Yet another mass shooting in America

First topic message reminder :

The USA, home of the free and land of the deranged mass shooter.

No doubt usual vigils, well meaning words, heart felt condolences etc given out but ultimately naff all be done to alleviate the scourge of gun crime.
What's the NRA line, only way to deal with this is to arm more people?

Yep that's really working out fine and dandy....

Anyway.

The question I have which I have asked several times on here but no-one has answered is why does any private citizen need an assault rifle?
Why are they still on sale as those are the type of weapon which are legally bought and then used to kill. Often in mass shootings at schools etc.

Stopping sale of at least those type weapon isn't going to prevent gun deaths but it would make it harder for those intent on a killing spree.

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:
I don't think we agree - you're using a nonsensical argument re. illegal weapons for not introducing controls on legally held firearms.

Illegal guns? That's what the police etc are for.

So you want heavier policing? Perhaps targeting areas with a prevalence to carry illegal guns? Maybe there is a measure that would dissuade them from carrying the illegal guns? Some sort of spot check to make sure no one is carrying?  

So Navy, I have a question. How exactly do you reduce the number of shootings using illegal guns? The US already have a police force, but this problem is getting worse, not better. What else needs to be done?

I see a lot poo pooing of my ideas, but nothing to offer instead.

If you have better ideas, let's have it.

Oh no. Not biting. This came about re. legal gun ownership and deaths from such. I'm not really interested in debating what to do re. illegal ownership as your pet interest, in absence of any consideration of deaths from legally held weapons. Deaths from illegal weapons are a completely different question, and one I'm not particularly interested in.

Why aren't you interested? The vast majority of mass shootings and murders happen with illegal guns? Seems odd.

Because that isn't the debate I got involved with or am interested in solving. The question was originally about wider gun control and whether more control would have a positive influence on gun deaths in the U.S. You seem to be trying to take onto an aside because that suits your particular agenda? Different question for me, and one I wasn't interested in.

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:
I don't think we agree - you're using a nonsensical argument re. illegal weapons for not introducing controls on legally held firearms.

Illegal guns? That's what the police etc are for.

So you want heavier policing? Perhaps targeting areas with a prevalence to carry illegal guns? Maybe there is a measure that would dissuade them from carrying the illegal guns? Some sort of spot check to make sure no one is carrying?  

We could debate how the police should best approach illegal gun ownership, but I do note your ignoring of the fact you're avoiding discussion of any gun controls for legally held weapons...

I'm interested with what your metric of success would be for gun control of legal firearms.

If you reduced the murder rate with legal weapons to zero, but the overall murder rate went up due to more ppl being killed by illegal guns, would you consider that a success?

Are you aware that if you banned legal possession of guns, you disarm lawful citizens, and by doing nothing about illegal guns, you keep them in the hands of criminals. Do you think that's a good thing? Would only allowing criminals to have guns make the US safer?

A hypothetical (therefore pretty much irrelevant), and not one that stands any test re. standing idly by and watching loads of innocents being slaughtered by, in the main, legally held firearms.

I don't think your 'disarming lawful citizens' argument holds any water whatsoever. Who said anyone was going to "do nothing" about illegal weapons? Only you seem to equate widespread gun control w/ doing nothing on illegal guns.

I'm not an American or a gun owner but I'll try to answer.

1st, the civilian AR 15 isn't a military grade weapon or an "assault rifle". It is only a semi automatic, so has the same fire rate as any pistol. One trigger squeeze, one bullet. There are many variations, but typically the civilian version takes a smaller caliber bullet. I'm not sure on that.

Any gun can be modified to have high capacity magazine, including pistols.

Most of what makes the AR15 look "military" is just to make it look cool. Just aesthetics.

Why own one.

1. Hunting
2. Home defense, especially in rural areas where police response is poor. This is becoming more relevant since the leftwing push to defund the police, and go soft on crime.
3. You can have one via 2nd amendment.
4. Guns are cool and fun to shoot.

mountain man wrote:Anyway.

The question I have which I have asked several times on here but no-one has answered is why does any private citizen need an assault rifle?
Why are they still on sale as those are the type of weapon which are legally bought and then used to kill. Often in mass shootings at schools etc.

Stopping sale of at least those type weapon isn't going to prevent gun deaths but it would make it harder for those intent on a killing spree.

They have a small d!ck?

navyblueshorts wrote:
A hypothetical (therefore pretty much irrelevant), and not one that stands any test re. standing idly by and watching loads of innocents being slaughtered by, in the main, legally held firearms.

I don't think your 'disarming lawful citizens' argument holds any water whatsoever. Who said anyone was going to "do nothing" about illegal weapons? Only you seem to equate widespread gun control w/ doing nothing on illegal guns.

This is a factually incorrect statement.

Most murders are committed by illegally held weapons, and in areas with the strictest gun control laws.

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:
A hypothetical (therefore pretty much irrelevant), and not one that stands any test re. standing idly by and watching loads of innocents being slaughtered by, in the main, legally held firearms.

I don't think your 'disarming lawful citizens' argument holds any water whatsoever. Who said anyone was going to "do nothing" about illegal weapons? Only you seem to equate widespread gun control w/ doing nothing on illegal guns.

This is a factually incorrect statement.

Most murders are committed by illegally held weapons, and in areas with the strictest gun control laws.

If you say so. Stop trying to divert the debate. I'm not interested. Argue your point with someone else who'll bite.

The point of the hypothetical is to engage the rational side of the brain.

I thought it was an easy answer. No.

The point was to think about the wider consequences.

If "doing something" to address an issue ends up making it worse, would you want to do it, even if the only outcome would be being seen to try to address the issue?

the-goon2 wrote:I'm not an American or a gun owner but I'll try to answer.

1st, the civilian AR 15 isn't a military grade weapon or an "assault rifle". It is only a semi automatic, so has the same fire rate as any pistol. One trigger squeeze, one bullet. There are many variations, but typically the civilian version takes a smaller caliber bullet. I'm not sure on that.

Any gun can be modified to have high capacity magazine, including pistols.

Most of what makes the AR15 look "military" is just to make it look cool. Just aesthetics.  

Why own one.

1. Hunting
2. Home defense, especially in rural areas where police response is poor. This is becoming more relevant since the leftwing push to defund the police, and go soft on crime.
3. You can have one via 2nd amendment.
4. Guns are cool and fun to shoot.

So basically zero reason. Hunting? They are cool? As for 2nd amendment, give me strength.

Are you serious.

https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-largest-ever-survey-of-american-gun-owners-finds-that-defensive-use-of-firearms-is-common/

Self defense I would think is a valid reason.

As is the 2nd amendment. It's a right that the vast majority of Americans want. Politicians that campaign against it always lose, means it's popular.

Americans are for the most part willing to accept mass shootings as an acceptable price for the right to bear arms. The latter is considered more important.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Americans are for the most part willing to accept mass shootings as an acceptable price for the right to bear arms. The latter is considered more important.

That's just silly nonsense.....You can actually want to bear arms and want solutions to Mass shootings..

Hard notion to grasp from an Island that is a non entity.....But it is true..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Americans are for the most part willing to accept mass shootings as an acceptable price for the right to bear arms. The latter is considered more important.

That's just silly nonsense.....You can actually want to bear arms and want solutions to Mass shootings..

Hard notion to grasp from an Island that is a non entity.....But it is true..

Bore off with the petty jibes. We get it, your American and think it's the greatest country on earth and everywhere is unworthy of being on the same planet. Quite telling however that as an apparent American you choose not to live there.

Soul Requiem wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Americans are for the most part willing to accept mass shootings as an acceptable price for the right to bear arms. The latter is considered more important.

That's just silly nonsense.....You can actually want to bear arms and want solutions to Mass shootings..

Hard notion to grasp from an Island that is a non entity.....But it is true..

Bore off with the petty jibes. We get it, your American and think it's the greatest country on earth and everywhere is unworthy of being on the same planet. Quite telling however that as an apparent American you choose not to live there.

'you're American'....I don't eat Fillet steak all the time but I know how good it tastes...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Americans are for the most part willing to accept mass shootings as an acceptable price for the right to bear arms. The latter is considered more important.

That's just silly nonsense.....You can actually want to bear arms and want solutions to Mass shootings..

Hard notion to grasp from an Island that is a non entity.....But it is true..

Don't see anyone over there rushing to find any solutions. The status quo has been in place for a long time and no-one seems in a hurry to change it.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Americans are for the most part willing to accept mass shootings as an acceptable price for the right to bear arms. The latter is considered more important.

That's just silly nonsense.....You can actually want to bear arms and want solutions to Mass shootings..

Hard notion to grasp from an Island that is a non entity.....But it is true..

Don't see anyone over there rushing to find any solutions. The status quo has been in place for a long time and no-one seems in a hurry to change it.

I've told you that not only is the second Amendment a problem but the Tenth Amendment's relationship with the second Amendment....All sorts of Constitutional problems and lawsuits await......Plus tens of thousands of deaths resulting from uprisings when red necks see it as Tyranny.

While States like Texas are still considered semi-Bellwethers it's not going to happen anytime soon anyway.......Trump 52 - Biden 47 in 2020...

You guys talk as if it is an easy option....Sadly no.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Americans are for the most part willing to accept mass shootings as an acceptable price for the right to bear arms. The latter is considered more important.

That's just silly nonsense.....You can actually want to bear arms and want solutions to Mass shootings..

Hard notion to grasp from an Island that is a non entity.....But it is true..

Don't see anyone over there rushing to find any solutions. The status quo has been in place for a long time and no-one seems in a hurry to change it.

I've told you that not only is the second Amendment a problem but the Tenth Amendment's relationship with the second Amendment....All sorts of Constitutional problems and lawsuits await......Plus tens of thousands of deaths resulting from uprisings when red necks see it as Tyranny.

While States like Texas are still considered semi-Bellwethers it's not going to happen anytime soon anyway.......Trump 52 - Biden 47 in 2020...

You guys talk as if it is an easy option....Sadly no.

Fair points. I get the issues there, but what I find cowardly is that no-one wants to (or appears to want to) address them.

The 10th alone, at least, would conceptually allow someone to live in a state that matched their views on gun ownership. The 2nd is being (mis)used as a catch all by the gun lobby to suggest that every meat head should be able to carry a firearm as if a divine right - in no-one's right mind are random needle d!cks w/ legally-held guns part of any "well regulated Militia". Nothing will change until such an event takes place that a majority start taking it seriously. Until then, more innocent deaths appear to be just fine and dandy...

That even assumes all Biden supporters want to scrap 2A. Not true.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Americans are for the most part willing to accept mass shootings as an acceptable price for the right to bear arms. The latter is considered more important.

That's just silly nonsense.....You can actually want to bear arms and want solutions to Mass shootings..

Hard notion to grasp from an Island that is a non entity.....But it is true..

Don't see anyone over there rushing to find any solutions. The status quo has been in place for a long time and no-one seems in a hurry to change it.

I've told you that not only is the second Amendment a problem but the Tenth Amendment's relationship with the second Amendment....All sorts of Constitutional problems and lawsuits await......Plus tens of thousands of deaths resulting from uprisings when red necks see it as Tyranny.

While States like Texas are still considered semi-Bellwethers it's not going to happen anytime soon anyway.......Trump 52 - Biden 47 in 2020...

You guys talk as if it is an easy option....Sadly no.

It's not an easy option. Changing mindsets is never easy. It's like convincing Flat Earthers that the world is round - not possible.
This link I posted yesterday is an indication of how difficult it is - https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mass-shootings.html

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Americans are for the most part willing to accept mass shootings as an acceptable price for the right to bear arms. The latter is considered more important.

That's just silly nonsense.....You can actually want to bear arms and want solutions to Mass shootings..

Hard notion to grasp from an Island that is a non entity.....But it is true..

Don't see anyone over there rushing to find any solutions. The status quo has been in place for a long time and no-one seems in a hurry to change it.

I've told you that not only is the second Amendment a problem but the Tenth Amendment's relationship with the second Amendment....All sorts of Constitutional problems and lawsuits await......Plus tens of thousands of deaths resulting from uprisings when red necks see it as Tyranny.

While States like Texas are still considered semi-Bellwethers it's not going to happen anytime soon anyway.......Trump 52 - Biden 47 in 2020...

You guys talk as if it is an easy option....Sadly no.

It's not an easy option. Changing mindsets is never easy. It's like convincing Flat Earthers that the world is round - not possible.
This link I posted yesterday is an indication of how difficult it is - https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mass-shootings.html

71% of Americans want stricter laws which is good........But they also don't want to be impotent should a bad guy invade the family home...Simple as that really.

People do see the problem......But while the bad guys carry guns nothing much is going to change.

Much nicer to live in a country where decisions are not based as much on fear!

71% of Americans want stricter laws which is good..

Really? And yet nothing happens? Literally nothing. All they have to do is vote in politicians who are in favour of stricter gun laws.

As for bad guys invading homes, is this an everyday occurence for the majority over there? If that was case I think I'd move.

Regardless of that, a handgun is surely sufficient in an extreme case if you felt you really needed protection. Or do the homeowners only feel safe with a veritable arsenal behind them?

No-one has said on here that illegal guns won't still be in circulation and the bad guys will get hold of them. As will the good guys no doubt.
My point is much stricter gun laws WILL help. Ban assault weapons. Make it much harder to own more than one gun unless a verified reason. Much stricter and thorough back ground checks etc.
There will still be gun crime, there will still be mass shooting BUT they would help reduce a quantifiable amount which has to be worth doing.

Or just say, it's no good the bad guys got guns so we want more and bigger ones. And so it goes on.

It sounds like in order to tackle legal gun ownership, you need to address illegal gun ownership 1st.

Wow! That is interesting...

mountain man wrote:

71% of Americans want stricter laws which is good..

Really? And yet nothing happens? Literally nothing. All they have to do is vote in politicians who are in favour of stricter gun laws.

As for bad guys invading homes, is this an everyday occurence for the majority over there? If that was case I think I'd move.

Regardless of that, a handgun is surely sufficient in an extreme case if you felt you really needed protection. Or do the homeowners only feel safe with a veritable arsenal behind them?

No-one has said on here that illegal guns won't still be in circulation and the bad guys will get hold of them. As will the good guys no doubt.
My point is much stricter gun laws WILL help. Ban assault weapons. Make it much harder to own more than one gun unless a verified reason.
There will still be gun crime, there will still be mass shooting BUT they would help reduce a quantifiable amount which has to be worth doing.

Or just say, it's no good the bad guys got guns so we want more and bigger ones. And so it goes on.

If you live in a democrat run major city it is. And that's why millions are leaving the cities.

mountain man wrote:

71% of Americans want stricter laws which is good..

Really? And yet nothing happens? Literally nothing. All they have to do is vote in politicians who are in favour of stricter gun laws.

As for bad guys invading homes, is this an everyday occurence for the majority over there? If that was case I think I'd move.

Regardless of that, a handgun is surely sufficient in an extreme case if you felt you really needed protection. Or do the homeowners only feel safe with a veritable arsenal behind them?

No-one has said on here that illegal guns won't still be in circulation and the bad guys will get hold of them. As will the good guys no doubt.
My point is much stricter gun laws WILL help. Ban assault weapons. Make it much harder to own more than one gun unless a verified reason. Much stricter and thorough back ground checks etc.
There will still be gun crime, there will still be mass shooting BUT they would help reduce a quantifiable amount which has to be worth doing.

Or just say, it's no good the bad guys got guns so we want more and bigger ones. And so it goes on.

They are already banned. You can't own an automatic weapon in the US.

If you live in a democrat run major city it is. And that's why millions are leaving the cities

So only get home invasion in democrat run major cities?

You must get your "facts" from Fox news.

mountain man wrote:

If you live in a democrat run major city it is. And that's why millions are leaving the cities

So only get home invasion in democrat run  major cities?

You must get your "facts" from Fox news.

Who said only? Why are you being dishonest?

At least try to act in good faith.

Lol, I'm not being dishonest. Why do you keep writing such rubbish.

You were the one who mentioned democrat run major cities. Not me. If you'd said something along lines of "home invasion far worse in democrat run cities" then that would imply it happens everywhere which OF COURSE it does.

But you didn't. So by inferrence you are saying it happens in democrat run, not necessarily elsewhere.

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:

71% of Americans want stricter laws which is good..

Really? And yet nothing happens? Literally nothing. All they have to do is vote in politicians who are in favour of stricter gun laws.

As for bad guys invading homes, is this an everyday occurence for the majority over there? If that was case I think I'd move.

Regardless of that, a handgun is surely sufficient in an extreme case if you felt you really needed protection. Or do the homeowners only feel safe with a veritable arsenal behind them?

No-one has said on here that illegal guns won't still be in circulation and the bad guys will get hold of them. As will the good guys no doubt.
My point is much stricter gun laws WILL help. Ban assault weapons. Make it much harder to own more than one gun unless a verified reason. Much stricter and thorough back ground checks etc.
There will still be gun crime, there will still be mass shooting BUT they would help reduce a quantifiable amount which has to be worth doing.

Or just say, it's no good the bad guys got guns so we want more and bigger ones. And so it goes on.

They are already banned. You can't own an automatic weapon in the US.

Not even in Georgia?

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:

71% of Americans want stricter laws which is good..

Really? And yet nothing happens? Literally nothing. All they have to do is vote in politicians who are in favour of stricter gun laws.

As for bad guys invading homes, is this an everyday occurence for the majority over there? If that was case I think I'd move.

Regardless of that, a handgun is surely sufficient in an extreme case if you felt you really needed protection. Or do the homeowners only feel safe with a veritable arsenal behind them?

No-one has said on here that illegal guns won't still be in circulation and the bad guys will get hold of them. As will the good guys no doubt.
My point is much stricter gun laws WILL help. Ban assault weapons. Make it much harder to own more than one gun unless a verified reason. Much stricter and thorough back ground checks etc.
There will still be gun crime, there will still be mass shooting BUT they would help reduce a quantifiable amount which has to be worth doing.

Or just say, it's no good the bad guys got guns so we want more and bigger ones. And so it goes on.

They are already banned. You can't own an automatic weapon in the US.

Yes you can, the Firearm owners protection act of 1986 closed the registry of new fully automatic firearms but you can still purchase one that was previously registered.

I'd wager that if you need a rifle that can fire 45 rounds a minute to hunt you're not a very good hunter.

mountain man wrote:Lol, I'm not being dishonest. Why do you keep writing such rubbish.

You were the one who mentioned democrat run major cities. Not me. If you'd said something along lines of "home invasion far worse in democrat run cities" then that would imply it happens everywhere which OF COURSE it does.

But you didn't. So by inferrence you are saying it happens in democrat run, not necessarily elsewhere.

So let me get this straight, if I say something happens in place X, and I don't say it also happens in place Y but maybe to a lesser degree, you will "infer" that I think it doesn't happen in Y too?

I don't feel the need to mention that crime/home invasions happen outside democrat run cities because it seems so obvious that it happens it is pointless to bring it up. The fact that you don't think I know this, is bad faith.

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:

71% of Americans want stricter laws which is good..

Really? And yet nothing happens? Literally nothing. All they have to do is vote in politicians who are in favour of stricter gun laws.

As for bad guys invading homes, is this an everyday occurence for the majority over there? If that was case I think I'd move.

Regardless of that, a handgun is surely sufficient in an extreme case if you felt you really needed protection. Or do the homeowners only feel safe with a veritable arsenal behind them?

No-one has said on here that illegal guns won't still be in circulation and the bad guys will get hold of them. As will the good guys no doubt.
My point is much stricter gun laws WILL help. Ban assault weapons. Make it much harder to own more than one gun unless a verified reason. Much stricter and thorough back ground checks etc.
There will still be gun crime, there will still be mass shooting BUT they would help reduce a quantifiable amount which has to be worth doing.

Or just say, it's no good the bad guys got guns so we want more and bigger ones. And so it goes on.

They are already banned. You can't own an automatic weapon in the US.

Yes you can, the Firearm owners protection act of 1986 closed the registry of new fully automatic firearms but you can still purchase one that was previously registered.

Ok, fair enough. They are not completely banned, but very well regulated to point of being incredibly difficult to obtain legally.

So Assault rifles aren't fully banned, they are nearly fully banned.

Assault rifles and automatic firearms aren't the same thing. Assault rifles are I believe banned in eight states but legal in the other 42.

Soul Requiem wrote:Assault rifles and automatic firearms aren't the same thing. Assault rifles are I believe banned in eight states but legal in the other 42.

Be New England.....with the exception I imagine of New Hampshire....Because it's a Bellwether...

California too because its the most Liberal state in the US.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:71% of Americans want stricter laws which is good........But they also don't want to be impotent should a bad guy invade the family home...Simple as that really.

People do see the problem......But while the bad guys carry guns nothing much is going to change.

Yeah, because that happens to such a large % of Americans? Also, if armed (presumably carrying openly when enters house?) bad guy comes in, how does responsible, legal homeowner that no doubt has gun well-secured in locked case and separate from ammunition, deal with intruder? Not a great argument....

You mention impotence? Yep, that's probably why so many really need a gun...

Jim Jefferies has it pretty well covered:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:71% of Americans want stricter laws which is good........But they also don't want to be impotent should a bad guy invade the family home...Simple as that really.

People do see the problem......But while the bad guys carry guns nothing much is going to change.

Yeah, because that happens to such a large % of Americans? Also, if armed (presumably carrying openly when enters house?) bad guy comes in, how does responsible, legal homeowner that no doubt has gun well-secured in locked case and separate from ammunition, deal with intruder? Not a great argument....

You mention impotence? Yep, that's probably why so many really need a gun...

Jim Jefferies has it pretty well covered:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

It is the thought of having intruders isn't it !!!.........

I mean the chances of a Woman being attacked walking through a park at 1am is very slim but It is still regarded as best avoided.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:71% of Americans want stricter laws which is good........But they also don't want to be impotent should a bad guy invade the family home...Simple as that really.

People do see the problem......But while the bad guys carry guns nothing much is going to change.

Yeah, because that happens to such a large % of Americans? Also, if armed (presumably carrying openly when enters house?) bad guy comes in, how does responsible, legal homeowner that no doubt has gun well-secured in locked case and separate from ammunition, deal with intruder? Not a great argument....

You mention impotence? Yep, that's probably why so many really need a gun...

Jim Jefferies has it pretty well covered:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

It is the thought of having intruders isn't it !!!.........

I mean the chances of a Woman being attacked walking through a park at 1am is very slim but It is still regarded as best avoided.....

I'm sure many have the same thoughts in the U.K., but guess what? We can't go out and by a 45 or AR15 etc. Probably due to that one fact, there's not 1000s of British people being shot each year by other members of the public. Who'd have thought it?

Interestingly, in the US, gun owners are more likely to live in rural areas. Yet these are supposedly the safest areas. Obviously some rural people require guns for protecting livestock from predators etc. but it seems the people living most in fear (and hence buying guns for protection) are those least at risk.
Fear seems to be a big part of the American psyche.
Fear of being attacked, fear of people different than yourself, fear of God etc.

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:71% of Americans want stricter laws which is good........But they also don't want to be impotent should a bad guy invade the family home...Simple as that really.

People do see the problem......But while the bad guys carry guns nothing much is going to change.

Yeah, because that happens to such a large % of Americans? Also, if armed (presumably carrying openly when enters house?) bad guy comes in, how does responsible, legal homeowner that no doubt has gun well-secured in locked case and separate from ammunition, deal with intruder? Not a great argument....

You mention impotence? Yep, that's probably why so many really need a gun...

Jim Jefferies has it pretty well covered:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

It is the thought of having intruders isn't it !!!.........

I mean the chances of a Woman being attacked walking through a park at 1am is very slim but It is still regarded as best avoided.....

I'm sure many have the same thoughts in the U.K., but guess what? We can't go out and by a 45 or AR15 etc. Probably due to that one fact, there's not 1000s of British people being shot each year by other members of the public. Who'd have thought it?

I'm not disagreeing with you......I'd prefer no guns. Assault weapons should be banned.

But if someone entered my house uninvited over here I would probably have a decent chance of protecting my family.....Back home there is more chance the intruder has a gun and my chances would be minimal...

Unfortunately America is in a position the Founding Fathers didn't foresee when it gave a Nation of predominantly Farmers the chance to take arms against potential tyranny....

It's where we are and the majority don't like it but there is no easy solution...States have the right to puke out laws that they regard as Unconstitutional unless they are bound in the Constitution......It's called "Nullification" look it up !!!!

JuliusHMarx wrote:Interestingly, in the US, gun owners are more likely to live in rural areas. Yet these are supposedly the safest areas. Obviously some rural people require guns for protecting livestock from predators etc. but it seems the people living most in fear (and hence buying guns for protection) are those least at risk.
Fear seems to be a big part of the American psyche.
Fear of being attacked, fear of people different than yourself, fear of God etc.

Could owning a gun be a factor for that lower crime? Deterrence and all that.

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Interestingly, in the US, gun owners are more likely to live in rural areas. Yet these are supposedly the safest areas. Obviously some rural people require guns for protecting livestock from predators etc. but it seems the people living most in fear (and hence buying guns for protection) are those least at risk.
Fear seems to be a big part of the American psyche.
Fear of being attacked, fear of people different than yourself, fear of God etc.

Could owning a gun be a factor for that lower crime? Deterrence and all that.

Are the people who live in those areas more disposed to commit crimes, and thus a deterrent is needed to prevent them committing them?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:...Unfortunately America is in a position the Founding Fathers didn't foresee when it gave a Nation of predominantly Farmers the chance to take arms against potential tyranny....

It's where we are and the majority don't like it but there is no easy solution...States have the right to puke out laws that they regard as Unconstitutional unless they are bound in the Constitution......It's called "Nullification" look it up !!!!

So, no-go re. the 2nd.

Coming back to the 2nd Amendment, here's what my little dictionary says re. a militia:

"militia
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency: creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem | [mass noun] : small detachments of militia.
• a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
• mainly historical (in the US) all able-bodied citizens eligible by law to be called on to provide military service supplementary to the regular armed forces."

I don't see how being in a genuine militia allows one to carry all sorts of weaponry in public, whenever one wants to; it should be illegal for any normal member of the public to carry in public, license to own, or not. Sure, store it well-secured etc at home as part of militia responsibilities until called upon in the event of tyranny. Take part in organised training etc etc.
So, basically nothing normally allowed out of secure lockup except perhaps bolt-action hunting rifles and non-repeating shotguns, and those only for hunting or game keeping etc. We have licensed game keepers etc in the U.K. who can legally use this sort of firearm, so I'm sure it's not beyond the 'Greatest Nation on Earth(!)' to work out how that could be implemented sensibly.

Why doesn't the SCOTUS, or politicians, for example, pay any heed to the word 'militia' or the 'well organised' phrase in the 2nd Amendment? The current situation is bollox.

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:...Unfortunately America is in a position the Founding Fathers didn't foresee when it gave a Nation of predominantly Farmers the chance to take arms against potential tyranny....

It's where we are and the majority don't like it but there is no easy solution...States have the right to puke out laws that they regard as Unconstitutional unless they are bound in the Constitution......It's called "Nullification" look it up !!!!

So, no-go re. the 2nd.

Coming back to the 2nd Amendment, here's what my little dictionary says re. a militia:

"militia
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency: creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem | [mass noun] : small detachments of militia.
• a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
• mainly historical (in the US) all able-bodied citizens eligible by law to be called on to provide military service supplementary to the regular armed forces."

I don't see how being in a genuine militia allows one to carry all sorts of weaponry in public, whenever one wants to; it should be illegal for any normal member of the public to carry in public, license to own, or not. Sure, store it well-secured etc at home as part of militia responsibilities until called upon in the event of tyranny. Take part in organised training etc etc.
So, basically nothing normally allowed out of secure lockup except perhaps bolt-action hunting rifles and non-repeating shotguns, and those only for hunting or game keeping etc. We have licensed game keepers etc in the U.K. who can legally use this sort of firearm, so I'm sure it's not beyond the 'Greatest Nation on Earth(!)' to work out how that could be implemented sensibly.

Why doesn't the SCOTUS, or politicians, for example, pay any heed to the word 'militia' or the 'well organised' phrase in the 2nd Amendment? The current situation is bollox.

Because the 2A also has the words "shall not be infringed" and 2A purists cling to that with all their might. Thats why there wont be any real reform as far as gun control goes. Its going to take decades and generations if its ever going to happen at all.

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:...Unfortunately America is in a position the Founding Fathers didn't foresee when it gave a Nation of predominantly Farmers the chance to take arms against potential tyranny....

It's where we are and the majority don't like it but there is no easy solution...States have the right to puke out laws that they regard as Unconstitutional unless they are bound in the Constitution......It's called "Nullification" look it up !!!!

So, no-go re. the 2nd.

Coming back to the 2nd Amendment, here's what my little dictionary says re. a militia:

"militia
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency: creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem | [mass noun] : small detachments of militia.
• a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
• mainly historical (in the US) all able-bodied citizens eligible by law to be called on to provide military service supplementary to the regular armed forces."

I don't see how being in a genuine militia allows one to carry all sorts of weaponry in public, whenever one wants to; it should be illegal for any normal member of the public to carry in public, license to own, or not. Sure, store it well-secured etc at home as part of militia responsibilities until called upon in the event of tyranny. Take part in organised training etc etc.
So, basically nothing normally allowed out of secure lockup except perhaps bolt-action hunting rifles and non-repeating shotguns, and those only for hunting or game keeping etc. We have licensed game keepers etc in the U.K. who can legally use this sort of firearm, so I'm sure it's not beyond the 'Greatest Nation on Earth(!)' to work out how that could be implemented sensibly.

Why doesn't the SCOTUS, or politicians, for example, pay any heed to the word 'militia' or the 'well organised' phrase in the 2nd Amendment? The current situation is bollox.

Because the 2A also has the words "shall not be infringed" and 2A purists cling to that with all their might.  Thats why there wont be any real reform as far as gun control goes.  Its going to take decades and generations if its ever going to happen at all.

Can't really see that "shall not be infringed" has any influence if the 2nd is read as a complete sentence, which it should be. "Shall not be infringed" is clearly in the context of a "well regulated Militia", so I come back to point I made re. that - a "well regulated Militia" does not imply licence for wandering around w/ all sorts of firearms in public at any time and for any old reason. The problem is political backbone, and all anyone outside of America can see is a bunch of invertebrates.

Come on. Anyone clinging to the 2nd Amendment, something written hundreds of years ago and which has zero relevance to today is someone refusing to see sense.

mountain man wrote:Come on. Anyone clinging to the 2nd Amendment, something written hundreds of years ago and which has zero relevance to today is someone refusing to see sense.

Little known fact...The second amendment as written was nearly left out of the Constitution because it was just generally agreed about arms and the right to bear them.....President Madison 4th President (Founding Father) proclaimed "The Public never need to fear the Government because of the advantage of being armed".....It's the second amendment out of the original twelve (changed to ten) because of its viewed importance....second to freedom of speech etc...

It's important to people....Part of the Country's history....Apple pie brigade will fight to protect it..

There is a lot of apple pie.

mountain man wrote:Come on. Anyone clinging to the 2nd Amendment, something written hundreds of years ago and which has zero relevance to today is someone refusing to see sense.

Unfortunately most of them cling to the Bible as well, compared to that the second amendment is a state of the art concept.

Galted wrote:

mountain man wrote:Come on. Anyone clinging to the 2nd Amendment, something written hundreds of years ago and which has zero relevance to today is someone refusing to see sense.

Unfortunately most of them cling to the Bible as well, compared to that the second amendment is a state of the art concept.

Having "Faith" is a bad thing is it ??....Perhaps if this Country had more faith it wouldn't be at the bottom of the G7.

Maybe if you're nice the US will give you another handout...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Galted wrote:

mountain man wrote:Come on. Anyone clinging to the 2nd Amendment, something written hundreds of years ago and which has zero relevance to today is someone refusing to see sense.

Unfortunately most of them cling to the Bible as well, compared to that the second amendment is a state of the art concept.

Having "Faith" is a bad thing is it ??....Perhaps if this Country had more faith it wouldn't be at the bottom of the G7.

Maybe if you're nice the US will give you another handout...

Nothing wrong with having faith. Everything wrong with using your faith to try and dictate how other people live their lives.