's a fake mass shooting, and we'll use fake blood," he said. He said gun noises will be blared from bullhorns. Other people will then play the role of rescuers, also armed with cardboard weapons.
He said the group was not seeking any sort of permit for the event from Austin or UT. University officials were not immediately available for comment, but in November, university President Gregory L. Fenves spoke in favor of a faculty resolution opposing campus-carry.
Gun rights advocates have argued that allowing people to bring their concealed weapon into campus facilities could promote safety.
"Criminals that want to do evil things and commit murder go places where people are not going to be able to stop them," Short said. "When seconds count, the cops are minutes away."
Asked if he was worried the demonstration, which will be preceded by a walk through Austin with loaded weapons might appear in bad taste following the mass shootings in San Bernardino and Paris, Short said: "Not at all. People were able to be murdered people because no one was armed."
People with a concealed handgun permit may carry their gun in some places on campus, such as sidewalks and parking lots. The new campus carry law, which goes into effect in August, will allow people with concealed weapons permits to carry their handguns into dorms, classrooms and other public university buildings, though universities may draft some campus-specific rules that may include limited gun-free zones.
UT history professor Joan Neuberger, who helps lead Gun Free UT, an organization supported by thousands of UT students and faculty that aims to keep guns out of the UT campus, said that putting on such an event is an act of intimidation.
"Staging a mass shooting during an anxious time for students — finals week — not only breaks rules but shows real disrespect for the feelings of students, faculty and staff who don't want to have guns around them in the first place, but will be forced to put up with guns in public places in 2016," Neuberger said.
Critics of the law have urged UT to take a highly restrictive approach, prompting the pushback from gun rights groups.
"We want criminals to fear the public being armed," Short said. "An armed society is a polite society."
"We love freedom and we're trying to make more freedom," he said.
So yeah...just in case anybody thought there was a consensus that lots of mass shootings meant we should not have so many guns. On the contrary: nobody will be shot when everybody has a gun.
Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2015, 04:31:16 PM
"We want criminals to fear the public being armed," Short said. "An armed society is a polite society."
He's got a point. An armed society stopped that guy from texting during a movie.
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2015, 03:36:05 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2015, 03:26:39 PM
The Supreme Court's history is replete with examples of fucking state law in the ass: Civil Rights, abortion, capital punishment.
Sometimes state law deserves it.
Federal law is the supreme law of the land . . .
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2015, 09:21:31 AM
I think we can all agree that a public database of gun owners is dumb enough not to warrant much discussion around it.
No we don't. Skip and I thought it was fine.
I think the first step towards effective gun control is admitting that more guns = more deaths. It may be that having lots of guns is a cultural choice, and that we're on the whole okay with more deaths, so that will also be the last step. I can certainly respect that. Alcohol kills as well, including innocent victims just as guns do, but most people are fine with it being legal even without taking prohibition enforcement issues into account.
What I can't respect is the bottomless pit of sophistry and outright lying from the pro-gun lobby, that does its best to convince us that a society that is armed to the teeth is the safest society. Fuck you, seriously.
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2015, 07:41:04 PM
I think the first step towards effective gun control is admitting that more guns = more deaths. It may be that having lots of guns is a cultural choice, and that we're on the whole okay with more deaths, so that will also be the last step. I can certainly respect that. Alcohol kills as well, including innocent victims just as guns do, but most people are fine with it being legal even without taking prohibition enforcement issues into account.
What I can't respect is the bottomless pit of sophistry and outright lying from the pro-gun lobby, that does its best to convince us that a society that is armed to the teeth is the safest society. Fuck you, seriously.
Yeah that's pretty much right. I mean it's a risk. We let stupid people vote. Trump might be president. That's the risk and we have to accept it.
Quote from: PRC on December 08, 2015, 12:22:49 AM
Quote from: Scipio on December 07, 2015, 11:00:33 PM
I say, let's make it public so I can know who's a gunless twat who wants their house burglarized.
Seriously? Is that the booze talking or "just being on the internet" talking?
I'm trying to match Raz's asshole level.
Quote from: Scipio on December 09, 2015, 10:24:07 PM
Quote from: PRC on December 08, 2015, 12:22:49 AM
Quote from: Scipio on December 07, 2015, 11:00:33 PM
I say, let's make it public so I can know who's a gunless twat who wants their house burglarized.
Seriously? Is that the booze talking or "just being on the internet" talking?
I'm trying to match Raz's asshole level.
Oh he was serious?
That public database idea. .... I wonder if there's amy in the nra actually pushing for it? It would perfectly fit what they want and force everyone to have a gun.
Lolz yeah that's exactly what they want.
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2015, 07:41:04 PM
I think the first step towards effective gun control is admitting that more guns = more deaths. It may be that having lots of guns is a cultural choice, and that we're on the whole okay with more deaths, so that will also be the last step. I can certainly respect that. Alcohol kills as well, including innocent victims just as guns do, but most people are fine with it being legal even without taking prohibition enforcement issues into account.
What I can't respect is the bottomless pit of sophistry and outright lying from the pro-gun lobby, that does its best to convince us that a society that is armed to the teeth is the safest society. Fuck you, seriously.
This.
I know I come across as a gun control "nut", but the reality is that I am actually not. Well, not in the traditional sense, anyway.
What annoys me more than anything is the bullshit that the gun nuts spout regularly. They are like YECs. It doesn't matter what common sense or data says, all that matters is that guns are OSSUM as a matter of faith - faith in some demented version of the 2nd Amendment held up with a religious fervor that most American religious leaders only wish they could instill in their followers.
There is, as always, a similar amount of stupid on the GUNS ARE BAD ZOMG side. But the scale is an order of magnitude less.
Quote from: Tyr on December 10, 2015, 12:12:01 AM
That public database idea. .... I wonder if there's amy in the nra actually pushing for it? It would perfectly fit what they want and force everyone to have a gun.
Oh course not. They may spout the bullshit that a gun in the house dissuades a break-in, but they know full well it's bullshit. Same reason they blocked the CDC from doing gun studies. They know what the result will be, and it isn't that guns make you an safer.
At any rate, here's a tip on how you can smuggle chocolate into a movie theater in the U.S.:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLUzLs8q.jpg&hash=53657642bc5cff9ae8dfe2e9f902462ae191c3a6)
Quote from: Berkut on December 10, 2015, 09:22:20 AM
I know I come across as a gun control "nut", but the reality is that I am actually not. Well, not in the traditional sense, anyway.
I think you can only be considered a gun control "nut" within the context of the current American discourse on the subject, if that.
I keep being told that nobody wants to take my guns. Guess I can rest easy now.
If you are tossing and turning at night concerned about someone taking your guns...well, actually, that would not surprise me.
Quote from: derspiess on December 10, 2015, 03:56:32 PM
I keep being told that nobody wants to take my guns. Guess I can rest easy now.
Oh. I thought you were being reassured that nobody is going to take them from you.
So what you're looking for is that nobody even
desires to limit your gun-ownership, rather than merely preventing that limits are placed on owning guns?
Quote from: derspiess on December 10, 2015, 03:56:32 PM
I keep being told that nobody wants to take my guns. Guess I can rest easy now.
None of the Feds anyway. What Ohio might do is something different.
Quote from: derspiess on December 10, 2015, 03:56:32 PM
I keep being told that nobody wants to take my guns. Guess I can rest easy now.
I want to take away your guns.
:hug:
Quote from: Barrister on December 10, 2015, 04:28:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 10, 2015, 03:56:32 PM
I keep being told that nobody wants to take my guns. Guess I can rest easy now.
I want to take away your guns.
:hug:
Gaons?
Quote from: Jacob on December 10, 2015, 04:08:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 10, 2015, 03:56:32 PM
I keep being told that nobody wants to take my guns. Guess I can rest easy now.
Oh. I thought you were being reassured that nobody is going to take them from you.
So what you're looking for is that nobody even desires to limit your gun-ownership, rather than merely preventing that limits are placed on owning guns?
Well with all this gun control talk I could swear I've heard mentions of confiscation and whatnot. Pretty sure I heard some anti-gun folks say the cops should be the only ones with guns. But now to hear that nobody wants to take away my guns, I guess I can put all that to rest and put my full trust in gun control people.
Quote from: derspiess on December 11, 2015, 01:09:32 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 10, 2015, 04:08:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 10, 2015, 03:56:32 PM
I keep being told that nobody wants to take my guns. Guess I can rest easy now.
Oh. I thought you were being reassured that nobody is going to take them from you.
So what you're looking for is that nobody even desires to limit your gun-ownership, rather than merely preventing that limits are placed on owning guns?
Well with all this gun control talk I could swear I've heard mentions of confiscation and whatnot. Pretty sure I heard some anti-gun folks say the cops should be the only ones with guns. But now to hear that nobody wants to take away my guns, I guess I can put all that to rest and put my full trust in gun control people.
Phew, glad you dodged that giant, hulking strawman as it bestrode the intellectual landscape.
Quote from: derspiess on December 11, 2015, 01:09:32 PM
Well with all this gun control talk I could swear I've heard mentions of confiscation and whatnot. Pretty sure I heard some anti-gun folks say the cops should be the only ones with guns. But now to hear that nobody wants to take away my guns, I guess I can put all that to rest and put my full trust in gun control people.
With that level of psychological fragility, I can understand why you "cling" to your guns. ;)
Quote from: derspiess on December 11, 2015, 01:09:32 PM
Well with all this gun control talk I could swear I've heard mentions of confiscation and whatnot. Pretty sure I heard some anti-gun folks say the cops should be the only ones with guns. But now to hear that nobody wants to take away my guns, I guess I can put all that to rest and put my full trust in gun control people.
I have heard people say they want to nuke the Middle East so I guess everybody should spend all their time worrying about the imminent nuclear winter as well? Come on man don't be a nutcase.
Quote from: derspiess on December 11, 2015, 01:09:32 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 10, 2015, 04:08:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 10, 2015, 03:56:32 PM
I keep being told that nobody wants to take my guns. Guess I can rest easy now.
Oh. I thought you were being reassured that nobody is going to take them from you.
So what you're looking for is that nobody even desires to limit your gun-ownership, rather than merely preventing that limits are placed on owning guns?
Well with all this gun control talk I could swear I've heard mentions of confiscation and whatnot. Pretty sure I heard some anti-gun folks say the cops should be the only ones with guns. But now to hear that nobody wants to take away my guns, I guess I can put all that to rest and put my full trust in gun control people.
I want to take away your guns.
Cops shouldn't have guns.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 06, 2015, 04:21:09 PM
Either amend the Constitution or require a person submit to psychological testing prior to purchase.
Why?
If the government wants to maintain a list of crazy people who cannot buy guns, that's their problem.
But i ain't going to submit to no test. Hell no.
Besides, what is there to stop the government from adding dissidents, like tea partiers, to the crazy people list?
Hell no.
Uncuntstitutional.
Every place in America with strong gun control laws is crime ridden, while every place in America with strong gun rights is crime free.
You liberal faggots don't want to see reality.
Don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.
Quote from: Siege on December 11, 2015, 02:06:48 PM
Every place in America with strong gun control laws is crime ridden, while every place in America with strong gun rights is crime free.
Give me the evolution of crime over 50 years in all US states, and correlate that info with the time less/more restrictive gun laws happenned.
I'm guessing it didn't make much of a difference.
Quote from: Siege on December 11, 2015, 02:06:48 PM
Every place in America with strong gun control laws is crime ridden, while every place in America with strong gun rights is crime free.
You liberal faggots don't want to see reality.
Don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.
Do you want to provide the facts? I was not aware we had that many places with no crime at all.
Quote from: Siege on December 11, 2015, 02:02:52 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 06, 2015, 04:21:09 PM
Either amend the Constitution or require a person submit to psychological testing prior to purchase.
Why?
If the government wants to maintain a list of crazy people who cannot buy guns, that's their problem.
But i ain't going to submit to no test. Hell no.
Besides, what is there to stop the government from adding dissidents, like tea partiers, to the crazy people list?
Hell no.
Uncuntstitutional.
I think Yi was saying what was possible under the law dude. Chill.
My whole point is there is not a whole lot the Feds can do that would hold up in court.
Quote from: Siege on December 11, 2015, 02:06:48 PM
Every place in America with strong gun control laws is crime ridden, while every place in America with strong gun rights is crime free.
You liberal faggots don't want to see reality.
Don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.
Try Hawaii. Hawaii is a good example because you can't just jump the state border to buy a gun in another state. It has a strict gun laws and low gun crime rate.
Quote from: Valmy on December 11, 2015, 01:32:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 11, 2015, 01:09:32 PM
Well with all this gun control talk I could swear I've heard mentions of confiscation and whatnot. Pretty sure I heard some anti-gun folks say the cops should be the only ones with guns. But now to hear that nobody wants to take away my guns, I guess I can put all that to rest and put my full trust in gun control people.
I have heard people say they want to nuke the Middle East so I guess everybody should spend all their time worrying about the imminent nuclear winter as well? Come on man don't be a nutcase.
Thank you for considering me people. :hug:
Quote from: Siege on December 11, 2015, 02:02:52 PM
Why?
So that crazy people can't shoot up theaters and schools.
QuoteBesides, what is there to stop the government from adding dissidents, like tea partiers, to the crazy people list?
Elections. Rule of law. Court review. All the things that stop the government right now from doing anything they want.
Quote from: derspiess on December 11, 2015, 01:09:32 PMWell with all this gun control talk I could swear I've heard mentions of confiscation and whatnot. Pretty sure I heard some anti-gun folks say the cops should be the only ones with guns. But now to hear that nobody wants to take away my guns, I guess I can put all that to rest and put my full trust in gun control people.
I guess I failed to make my point clearly enough, which was that plenty of people want to take away your guns. However, they're not going to take away your guns, however much they want to.
Your requirement for resting easy that no one wants to take away your guns is a pretty high bar to meet. So it follows that you will never rest easy :console:
Quote from: Siege on December 11, 2015, 02:06:48 PM
Every place in America with strong gun control laws is crime ridden, while every place in America with strong gun rights is crime free.
You liberal faggots don't want to see reality.
Don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.
There's more to crime rates than gun laws. Population density tends to be a biggy.
I wonder; how does the crime rate in these areas compare to before their tighter gun control laws? :hmm:
Quote from: Tyr on December 11, 2015, 08:30:01 PM
I wonder; how does the crime rate in these areas compare to before their tighter gun control laws?
You mean back where there was also less population? :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 11, 2015, 08:34:43 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 11, 2015, 08:30:01 PM
I wonder; how does the crime rate in these areas compare to before their tighter gun control laws?
You mean back where there was also less population? :P
I'm assuming the crime rate used to be higher.
That there may have been less population would only underline things. :p
Happy Sandy Hook Day.
QuoteMore than 550 U.S. children have died from gunshots since Sandy Hook massacre
Three years later, the bullets continue to fly.
More than 550 children under the age of 12 have died from gunshots in the three years since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, according to online data. That means a U.S. child dies in a firearm-related death every two days, on average.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/554-u-s-children-died-gunshots-sandy-hook-article-1.2465570
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.meme.am%2Finstances%2F250x250%2F50515822.jpg&hash=3c7e0c44c40298deec3d496ecdf8f5ca1e8f9df0)
It must almost be embarrassing for an American to nearly be in the same league as the Swiss.
1: The United States has the highest number of guns per capita in the world, with 88.8 guns per 100 residents, according to the most recent small arms survey. REUTERS
2: Yemen has 54.8 guns per 100 residents.
3: Switzerland has 45.7 firearms per 100 ".
4: Finland has 45.3 firearms per 100 ".
5: Serbia has 37.8 firearms per 100 ".
6: Cyprus has 36.4 firearms per 100 ".
7: Saudi Arabia has 35.0 firearms per 100 ".
8: Iraq has 34.2 firearms per 100 ".
USA USA USA USA USA #1 :showoff:
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2015, 06:27:53 PM
USA USA USA USA USA #1 :showoff:
Indeed, though I have a feeling the survey is out of date, I pulled it off a Reuters photo essay and I suspect places like Yemen or Iraq now have noticeably more guns than they did a few years ago.
Quote from: mongers on December 15, 2015, 06:21:56 PM
It must almost be embarrassing for an American to nearly be in the same league as the Swiss.
[Cruz] See the problem with gun violence isn't guns. It's that our corporate taxes are too high [/Cruz]
Quote from: mongers on December 15, 2015, 06:37:24 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2015, 06:27:53 PM
USA USA USA USA USA #1 :showoff:
I suspect places like Yemen or Iraq now have noticeably more guns than they did a few years ago.
Plus less people. :(
Quote from: mongers on December 15, 2015, 06:21:56 PM
It must almost be embarrassing for an American to nearly be in the same league as the Swiss.
We're Sick of the Swiss (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2XTuc6i1Uo) :mad:
Quote from: mongers on December 15, 2015, 06:21:56 PM
It must almost be embarrassing for an American to nearly be in the same league as the Swiss.
1: The United States has the highest number of guns per capita in the world, with 88.8 guns per 100 residents, according to the most recent small arms survey. REUTERS
2: Yemen has 54.8 guns per 100 residents.
3: Switzerland has 45.7 firearms per 100 ".
4: Finland has 45.3 firearms per 100 ".
5: Serbia has 37.8 firearms per 100 ".
6: Cyprus has 36.4 firearms per 100 ".
7: Saudi Arabia has 35.0 firearms per 100 ".
8: Iraq has 34.2 firearms per 100 ".
You didn't look at your numbers, did you? 88.8 isn't nearly "in the same league" as 45.3. It's almost twice as many.
Yeah but the Swiss have all those knives.
Quote from: grumbler on December 15, 2015, 07:36:35 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 15, 2015, 06:21:56 PM
It must almost be embarrassing for an American to nearly be in the same league as the Swiss.
1: The United States has the highest number of guns per capita in the world, with 88.8 guns per 100 residents, according to the most recent small arms survey. REUTERS
2: Yemen has 54.8 guns per 100 residents.
3: Switzerland has 45.7 firearms per 100 ".
4: Finland has 45.3 firearms per 100 ".
5: Serbia has 37.8 firearms per 100 ".
6: Cyprus has 36.4 firearms per 100 ".
7: Saudi Arabia has 35.0 firearms per 100 ".
8: Iraq has 34.2 firearms per 100 ".
You didn't look at your numbers, did you? 88.8 isn't nearly "in the same league" as 45.3. It's almost twice as many.
It was a joke, that some picked up on.
Serbia and Finland better watch out.
Quote from: mongers on December 15, 2015, 06:37:24 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2015, 06:27:53 PM
USA USA USA USA USA #1 :showoff:
Indeed, though I have a feeling the survey is out of date, I pulled it off a Reuters photo essay and I suspect places like Yemen or Iraq now have noticeably more guns than they did a few years ago.
According to Wikipedia, there are 112.6 guns per 100 people in the US. That's almost twice the next highest rate (69.7 in Serbia).
I don't know for sure, but I think Wikipedia is probably closer to correct here. Intuitively, I'd guess that we have more guns than people in this country.
Quote from: dps on December 15, 2015, 08:37:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 15, 2015, 06:37:24 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2015, 06:27:53 PM
USA USA USA USA USA #1 :showoff:
Indeed, though I have a feeling the survey is out of date, I pulled it off a Reuters photo essay and I suspect places like Yemen or Iraq now have noticeably more guns than they did a few years ago.
According to Wikipedia, there are 112.6 guns per 100 people in the US. That's almost twice the next highest rate (69.7 in Serbia).
I don't know for sure, but I think Wikipedia is probably closer to correct here. Intuitively, I'd guess that we have more guns than people in this country.
Yea, I haven't counted lately, but don't have just one.
Quote from: dps on December 15, 2015, 08:37:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 15, 2015, 06:37:24 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2015, 06:27:53 PM
USA USA USA USA USA #1 :showoff:
Indeed, though I have a feeling the survey is out of date, I pulled it off a Reuters photo essay and I suspect places like Yemen or Iraq now have noticeably more guns than they did a few years ago.
According to Wikipedia, there are 112.6 guns per 100 people in the US. That's almost twice the next highest rate (69.7 in Serbia).
I don't know for sure, but I think Wikipedia is probably closer to correct here. Intuitively, I'd guess that we have more guns than people in this country.
Yeah, I had a quick look at wiki afterwards and whilst there's variation in the numbers and the wiki figures might be more based on a 2007 survey, I think the most important point is the figures are only estimates in many cases, the Yemen could be noticably higher or indeed less than half the one given. Presumably the US figures are more reliable.
Cyprus in an interesting case, whilst the figure in the reuters piece seems similar to the wiki one, the related wiki article on gun control in Cyprus is largely un-verified and talks about strick gun control, which sets it against the Reuters item that represented Cyprus with a photo of two old timers standing beside two AK47s leaning against a house! So I don't know what to believe about Cyprus.
Quote from: mongers on December 15, 2015, 08:46:57 PM
Cyprus in an interesting case, whilst the figure in the reuters piece seems similar to the wiki one, the related wiki article on gun control in Cyprus is largely un-verified and talks about strick gun control, which sets it against the Reuters item that represented Cyprus with a photo of two old timers standing beside two AK47s leaning against a house! So I don't know what to believe about Cyprus.
Strict laws, but very lax enforcement, maybe?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 15, 2015, 06:53:49 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 15, 2015, 06:37:24 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2015, 06:27:53 PM
USA USA USA USA USA #1 :showoff:
I suspect places like Yemen or Iraq now have noticeably more guns than they did a few years ago.
Plus less people. :(
Unlikely, with their birth rates.
Quote from: mongers on December 15, 2015, 08:46:57 PM
Quote from: dps on December 15, 2015, 08:37:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 15, 2015, 06:37:24 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2015, 06:27:53 PM
USA USA USA USA USA #1 :showoff:
Indeed, though I have a feeling the survey is out of date, I pulled it off a Reuters photo essay and I suspect places like Yemen or Iraq now have noticeably more guns than they did a few years ago.
According to Wikipedia, there are 112.6 guns per 100 people in the US. That's almost twice the next highest rate (69.7 in Serbia).
I don't know for sure, but I think Wikipedia is probably closer to correct here. Intuitively, I'd guess that we have more guns than people in this country.
Yeah, I had a quick look at wiki afterwards and whilst there's variation in the numbers and the wiki figures might be more based on a 2007 survey, I think the most important point is the figures are only estimates in many cases, the Yemen could be noticably higher or indeed less than half the one given. Presumably the US figures are more reliable.
Cyprus in an interesting case, whilst the figure in the reuters piece seems similar to the wiki one, the related wiki article on gun control in Cyprus is largely un-verified and talks about strick gun control, which sets it against the Reuters item that represented Cyprus with a photo of two old timers standing beside two AK47s leaning against a house! So I don't know what to believe about Cyprus.
All stolen illegal weapons from Akrotiri base old chap :bowler:
The UK's gun laws need tightening up, apparently, including forbidding "possessing an article with the intention of using it unlawfully to convert an imitation firearm into a live one".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35104969 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35104969)
I'm thinking of getting a front grip for my AR. GET IT? GUN CONTROL.
Quote from: Brazen on December 16, 2015, 05:32:37 AM
The UK's gun laws need tightening up, apparently, including forbidding "possessing an article with the intention of using it unlawfully to convert an imitation firearm into a live one".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35104969 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35104969)
Intent is pretty hard to prove.
But it does seem like the UK goes pretty extreme in the other direction.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 16, 2015, 10:41:00 AM
I'm thinking of getting a front grip for my AR. GET IT? GUN CONTROL.
You know, it's weird but some people just have a natural skill. I've practiced for years and taken all the classes and stuff. But my wife can start at nothing and get proficient on something in a day. It takes me weeks of practice to get as good as she is just starting out. And you know what? I took her sister out to shoot. Same thing. Their grandpa was a sniper in the war. Those girls have some genes I don't have and I'm envious. :P
My dad flew planes in Vietnam and my vision is perfect. Maybe I should focus on that.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 16, 2015, 11:02:48 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 16, 2015, 10:41:00 AM
I'm thinking of getting a front grip for my AR. GET IT? GUN CONTROL.
You know, it's weird but some people just have a natural skill. I've practiced for years and taken all the classes and stuff. But my wife can start at nothing and get proficient on something in a day. It takes me weeks of practice to get as good as she is just starting out. And you know what? I took her sister out to shoot. Same thing. Their grandpa was a sniper in the war. Those girls have some genes I don't have and I'm envious. :P
My dad flew planes in Vietnam and my vision is perfect. Maybe I should focus on that.
It is always good to focus on where your natural proficiencies are strongest, but don't you think the Vietnamese might object?
^_^
:lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 16, 2015, 10:41:00 AM
I'm thinking of getting a front grip for my AR. GET IT? GUN CONTROL.
I don't really understand the point of a front grip if you're not able to fire full auto.
Quote from: derspiess on December 16, 2015, 04:58:55 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 16, 2015, 10:41:00 AM
I'm thinking of getting a front grip for my AR. GET IT? GUN CONTROL.
I don't really understand the point of a front grip if you're not able to fire full auto.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4d/67/67/4d67676f2478e5cdb64b3008e06f51da.jpg)
Quote from: Brazen on December 16, 2015, 05:32:37 AM
The UK's gun laws need tightening up, apparently, including forbidding "possessing an article with the intention of using it unlawfully to convert an imitation firearm into a live one".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35104969 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35104969)
That was one of the plot points in Man in the High Castle. Guns made in the machine shop.
Eventually, we're going to have to face the prospect of people being able to simply make their own at home.
That's going to happen, and I have no idea how controlling that will have to go down. In the US, the feds do it based on the commerce clause, but that sort of thing would slip right under all the hurdles. I think Montana tried to pass a law legalizing everything manufactured there and not passing state lines, which creates a problem for the feds for similar reasons.
Quote from: Siege on December 11, 2015, 02:06:48 PM
Every place in America with strong gun control laws is crime ridden, while every place in America with strong gun rights is crime free.
You liberal faggots don't want to see reality.
Don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.
:lmfao: I heard it on Rush Limbaugh, so it must be true. Source: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-20/table_20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2013.xls
I mean, I realize those numbers aren't coming from your local rock station's dedicated right-wing shock jockey, but still...
Hate to burst your bubble, Siegy, but in 2013, 2 of the top 5 states for murder via firearm were Texas and Georgia. And frankly, when a state reports zero like Alabama, I question whether their rate is actually low, or they're just not reporting their cases.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 16, 2015, 08:52:05 PM
That was one of the plot points in Man in the High Castle. Guns made in the machine shop.
Eventually, we're going to have to face the prospect of people being able to simply make their own at home.
That's going to happen, and I have no idea how controlling that will have to go down. In the US, the feds do it based on the commerce clause, but that sort of thing would slip right under all the hurdles. I think Montana tried to pass a law legalizing everything manufactured there and not passing state lines, which creates a problem for the feds for similar reasons.
There's already been cases involving 3D printed plastic guns, and these would be covered under the new amendment.
My musket was made by someone in a workshop and is basically a metal tube on a plank and could easily kill someone, which is why I need a shotgun and black powder licence for it, which involved medical and professional references and a police home visit. Though it would probably be more efficient to beat them to death with it.
Quote from: Brazen on December 17, 2015, 04:15:11 AM
There's already been cases involving 3D printed plastic guns, and these would be covered under the new amendment.
My musket was made by someone in a workshop and is basically a metal tube on a plank and could easily kill someone, which is why I need a shotgun and black powder licence for it, which involved medical and professional references and a police home visit. Though it would probably be more efficient to beat them to death with it.
I was going to make a joke that in the UK they would probably confiscate Great Great Great Great Great Grandpa's musket from Waterloo that has not fired a shot in 200 years...but it seems that is pretty much the reality :lol:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 17, 2015, 04:01:02 AM
And frankly, when a state reports zero like Alabama, I question whether their rate is actually low, or they're just not reporting their cases.
The footnote states that Alabama reported only limited data so your question is well put.
Quote from: Brazen on December 17, 2015, 04:15:11 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 16, 2015, 08:52:05 PM
That was one of the plot points in Man in the High Castle. Guns made in the machine shop.
Eventually, we're going to have to face the prospect of people being able to simply make their own at home.
That's going to happen, and I have no idea how controlling that will have to go down. In the US, the feds do it based on the commerce clause, but that sort of thing would slip right under all the hurdles. I think Montana tried to pass a law legalizing everything manufactured there and not passing state lines, which creates a problem for the feds for similar reasons.
There's already been cases involving 3D printed plastic guns, and these would be covered under the new amendment.
My musket was made by someone in a workshop and is basically a metal tube on a plank and could easily kill someone, which is why I need a shotgun and black powder licence for it, which involved medical and professional references and a police home visit. Though it would probably be more efficient to beat them to death with it.
Didn't realise the shotgun license included black powder guns too :lol;
What did this police visit involve? You have to store the gun a proper way?