Is it time to talk about guns?

Wow not one not two but three question marks

Really not sure what your argument is (not for the first time, I might add) as I’ve made clear many time it’s not a matter of either/or –

To repeat something already said in the thread - I’ve said many times that to tackle the gun issue it needs a holistic approach it is not just about gun control laws but things like healthcare reform, drug policy reform and welfare reform.

So, would you be in favour of expanding expenditure on welfare and social programmes, upgrading and building up public housing and introducing universal healthcare?

 

But how do you go about that?

I mean the people would first need the access to the better choices.

 

More of the same that got us to where we are to make things better???

I just read a post mentioning doing more of the same and expecting a different outcome.

 

Well I must thank you for once more backing me up

Doing what the same exactly?

 

MeAgain

What I would add is that the idea of the rugged individual in and of itself is a myth even the symbol of it in this thread the gun involved hundreds of thousands in the mining of raw materials, transportation, manufacture and distribution, within frameworks, infrastructural and legal, that were built up and maintained by millions.

You may wish to deny society, but it is very hard to get away from it.

 

The greatest battle rifle of all, The John Garand rifle only held 8 rounds of 30-06 ammo and was only a semi auto weapon. The AK and AR (a Colt design) are obvious battle rifles. The AR was designed to use smaller ammo --the 5.56 NATO which is a military version of .223 Remington--so the soldiers could carry 2 battle packs of 240 rounds each. That gave them more fire power to meet the legendary AK on the field. Both the AK and the AR are not really sporting guns. In Colorado you can not hunt big game with anything smaller than .25 caliber. That leaves the Remington .223 out. In real life, it's only a rancher rifle for coyote/pest purposes. A guy who lives in an apartment in Dallas should not be allowed to own one.

 

That is tragic. 54 years old, attending anger management classes, and still unable to resolve his conflicts without violence.

 

Sixth grade girl opens fire at middle school in Idaho, injuring 3

 

Yeah we still have the problem that criminals can easily get guns, the big issue is that they suck at using them because they haven't ever recieved any training on how to do so, , 1 thing is that if you are a convicted criminal gun clubs doesn't allow you to join, which I totally understand.
But sometimes I am uttterly amazed at how bad they are at shooting, they are better at hitting random bystanders than each other in most cases, when they fight their turf wars,, ofcourse their is alot of reasons for that which is almost an entire thread in it self.

Also I neglegtad the most stupid part of our gunn law, or maybe stupid isn't the correct term but the part that makes the least sense and clearly shows that the law was written by people with very little understanding of firearms.
It say, that a person is not allowed to own any material that can be used for making a gun, unless that person is a licensed gunsmith/manufacturer.
Now even if you have very little knowledge of guns you'll see why that doesn't make sense, because a gun is made of metal, and polymer or wood.

And one thing that I like to point out in the gun law/gun control debate is a statement made by a british dude named P.A Lutty who was against the brittish gun cuntrol laws, because as he pointed out, you can't outlaw guns or control them without also outlawing/controling knowledge of how they work, after all a gun is very simple mechanics.

 

You seem to think there is a non-issue in so far as gun violence is concerned.


How do you suggest the government mitigate gun violence?

 

Shane

You give a thumbs up for what MeAgain has tried to point out which makes me feel you didn’t actually understand what he said. It seems to me (and MeAgain please correct me if I’m wrong) but he seems to be once more pointing out that there isn’t an equivalence of argument with an obvious deficit on the pro-gun lobby side.

 

This is the part that, I refer to, because with a little knowledge and skill you can turn a pipe and a nil into a gun, I also should point out that I only am aware of one case where this particular part of the law has been used, and in that case the person was already a convicted criminal known for having previously manufactured guns. Just to be transparent.

May I suggest next time use translate.yandex.com gennerally speaking it does a better job at translating than google In my humble oppinion that is.

True, it is a statement that is probably a bit wild, for a lack of a better word, the point though is that for people with ill intention there will always be a way, and that ofcourse goes in all aspects of life.

In genneral I agree, some of it doesn't make sense, such as the ones about pump action shot guns, but it is what it is.

 

This has come up many times before – the gun lobby argument seeming to be that if people didn’t have easy access to guns then people that wanted one would just make one – the thing is that in most modern countries comparable to the US that have gun control laws in place that isn’t a big problem with people making their own firearm - it happens but very rarely and usually involves someone ‘reactivating’ a gun that was disabled not manufacturing it from scratch.

I do think there is a problem with understanding the difference between lessening harm and the removal of all harm – most public safety laws and regulations are aimed at lessening harm because it is very difficult to remove all harm. You can do a lot to reduce the possibility of a fatal car crash, from the laws of the road, mandatory licences, tests, traffic controls, to car safety measures, to road maintenance to policing and road rescue units. But that doesn’t mean accidents don’t happen.

The problem I see is that often the pro-gun lobby use the impossibility of reducing all harm as an argument against even trying to reduce harm.

So, the pro-gun lobby argument would be for example that since you can’t stop all road accidents then it is therefore no use having in place the laws of the road, mandatory licences, tests, traffic controls, car safety measures, road maintenance or policing and road rescue units.

It is not a rational argument but one I’ve seen often.

 

Clear.

But I fear we miss the point and get distracted by illusions.

The reality is, at least in this country that there's a severe gun problem.

 

Texas just passed in both chambers --The Right To Carry without permit--and their governor has indicated he'll sign on. A few years back a Muslim driver who was driving across town with his wife in the car beside him stopped and got out of the car to see what happened after another driver started honking the horn repeatedly. When the Muslim man approached to see what the other's problem was, the second man shot and killed the Muslim. The Muslim was unarmed. Later a Texas jury found that the Muslim had acted in an aggressive manner by getting out of the car. So, my Good Friends, when in Texas, don't get out of the car, and don't piss off these meth-heads who have guns. In Indianapolis, a similar set of circumstances resulted in the death of an Iraqi Muslim medical student on By-Pass 465 around the city. America's gun laws need a serious overhaul which includes regulation concerning the use of them damn things.

 

I can only really speak to my addendum -

What I would add is that the idea of the rugged individual is in itself a myth even the symbol of it in this thread the gun involved hundreds of thousands in the mining of raw materials, transportation, manufacture and distribution, within frameworks infrastructural and legal that were built up and maintained by millions. You may wish to deny society, but it is very hard to get away from it.

The idea of the individual existing apart from every other individual, that Meagain highlights is basically myth, a fantasy.

So, the basis on which many of the pro-gun arguments are built are shaky at best and at worse non-existent.

 

The righteous? That can't be healthy or in good faith. Seriously?


I think that we have a problem. WE ARE ALLLL Americans. The crowd that panic-buys a shotgun is not operating under the neighborly assumption that we're safe because we're on the same side, no.

They're on the gun-team - the winning team. Well, where does that put us? It fucking alienates everybody who isn't gung-ho.

We're at a loss because someone is capable. What if I'm Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris or Connor McGregor? What does that make everybody else?


I'll say this. If the Connor McGregor is a mentor and a responsible actor, it makes us proud. Right? It makes us safer. If however Connor McGregor hauls off and beats somebody to a pulp, it's a different story.

I see the comparison coming... - so should we outlaw martial arts?