By using properspursy.com services you agree to our Cookies Use and Data Transfer outside the EU.
We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, ads and Newsletters.

  • Love the Shirt - Tottenham Forum

    Join one of the best Tottenham Hotspur Supporters forums on the interweb, Discuss the ins and outs of our great club with like minded spurs fans from around the world.


    Join us!

Guns, Special Relationship, Rant.

Dorset

Dorset

The Voice Of Reason
Founding Member
Likes
1,084
#1
Another rant that you should probably not bother reading. It has got nothing to do with football and some might think it's political, so don't read it OK?

I have owned guns for quite a lot of my adult life, these days I don't because I don't have the opportunities to go out and mullah bunnies and deer, no, not deer Mr Gamekeeper, I ain't not never shot no deers honest guv! The guns I have used for hunting have been shotguns or single shot rifles, I have never used an assault rifle for hunting because they are thankfully not available in the UK and it would be fucking mental. You get one shot at a creature when you are hunting, firing a full cartridge of 30 rounds in three seconds at your target ain't going to leave much to eat.

In the old forum one of our American 'friend's got umpty when we spoke about gun control in the US, claiming it was politics and politics was banned. It is NOT a political issue when children are being murdered, it is a human issue.

One of the best things the UK government ever did was to ban handguns after the Dumblane massacre. I remember going to work and crying on the train, along with many other commuters after that terrible day. No civilian needs to carry a handgun, they have one purpose only and that is killing other humans at close range, they are useless for hunting as are assault weapons.

The Trump regime, bought and paid for by the NRA suggest that teachers carry guns to counter the effect of 'bad people' with AR15s. What the fuck? Do we really want to have a special relationship with a country that has gone insane? Their logic is that the 'good guys' with guns will protect the innocent from the bad guys with guns, when is that going to start then? Arming teachers to ‘solve’ a gun problem is like giving alcoholics heroin to ‘solve’ their alcohol dependency. Teachers teach, they are not police or military and if there were no fucking guns then there wouldn’t be a problem to solve.

After every massacre they say it's not the time to talk about gun control and that is not a gun issue but a mental health problem, when is it the time then? Guns DO kill people. If someone goes mental with a shotgun or single shot rifle then OK, one or two people will be lost, but with AR15's dozens of people are killed and wounded in every incident, in Las Vegas 58 people were killed and 850 injured in 11 minutes, in Florida last week 17 were killed in the sixth fatal school shooting incident in the US this year! These people are our brothers and sisters, our children, our parents, we are all part of the human family and if you go back far enough every single person on this planet is related. I can’t believe that a decent civilised country would do nothing after the awful Sandy Hook tragedy when 20 six and seven year old children were murdered, that is a disgrace, shame on you USA.

These weapons should only be in the hands of the military and I hope that the brave survivors of the latest massacre get something done in this awful country, their protests are being heard all over the world, but not by Trump and his NRA sponsored cronies. They are being attacked by the right-wing as being ‘paid actors’ in a political stunt, that is despicable even for these Nazi lunatics.

Or government will of course say nothing, we will carry on with our obsession with the 'Special relationship' while children are being killed, mentally ill people are being executed and a clearly insane president is advocating and supporting war, racism, homophobia, sexual assault and the murder of innocents. I know that the majority of Americans are decent people and they would welcome gun control, but sadly the power lies with the big money and they will take some shifting, maybe it will never happen. If we do nothing, say nothing then are we part of the problem?

My little boycott of the US will not hurt them, but if enough people said 'Enough America, enough', we will not tolerate any more children being murdered, we will not sit down to talk trade with facists, we will not go on holiday to a country that allows this to happen, we will not buy their goods - then maybe they would listen, because money and power are the only things the ruling class care about. Farage and the rest of the UK facists would love us to become the 51st (or 53rd) state of the US, preferring a distant, unstable, murderous regime to our good neighbours who they for some reason hate. Not for me, I want nothing to do with them, including that pox awful game we are going to have at the new Lane,.

They will probably say that the gun control issue is nothing to do with us, we should mind our own business, but to me if children are being abused or murdered anywhere in the world it IS my business, it is everybody's business and we cannot turn a blind eye to it. Enough America, the civilised world will not put with you anymore.
 
skiathospurs

skiathospurs

Well-Known Member
Founding Member
Likes
2,751
#2
Just watched the CNN town hall with the kids from florida,very sad that even mass murder cannot change entrenched political sides,the NRA spokesperson busy justifying the unjustifyable because of their 5m members and more importantly weapons manufacturers who pay for the organisation.Surely after hundreds of years the term "well armed malitia" is outdated,its no longer the wild west with flintlock rifles,semi automatic and grade above firearms legal??in a civilised society? come on.I respect that unlike europe there are still areas of great wilderness and subsistal living with hunting or even regulated hunting for sport,well thats ok by me,if you are hunting in chicago there is only one prey,a human.
Surely its not so far gone that regulation cannot occur because the people you wish to regulate are so well armed as to be a threat??it is so obvious that to start with no one under 21 ? cannot have a gun without adult supervision,if they do the adult guardian is as responsible as the kid,let your kid have access to your gun safe and he shoots up a school,you go down as well.Firearms beyond those for hunting,,rifles i mean,ban them,they are miiltary grade,if it can shoot more than 3 rounds in a minute its not for hunting is it?.Handguns too touchy for now,but for fucksakes start with the blindingly obvious.A legal "amendment" from days way back is no way to govern society,certainly not a 1st world society.

I just shake my head at how the so called leaders of the free world are more backward than a shitty despot 3rd world country in this regard.I would never visit america because of my personal safety,i would rather run down a street in mogadishu,dressed in a white sheet with a pointy hat shouting "n***ers" than walk around an american city.
 
Dorset

Dorset

The Voice Of Reason
Founding Member
Likes
1,084
#3
Just watched the CNN town hall with the kids from florida,very sad that even mass murder cannot change entrenched political sides,the NRA spokesperson busy justifying the unjustifyable because of their 5m members and more importantly weapons manufacturers who pay for the organisation.Surely after hundreds of years the term "well armed malitia" is outdated,its no longer the wild west with flintlock rifles,semi automatic and grade above firearms legal??in a civilised society? come on.I respect that unlike europe there are still areas of great wilderness and subsistal living with hunting or even regulated hunting for sport,well thats ok by me,if you are hunting in chicago there is only one prey,a human.
Surely its not so far gone that regulation cannot occur because the people you wish to regulate are so well armed as to be a threat??it is so obvious that to start with no one under 21 ? cannot have a gun without adult supervision,if they do the adult guardian is as responsible as the kid,let your kid have access to your gun safe and he shoots up a school,you go down as well.Firearms beyond those for hunting,,rifles i mean,ban them,they are miiltary grade,if it can shoot more than 3 rounds in a minute its not for hunting is it?.Handguns too touchy for now,but for fucksakes start with the blindingly obvious.A legal "amendment" from days way back is no way to govern society,certainly not a 1st world society.

I just shake my head at how the so called leaders of the free world are more backward than a shitty despot 3rd world country in this regard.I would never visit america because of my personal safety,i would rather run down a street in mogadishu,dressed in a white sheet with a pointy hat shouting "n***ers" than walk around an american city.
Remember the bloke on the old forum saying he needed a fucking assault rifle for hunting? Maybe that's the American style of hunting, no skill, no patience, no stalking just find some creatures and blow the fucking lot of them into pieces. I prefer the old fashioned way of just hunting what you are going to eat.

Your point about the 2nd Amendment is good, when it was adopted in 1791 they had fucking flintlock weapons that fired one shot every couple of minutes, not these mass murdering weapons, and the bit about the militia as well, they have a massive police force and a big fuck off fucking army now, they don't need a militia of the people to defend themselves. They need to join the 21st century and we need to stop our passive acceptance of their bullshit.

I have never been there and never will, I don't hate Americans, not all of them. I hate the so-called 'American Way', might is right, institutional racism, gun laws, sanctions against Cuba, military aggression, their stupid war on drugs - that kills more people than the drugs, the right to life nutters who ironically want to kill so many people, doctors, muslims, brown people - anyone who doesn't worship the same god they do in exactly the same ay and looks the same as them. The thing I hate the most is wearing fucking baseball caps indoors, cunts. I've been to Mexico loads of times, the locals know I am not a septic because I say please and thank you and don't treat them like shit. Too fucked up for me.
 
Don Diaz

Don Diaz

Zero tolerance of Numpty's
Founding Member
Likes
1,674
#4
'.....if there were no fucking guns then there wouldn’t be a problem to solve....'

Here endeth the lesson. Amen.
 
Boone

Boone

Player in Training.
Likes
16
#5
American here. The problems with our country that you’ve mentioned are ones that a lot of us have been fighting to change for as long as I can remember. It seems there are so many that we can’t focus on getting any one of them done. I love my country but we have a long way to go with what should be simple, common sense issues. The majority of our country supports making changes on things like gun control, war on drugs, etc. Unfortunately our country’s policies are controlled by the wrong kinds of special interest groups. The sooner this younger generation comes of age and starts to yield its voting power, the better.
 
Dorset

Dorset

The Voice Of Reason
Founding Member
Likes
1,084
#6
American here. The problems with our country that you’ve mentioned are ones that a lot of us have been fighting to change for as long as I can remember. It seems there are so many that we can’t focus on getting any one of them done. I love my country but we have a long way to go with what should be simple, common sense issues. The majority of our country supports making changes on things like gun control, war on drugs, etc. Unfortunately our country’s policies are controlled by the wrong kinds of special interest groups. The sooner this younger generation comes of age and starts to yield its voting power, the better.
Mate, like I said I don't hate or even dislike Americans, I had friends who were South African in the Apartheid era, they were decent people who were opposed to the evils going on there, but I supported all the boycotts and sanctions against that country - and I will against your country until you get it sorted. I don't want our country to even consider trade deals with a country who still use capital punishment, I don't think we should even have any sort of relationship with a country who allows children to be murdered because of the power of the NRA and the gun manufacturers. I don't want our country to even talk to a man who is clearly not remotely interested in anyone but himself, if he does come here on a state visit he will see what millions of us think of him.

We are a very imperfect country but a leader like the bloke you have would be jailed, sexual assault is a crime here, inciting racial hated, perjury, corruption, fraud - all crimes, there is no way he would ever be allowed to even be a local councillor let alone be Prime Minister. Allowing children to be murdered because of politics probably isn't criminal, but to me it is the ultimate crime. As I said these people being killed are not Americans they are humans and it hurts us all.

I hope those fantastic students who are telling that lunatic puppet the truth make a difference, but I won't hold my breath , you country's love affair with weapons is too deep. Our politicians have to take some responsibility as do the leaders of the rest of the world, we should just say goodbye to the US and let him build the wall, in fact I would help pay if it went around the entire country and all the airports. If the world applied sanctions against your rogue nation that would make a difference, but that of course will never happen. So, some of us will carry on our #boycottusa, it won't hurt much.
 
Don Diaz

Don Diaz

Zero tolerance of Numpty's
Founding Member
Likes
1,674
#8
We cannot continue to waste time and electrons on the USA, 'the people' need to fix their problems from within. For outwardly that is all many care about anyway....#godblessamerica What about the rest of the world?
 
Rev John Ripsher

Rev John Ripsher

Player in Training.
Likes
68
#10
There are some data figures that say that in Minnesota there are as many guns as over the border in Ontario. In Ontario, there has not been a gun-related death in some years and over in the border to the south in Minnesota, there are gun related deaths every few hours.

Go figure.
 
J.spurs

J.spurs

Well-Known Member
Founding Member
Likes
406
#11
Can't disagree with anything that's been said in this thread. It's not so much that we're a nation of gun fanatics, but we've allowed people of that ilk to have a disproportionate say-so in our politics. There is a very vocal minority that would sacrifice kids' lives just so they can carry their gun-phalluses around. The problem is that we're now so super-saturated with guns, including these god awful assault weapons with the high-capacity magazines, that bans won't have much of an effect for a long time in the unlikely event they actually get enacted by Congress.

I'm a historian of the US by trade, so skepticism about this country's supposed principles kind of comes natural to me. But even I, cynical as I am, never thought I'd see this country so close to the brink of some very bad shit indeed.
 
Dorset

Dorset

The Voice Of Reason
Founding Member
Likes
1,084
#12
Can't disagree with anything that's been said in this thread. It's not so much that we're a nation of gun fanatics, but we've allowed people of that ilk to have a disproportionate say-so in our politics. There is a very vocal minority that would sacrifice kids' lives just so they can carry their gun-phalluses around. The problem is that we're now so super-saturated with guns, including these god awful assault weapons with the high-capacity magazines, that bans won't have much of an effect for a long time in the unlikely event they actually get enacted by Congress.

I'm a historian of the US by trade, so skepticism about this country's supposed principles kind of comes natural to me. But even I, cynical as I am, never thought I'd see this country so close to the brink of some very bad shit indeed.
It would obviously take a long time for these weapons to be removed from non-military owners, the same point was raised when the UK government banned handguns after we had our own terrible massacre of children at Dunblane, but there are thousands less guns now on the UK streets. Of course we still have guns, we still have murders but the scale is incomparable and nobody in this country can legally buy or carry a military weapon. Getting a firearms licence is not easy, you are interviewed by the police, they check your criminal history, they can talk to your doctor, they check your gun safe and how you store the weapon and ammunition, if you are under suspicion of any crime, no matter how trivial your guns are removed until the issue is resolved, that is how it should be.

Yes, it would be many years before AR15s and similar weapons are off the streets in the US, but if the process never starts then it will be an eternity. I think the rest of the civilised world has had enough now, we can't stand by and say it's not our problem, the USA has lost any respect it had and it will be a tough job earning that back when Trump is jailed.

These figures make shocking reading:

US Gun deaths compared to other countries

Even though it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, the United States accounted for 82 percent of all gun deaths.​
We care not just because our fellow humans are being murdered, but because we should be friends and allies, I do not want to be an ally of your country right now, I find that thought repulsive.
 
Yid

Yid

Well-Known Member
Founding Member
Likes
576
#13
Can't disagree with anything that's been said in this thread. It's not so much that we're a nation of gun fanatics, but we've allowed people of that ilk to have a disproportionate say-so in our politics. There is a very vocal minority that would sacrifice kids' lives just so they can carry their gun-phalluses around. The problem is that we're now so super-saturated with guns, including these god awful assault weapons with the high-capacity magazines, that bans won't have much of an effect for a long time in the unlikely event they actually get enacted by Congress.

I'm a historian of the US by trade, so skepticism about this country's supposed principles kind of comes natural to me. But even I, cynical as I am, never thought I'd see this country so close to the brink of some very bad shit indeed.
Think you and I have had this very same convo in a place and time not so far away.

How does your country literally bring itself back from the brink... Or do legislators continue to be apathetic and brush more children's murders under the carpet.
 
Last edited:
Don Diaz

Don Diaz

Zero tolerance of Numpty's
Founding Member
Likes
1,674
#14
I wasn't going to contribute any more to this thread, because there are some very good arguments already made and better than anything I could have said, just one thing though, and a massive over simplification, because guns make it very easy - it's not actually the guns that do the killing, but the people buying them. A two pronged attack of a) removing the weapons and also b) looking at cause would be the way forward for me.

Finally the NRA can have their guns, but what's wrong with having them locked in cases at a registered rifle club or similar, why the oh so free access to anyone over 18, it's a disgrace in a 'civilised' society, .sorry promised not to, that's my lot.
 
The Cryptkeeper

The Cryptkeeper

Player in Training.
Likes
154
#15
As much as I despise John Howard, he did bring in very strict gun laws after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania when a psychopath went on a rampage killing 35 innocent people. This happened only 6 weeks after the Dunblane massacre and both countries worked in consultation to take measures to stop such instances happening again.

Sadly in the USA the NRA runs the show and far too many people take the 2nd Amendment far too literally.
 
deejbah

deejbah

Player in Training.
Likes
90
#16
As much as I despise John Howard, he did bring in very strict gun laws after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania when a psychopath went on a rampage killing 35 innocent people. This happened only 6 weeks after the Dunblane massacre and both countries worked in consultation to take measures to stop such instances happening again.

Sadly in the USA the NRA runs the show and far too many people take the 2nd Amendment far too literally.
I've seen it argued that it was lucky that the ALP wasn't in power, as the kick off against it could have turned it into a partisan political issue and we would not have got the change that we did.
 
The Cryptkeeper

The Cryptkeeper

Player in Training.
Likes
154
#17
I've seen it argued that it was lucky that the ALP wasn't in power, as the kick off against it could have turned it into a partisan political issue and we would not have got the change that we did.

This is quite possibly correct. For me at least, this would be John Howard's legacy if I overlooked the mass sell off of public assets plus the proliferation of racism and homophobia under his right-wing government, the fact that he was the worst Australian treasurer of all time and then tried to take us back to the Menzies years after Hawke and Keating spend a decade cleaning up the mess he left pretending to run the Treasury under Fraser, etc (yes, my left leaning political views get the better of me). ;)

But Howard did get the guns....and that in itself is a magnificent achievement for which Australia will be forever in his debt.
 
Flump

Flump

Well-Known Member
Founding Member
Likes
155
#18
If the youth of America seriously want to see change in their country with regards to gun control then they have the power to affect change. I'm sure they must have an amendment that says people have a right to protest. I have seen something has begun already. If the youth of america united across the entire country I reckon they would create a massive ripple of support worldwide and the US would be forced to do the right thing. Getting the weirdos to hand over their weapons is a whole other matter. I hope they do what;s right, Good post @Dorset
 
J.spurs

J.spurs

Well-Known Member
Founding Member
Likes
406
#19
It would obviously take a long time for these weapons to be removed from non-military owners, the same point was raised when the UK government banned handguns after we had our own terrible massacre of children at Dunblane, but there are thousands less guns now on the UK streets. Of course we still have guns, we still have murders but the scale is incomparable and nobody in this country can legally buy or carry a military weapon. Getting a firearms licence is not easy, you are interviewed by the police, they check your criminal history, they can talk to your doctor, they check your gun safe and how you store the weapon and ammunition, if you are under suspicion of any crime, no matter how trivial your guns are removed until the issue is resolved, that is how it should be.

Yes, it would be many years before AR15s and similar weapons are off the streets in the US, but if the process never starts then it will be an eternity. I think the rest of the civilised world has had enough now, we can't stand by and say it's not our problem, the USA has lost any respect it had and it will be a tough job earning that back when Trump is jailed.

These figures make shocking reading:

US Gun deaths compared to other countries

Even though it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, the United States accounted for 82 percent of all gun deaths.​

We care not just because our fellow humans are being murdered, but because we should be friends and allies, I do not want to be an ally of your country right now, I find that thought repulsive.
Again, I agree with everything you've said, and I'd probably go further. Personally, I don't own a gun, and don't even hunt (though I have many sensible friends that do, and I love to eat game). The irony is that there is really nothing in the Second Amendment or anything else that keeps these guns from being regulated--we had an assault weapons ban from 1994-2004, and gun laws were everywhere from the time this country was founded until just a few years ago. It's the NRA's money--and money alone--that has flooded us with guns by blocking limits. This has been made possible by the same series of court decisions that opened up our system to unlimited donations by ruling that corporations had basically the same speech rights as individuals.

Like I said, the root of the problem is that our political system is totally susceptible to the influence of big donors and the special interest groups and corporations they represent. There are also major issues related our federal system and the ways that state and national laws overlap. That's why I'm feeling so pessimistic that we're ever going to get our shit together. It's a terribly tragic example that raises questions of whether the whole system might be fucked beyond repair. Like, if we can't fix this glaring issue that most Americans want fixed to some extent, where do we go from here? After that maniac gunned down all those people at the concert in Las Vegas, Republicans in Congress wouldn't even pass a law that banned the device that converts semi-automatics into automatics. It was actually around that time that the NRA lobbied to get a law passed that lifted restrictions on mentally ill people buying guns.

It's absolutely mental, and the only way to change it is by voting gun control advocates into office, but the way we're set up is making that very difficult. We're to the point that we're relying on teenagers to keep the momentum going until the elections in 2018.
 
J.spurs

J.spurs

Well-Known Member
Founding Member
Likes
406
#20
Think you and I have had this very same convo in a place and time not so far away.

How does your country literally bring itself back from the brink... Or do legislators continue to be apathetic and brush more children's murders under the carpet.
Yep, IIRC you and I have kids about the same age, so you can probably understand why this just makes me all the more depressed about it and many many other things in this decaying republic. Just hoping they can do better than my generation and older has despite the mess we're creating for them.
 
Boone

Boone

Player in Training.
Likes
16
#21
People just need to vote. So many people in this country have chosen to exclude themselves from the political process in the past, hopefully that is beginning to change. Moreover, citizens need to be voting in every election and not just the presidential years.
 
Style And Glory

Style And Glory

Player in Training.
Likes
207
#22
Interesting article written after the Vegas incident..



David Edward Burke, Contributor

President, www.citizenstakeaction.org

Why The Arguments Against Gun Control Are Wrong
10/05/2017 11:02 am ET Updated Oct 05, 2017


Houston Gun show at the George R. Brown Convention Center


This week at least 59 people were killed and over 500 injured in the deadliest mass shooting in American history. Naturally, the gun control debate — the same one we have been having for decades — has ramped up again, and opponents are using redundant, deeply flawed arguments against even modest proposals like more background checks or a federal database to track gun sales.

Given the current composition of Congress and the over $60 million from the NRA that helped create it, the chances for rapid reform are slim. But that doesn’t mean that the debate should end. Shoddy arguments should be exposed and people who make them should be challenged. To that end, below are five of the most common arguments against gun control, and why those arguments are wrong.

1. Gun Control Violates The Second Amendment

Many opponents of gun control argue that limits on gun ownership are unconstitutional because they violate the Second Amendment, which includes the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Opponents often emphasize the “shall not be infringed” part while ignoring the other clause about the right being connected to a “well regulated Militia,” but nobody’s perfect. Even emphasizing the “right” component, however, if we slow down and think about what an absolute right to bear arms would look like, it’s clear that even the people making the argument don’t believe in it.

If the right to bear arms cannot be infringed, mentally ill felons can own nuclear weapons. Children can own machine guns. Terrorists can bring hand grenades on airplanes, right? Because the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Since nobody who buys into the concept of society actually believes that, it’s clear that everybody believes in some level of gun control, including conservative courts that have allowed assault weapons bans, background checks, and other limits on gun ownership to stand for years. So the clear consensus among ordinary Americans and constitutional law scholars is that the type of gun control being proposed today does not violate the Second Amendment.

Slightly more reasonable people may concede that point and argue that Americans at least have a right to own military grade weapons, claiming that the Founding Fathers intended as much. But the truth is that we have no way of knowing what men who lived in the era of muskets would think of assault rifles. Anyone who says otherwise is some combination of insincere or foolish.

2. Gun Control Doesn’t Work

The two primary prongs of the “gun control doesn’t work” argument are that: 1) gun control does not reduce gun deaths largely because 2) it does not actually make it more difficult for people to obtain guns.

One fundamental problem with this argument is that gun control can mean a number of different things: more stringent background checks, bans on high capacity magazines, licensing requirements, etc. So making the general statement “gun control doesn’t work” without referencing a specific proposal is kind of like saying “this food tastes bad” before know what’s on the menu.

To be fair, both sides of this argument can always find evidence to support their position. Gun control advocates can point to Australia, where both suicide and murder rates plummeted after a national gun buyback of over 650,000 guns in 1996 and 1997. On the other hand, opponents can correctly state that Chicago has strict gun laws but an alarmingly high rate of firearm related deaths. Anyone can cherry-pick a city, state, or country to support their argument, which is why we need a larger sample size.

Luckily, we have a few large samples. One is called the United States. Another is called Earth. And both large samples establish a consistent correlation: places with more guns generally have more gun deaths than places with fewer guns. It’s not always true. But it’s usually true. And if something usually works, it seems foolish not to try it in this country, especially in light of our absurd level of gun ownership—we have 4.4 percent of the world’s population, but 42 percent of civilian owned guns.

As for the argument that gun control won’t make it more difficult for people to obtain guns, Ronald Reagan addresses that pretty well in the letter he signed supporting an assault weapons ban, stating that,

“While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.”

That’s right gun control opponents. Even Ronald Reagan disagrees with you.

3. People Are The Problem and They Will Harm Others Without Guns

In my opinion, it’s a reflection of poor parenting or a subpar education system, but an alarming number of Americans actually argue that banning assault weapons is pointless because without them, criminals would just use knives or cars—as if a society without weapons of any kind would be equally dangerous to ours. For those who do think that, let’s concede that people killed people before guns and will continue to do so even if the supply of guns diminishes. Everyone agrees.

But the key element here is that guns make it a lot easier to kill someone than knives or cars. And it seems fairly obvious that making it more difficult to kill someone is a good thing since it may lead to some life-saving contemplation or a victim who has time to escape unscathed or with less severe injuries. Lastly, gun control doesn’t have to eliminate violence to be successful. A reduction in violence is still a success.

4. But I Need Guns For Protection From Criminals And The Government

First, contrary to what the NRA has led many to believe, gun control does not mean abolishing the Second Amendment or taking away all guns. Doing so would not only be unpopular, but politically and logistically impossible. We are talking about limits, not abolition. So the relevant question is not whether guns can be used for protection because of course they can. What matters is whether we can place some limits on gun ownership—like on certain types of guns or a total number of guns—while allowing Americans to protect themselves against criminals. The evidence indicates that we can.

Take assault weapons for starters. Despite the attention they get due to mass shootings, assault weapons are not a leading killer of innocent Americans. They account for only a small fraction of gun-related deaths—about one or two hundred a year out of over 10,000. Nonetheless, it is undeniable that every year people are killed by assault weapons who would not have died if the perpetrator had a gun without “military style” features. By contrast, there is little evidence that assault weapons are ever essential for self-defense.

Don’t get me wrong, assault weapons can be used for self-defense and they occasionally are. But it is difficult to find documented incidents in which an assault weapon was successfully used for self-defense by a civilian when a lesser gun would not have sufficed. On balance, it appears that assault weapons are far more frequently used for assault than for protection.

There is a similar lack of evidence that owing, say, eight guns, is necessary for protection. If that number sounds absurdly high, it isn’t—the average gun owning household in American has more than eight guns. If that many guns are essential for protection, we should be able to find studies or verified stories that prove it—“My first seven guns jammed but I was able to shoot the intruder with my eighth. Thank God I had eight guns!” Without such cases, it seems as though limiting individuals to say, three guns per person, would still give Americans the same level of “protection” they have today.

Lastly, as to the argument that guns are necessary to for protection from government tyranny, as noted above, gun control does not mean taking away all guns. But more importantly, if there were some unprecedented battle of government versus civilians, what good would guns, even assault weapons do, against the United states military? The military has tanks, drones, aircraft carriers, missiles, cyber warfare capabilities, far-reaching surveillance, and more. In the arms race between government and civilians, civilians lost years ago. Background checks, a federal database tracking gun sales, or a ban on high capacity magazines are not going to change the equation.

5. The Only Thing That Stops A Bad Guy With A Gun Is A Good Guy With A Gun

There is no dispute that law enforcement officers and sometimes even civilians use guns to stop bad people with guns. But once again, the question is not whether a gun can be used for good; the question is whether the protection guns provide equals or outweighs the danger. Polls show that a majority of people believe owning a gun makes them safer, but the available evidence indicates otherwise.

FBI data as recently as 2014 showed that almost eight times as many people were killed by guns in arguments than by civilians using a gun in self-defense. Multiple surveys, including the National Crime Victimization Survey, show that guns are used to commit crimes about ten times more often than they are used to stop a crime. And an analysis of hundreds of shootings in Philadelphia found that people carrying firearms were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those not carrying, likely due to unnecessary conflict escalation. So on balance, guns make situations more dangerous, not less.

When broken down in detail, the most common arguments against gun control share similar traits. They are based on cherry picked evidence, hypothetical situations that don’t happen in reality, or flawed reasoning. Facts and logic both support the idea that limiting the supply of guns and access to them generally makes people safer. Facts and the logic may not gain you much ground with opponents these days, but just like sensible limits on gun ownership, it’s worth a try.
 
Style And Glory

Style And Glory

Player in Training.
Likes
207
#23
It's a simplistic solution yet semantics & interpretation get in the way.
This "right to bear arms" was adopted on December 15th, 1791.
Any sensible soul would agree that it's a different world 227 years later & that maybe the Constitution is outdated.
Yet, it's very unlikely that our generations (those in their 30's, 40's +) will be able to change this 2nd Amendment mentality in the US. It is too ingrained in their psyche & its lobbyists are too powerful.

But I am encouraged & have faith in this "next" generation of children that have come forth & have stated the blatantly obvious that enough is enough.. They will soon be the catalyst to affect change. If not now, for sure once they are old enough to vote.
 
Dorset

Dorset

The Voice Of Reason
Founding Member
Likes
1,084
#24
The total nonsense spouted by the mad president and that lunatic who runs the NRA makes me so angry. They say that 'good guys' with guns are the only way to deal with 'bad guys' with guns. If they had ever had a gun pointed at them they would know how totally terrifying that is. The first time had a gun in my face I am not ashamed to admit that I pissed myself and was totally incapable of doing anything at all. If I had been that 'good guy' there is no way at all I would have been able to deal with the bad guy.

Trump obviously has zero experience with serious violence having dodged the draft and avoided all that unpleasantness in Vietnam. A coward telling teachers that if they were armed the problem would be solved is nonsense. All thus gungho bollocks idiots spout about how they would shoot the bollocks off of someone or they would pull the lever to execute bad guys get right on my tits, it's macho bullshit. Killing is difficult for 99.99% of the population. Killing animals even is sometimes not easy, so I cannot imagine any situation where I could take the life of another human being without fear, serious thought and soul searching, that hesitation or fear totally and completely negates any argument about good guys with guns. Another piece of total fantasy is that if schools were heavily armed then the bad guys would not attack them is flawed as well, most of these people are ill and so deranged that they expect to die themselves, they do not care, they will not be frightened of being shot, it's like demanding the death penalty for religious terrorists who actually crave martyrdom.

Also, how is the 'problem solved' if shooters are kept out of schools, surely they will just carry out these attacks somewhere else. It seem totally ironic that the right wing idiots who want armed police everywhere, drones patrolling schools and military level surveillance are advocating something that goes completely against the hatred of big government and state interference?
 
Dorset

Dorset

The Voice Of Reason
Founding Member
Likes
1,084
#25
A 'good guy' with a gun:

The armed deputy who was on campus at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school when a gunman massacred 17 people stood outside the building as it occurred and did not go in to engage the shooter.​

Even a trained, armed deputy did not 'solve the problem' like the retarded Trump suggest because that bloke is a normal human being and was probably terrified, what are the chances that teachers, who are generally caring, non-violent people will 'solve the problem' if they are armed?
 
Dorset

Dorset

The Voice Of Reason
Founding Member
Likes
1,084
#26
I remember discussing guns with a good friend of mine who was a copper. he told me that if the police in the UK were armed then him and many of his colleagues would resign. He was intelligent. He knew that if the police were routinely armed and used those guns indiscriminately like they seem to do in the USA then the 'bad guy's would be much more likely to shoot them.

  • Arming the Police is supposed to be a deterrent - doesn't seem to be working in the USA
  • Capital punishment is meant to be a deterrent - ditto.
  • The 'War on Drugs' is supposed to save lives - more people die because of the 'war' than are killed by the drugs
When plod shoot a 'bad guy' in the UK it is a huge deal, it is always the last resort and only happens when a senior commander authorises it. In the USA the police kill around 1,000 'bad guys' every year, what the actual fuck? On this page you can see that just 23 people have been killed in the UK by police in 10 years!

UK vs US Police Shootings.

64 times more people are killed by US police than UK police - that is adjusted for population size and is staggering. The culture of violence and casual use of firearms in the USA, our supposed special relationship partner is appalling. The German police who are armed kill less than 10 people on average per year..

This page shows the level of police shootings per 100m people

Police Firearms Use By Country

The USA are second only to South Africa in the number of people killed by police at 342 per 100m, the UK's figure is 5, yep five. The paramilitary US police deterrent is obviously not working as the USA is 14th in the list of crimes per person, the UK, where we don't routinely kill 'bad guys' is 71st. The murder rates are equally shocking, more people are murdered in the US per 100,000 than in fucking Rwanda, 4.88 per 100m, in the Uk it is 0.92.

We are told by our politicians that we should trust and follow the 'leaders of the free world' - fuck that. They seem to think they are living in a movie where it is simple to drop a bad guy with a bullet and you will be like fucking Clint Eastwood and everybody will live happily ever.

Fuck the 'special relationship', time to rethink.
 
skiathospurs

skiathospurs

Well-Known Member
Founding Member
Likes
2,751
#27
A 'good guy' with a gun:

The armed deputy who was on campus at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school when a gunman massacred 17 people stood outside the building as it occurred and did not go in to engage the shooter.​

Even a trained, armed deputy did not 'solve the problem' like the retarded Trump suggest because that bloke is a normal human being and was probably terrified, what are the chances that teachers, who are generally caring, non-violent people will 'solve the problem' if they are armed?
The most highly decorated US army sniper was killed by a "crazy" with a gun,exactly how much training are these teachers going to get??
 
Havocc

Havocc

Well-Known Member
Founding Member
Likes
88
#29
What happens when an armed teacher goes on a rampage? Give the students guns?

What Happens if a student takes the gun from the teacher and kills?

Will a teacher have the courage to kill a child, a child who is on a rampage. No, training to use a gun is much different to training to kill

I was trained to use a gun in the TA, I was an expert shot. One of the reasons I did not join the actual army was the fact that I could not be confident that I would take another persons life. You will never know unless that situations presents itself, with that uncertainty, it was impossible to join.

Restrict the type of guns available and make it harder to get one. It’s not rocket science. It’s worked in the U.K. and Oz.

Although if the Sandy Hook massacre, which killed toddlers, is not enough for a reform, nothing will be. America have already decided that killling children is an acceptable consequence of supporting the 2nd amendment.

Raising the age to 21 and banning bump stops is not enough. But the NRA hold on government is too strong.
 
J.spurs

J.spurs

Well-Known Member
Founding Member
Likes
406
#30
People just need to vote. So many people in this country have chosen to exclude themselves from the political process in the past, hopefully that is beginning to change. Moreover, citizens need to be voting in every election and not just the presidential years.
You're right of course, but don't even get me started on the various ways voters are being basically disenfranchised in this country. NC is basically the national model for this--there is literally no point in voting in congressional or assembly elections in more than a few of our districts because of how they've been drawn. The courts have intervened, but it's hard to call government in this state democratic.
 

Latest posts

Associates

Forum statistics

Threads
590
Messages
27,609
Members
151
Latest member
Tonybelford