BS: Anyone defend US gun law?

Subject: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 02:44 PM

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1322562/-What-Could-Possibly-Go-Wrong-Just-Did-Georgia-s-Carry-Protection-Act-in-Action?detail=email

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 04:09 PM

State laws vary significantly. Federal law might prohibit automatic weapons, but most regulations are state-determined;
in effect there is no overall US gun law to defend.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 04:18 PM

Yeah yeah...

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 04:18 PM

And there should be. America has it's own breed of home-grown terorists, so-called militias, who trade off this. That in and of itself should make Homeland Insecurity extend the anti-terrorist laws to this domain, and restrict the right of the citizen to bear weapons to self-defence and security functions.
There are areas where it remains important to be armed against wildlife, but not in city centres.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 04:45 PM

Where I live, near a large park, I might be savaged by a squirrel. Or more probably by my neighbor's yappy little Yorkshire terrier.

I own guns (target shooting), but I don't really feel like I need them for protection.

And as far as a "well regulated militia" is concerned, we already have a well regulated militia. It's called the National Guard.

Self-appointed militias, usually made up of gangs of "super-patriots" are not "well regulated."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 08:06 PM

most regulations are state-determined;
in effect there is no overall US gun law

And therein lies the problem. There SHOULD be a Federal law to regularize matters across the board.

But the National Rifle Assassination and the Gun Manufacturer's lobby will never let that happen.

Per this responsible firearmms owner and hunter.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 08:32 PM

Hello yea I could shoot long before I learned to ride a bike.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 08:57 PM

Here's a bit of a dilema - as a lifelong progressive lefty I'm very aware of the politics of gun control issues.

I've also experienced the loss of a fairly close relative to suicide by legally owned shotgun.

However, as an average bloke raised on cowboy, war and action movies, guns do hold a definite real fascination.

If Gun ownership was permitted in the UK, I'd more than likely own a collection of the best examples I could afford.

I say this honestly, without shame or guilt.

In the same way I collect guitars as objects of fine design and function.
I'd want to collect guns.

Whatever there is to be said about the dangers of their misuse & abuse.
Guns are still examples of classic design and precision engineering,
like pre digital era cameras, and vintage motor vehicles.

Plus they go 'BANG', which like it or not can be satisfyingly exciting.
Like blasting out a big power chord through a vintage valve amplifier.

Hire a gun range for an hour or two on a weekend, or a rehearsal studio - take your pick.

Truthfully, I'd also feel more secure in old age with guns securely stored in the home.

Though, as gun ownership for responsible citizens is never likely to happen in the UK.

Moral / ideological dilema averted.

The wife can rest relieved there is one fewer range of collectables for me to waste money on.

There's always Discovery channel "Sons of guns" for an entertaining mix of expert precision metal working,
loud bangs and swamp boogie electric guitar music.
Shame the main characters in this series are such ******* *****.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 09:20 PM

The right to bear arms is the second amendment to the constitution. The right to freedom of thought is the first. The second guarantees the first.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 09:25 PM

Not necessarily!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 10:06 PM

In my local newspaper this morning, a letter to the editor said, "Obama is building a private military force to take over control of all of us, as early as possible." This kind of thinking is very common in my area, and it's a primary reason why Americans want to have guns - to protect themselves from their government.

Personally, I think they're crazy.

I've never had reason to be afraid of "bad guys" with guns. But on two occasions, righteous citizens have unknowingly shot in my direction when I was walking frequently-used hiking trails. And when I was working as a government investigator, I made an appointment to interview two righteous but very frightened citizens - they had rifles pointed at me as I approached their house.

So, it's the "good guys" I have reason to fear, and I sure wish they weren't allowed to have guns to protect their righteousness.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 10:41 PM

Gun laws aren't the problem. Gun users are.

I need my T-shirt back that said, Gods don't kill people, People with gods kill people.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 10:56 PM

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. [...] the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.
-- Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960

Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
-- Edward Abbey, "Abbey's Road", 1979

Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power.
-- Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author, in the LA Times 15 Oct 1992

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 11:18 PM

Twats with rifles can stand off the government with the power to "shock and awe"? Boy there is delusional for you!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 11:18 PM

Amen Rap

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 11:30 PM

"Oh, a cowboy needs a horse, needs a horse, needs a horse
And he's gotta have a rope, have a rope, have a rope
And he oughta' have a song, have a song, have a song
If he wants to keep ridin'

Now a cowboy needs a hat, needs a hat, needs a hat
And a pair of fancy boots, fancy boots, fancy boots
And a set of shiny spurs, shiny spurs, shiny spurs
If he wants to keep ridin'

Oh, the fence is long, and the sun is hot
And the good Lord knows that a cowboy's gotta keep
Ridin', ridin' along

So he gets himself a horse, and a rope, and a song
And he finds himself a hat, fancy boots, shiny spurs
And there's nothing more he needs, or can have, or can get
If he wants to keep ridin', ridin' along"

.... oddly enough, no mention of any need for a six shooter !!!???

...there you go, guns must be an optional extra - you don't need 'em !!!




For what it's worth, first time I've noticed that omission in over 50 years of loving
the Roy Rogers version of this song..

[now I really must go to bed...]

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 11:31 PM

Until the political leaders change the constitution. People like me rap and everyone else who took the oath to protect and defend the document will continue to support it.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: LadyJean
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 12:22 AM

I used to live upstairs from a drunk. Every few nights he'd get noisy, I'd lock the deadbolt on my door, and pray to heaven he hadn't bought himself a gun. He'd hurt himself before he broke down my door. But he could shoot through it easily enough. Happily he never bought a gun. Even more happily, he moved.

My sister lives on a farm in North Carolina. I wish she'd buy a rifle. She's a lesbian, living with her partner. In a very rural area. Where feral dogs, rabid animals and rabid homophobes are a real danger.

To amend the Constitution, 1 somebody has to propose the amendment. 2. It has to pass both the Senate and the House of Representatives. 3. The President has to approve. 4. A majority of the states must ratify said amendment. It takes a bit of work. The 19th Amendment passed both houses in 1918, but it wasn't ratified until 1920.

The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, which is a sacred document, akin to the Magna Charta or the Rights of Man, here in the U.S. When I was 9 there was a copy of it on the classroom wall in school. One day our teacher went through it, and explained what each right meant. She was an urban Jew, and probably never touched a gun in her life. But those ten amendments were important to her.

When I was 12, there was a copy of the Bill of Rights in the back of our history text. Once again, the teacher took us through it, and told us what each amendment meant. She also taught us that no right was aboslute. The First Amendment guarantees religious freedom. But even Utah doesn't recognize polygamous marriages. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. But, in those days, that didn't mean you could own a machine gun.

Deer hunting is pretty popular here in Western Pennsylvania. Many of my neighbors are Polish, Serbian, Slovak, or Czech. Their ancestors came from countries where hunting was a nobleman's priveledge. Here anyone who can afford the license and equipment can go out and try to bag a ten point buck. Count yourself lucky if you get through a winter without being served venison. When gun control laws are proposed, the NRA goes to hunters and tells them that the government will take their guns away. It works.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 01:00 AM

I got quite a lot of agreement from both sides of the Pond with the following posts on a previous thread on this topic, so venture to copy them here:-

Subject: RE: BS: Ban anti-depressant drugs, not guns
From: MGM·Lion - PM
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 02:00 AM
The either-or nature of the title of this thread sums up what your trouble is over there. You will tie yourself in knots to find any out from the self-evident fact that YOU HAVE GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR DESTRUCTIVE & DYSFUNCTIONAL GUN LAWS.
If you don't believe me, just look at all the arguments, from too-many-guns-out-there-already-to-possibly-ever-control
to got-to-have-one-in-case-I-ever-just-happen-to-meet-a-psycho-who-has-one that all the thousands of threads on the topic already are full of
Like here ~~ oh, it isn't the availability of the guns, it's the fact that someone who owns one might just be on meds which encourage him to go out & kill people with it that is the trouble.
So we can leave the gun laws alone & just make sure that nobody can get at the drugs.
Well, that's all right then.
♫Oh when will you ever learn...♫

Subject: RE: BS: Ban anti-depressant drugs, not guns
From: MGM·Lion - PM
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 02:10 AM
And if you don't believe me, just look again at that table on that other ongoing thread of #s of deaths over a year by gunshot in various nations -- all in one- or two-figures except for the US, which is in the 2000s -- an unspeakable disgrace to your otherwise great and rightly-widely-respected nation...

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 02:36 AM

I was always led to believe the "right to bear arms" was written as meaning the government has the right to draft you into the army.

This fascination with making it easy to kill humans, whether it be a redneck with a gun and a delusion or a state governor with an execution warrant...

Then some on here get all angry when I tell them to keep banging the rocks together. I have right of residency and whilst I don't take it up, my reasons are simply that I don't need to business wise these days. Yet many friends in Boston and Chicago cannot understand why anyone who could doesn't.

It isn't the easiest country to fathom as an outsider...

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Stu
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 06:03 AM

"is a sacred document, akin to the Magna Charta (sic)"

The Magna Carta is far from being a sacred document; it was a bunch of toffs protecting their own interests from the monarchy. Why it's touted as some sort of milestone in the freedom of ordinary folk is beyond me: it's the aristocracy making sure they're all right. It offered some benefits to certain strata of society but as most of our ancestors were serfs and basically slaves it made not a jot of difference.

Like the second amendment, it was written in a different time and for a different reason and it's invoked these days to perpetuate whatever view you subscribe too; in the US that's you can't be man without a gun to kill people with, in the UK the fact fuck all has changed for us ordinary folk in the last 1000 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: bubblyrat
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 06:44 AM

In modern (but not ,I think current ) times , ALL male Swiss citizens of a certain age were given some military training , and were then formed into an army or militia on "instant readiness" in the event of war . I was assured by a Swiss friend that he kept his rifle /sub-machine gun and ammunition in his bedroom at home ! Apparently, the murder rate (involving firearms) in Switzerland in those days was astonishingly LOW !! Perhaps the Swiss are/were more contented with their lot than is the case in some other countries ?? But in answer to the thread question ; yes, I suppose I do support it !! Up until a few years ago , I owned several weapons,including a fully moderated .410 magnum shotgun, a double-barrelled 12 guage , and a Mossberg 20g pump. At NO TIME did I ever feel the desire or need to use them against my fellow humans , although it WAS very comforting to know that the weapons were there IF there was civil unrest or terrorist activity .

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 07:44 AM

Regarding weapon ownership being enshrined in law....

Am I still required by order of the King to own and practice Longbow ???

Sorry if I've neglected training, but no one from the local council or police has ever mentioned it,
and I've been too busy playing my 'axe'...

I've got a high powered catapult if that's any good......

and a maple Telecaster neck can be a pretty lethal club, especially if you leave the 4 screws protruding out by half an inch.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 09:06 AM

No, you no longer have to practice archery.

http://archery.mysaga.net/archlaws.html

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 09:46 AM

The structure of the Swiss militia system stipulates that the soldiers keep their own personal equipment, including all personally assigned weapons, at home (until 2007 this also included ammunition.

These "personal weapons" include:

Individual weapons

    Sturmgewehr 90 assault rifle (200,000)
    Sturmgewehr 57 battle rifle (2,000)
    Pistole 75 semi-automatic pistol (30,000)
    Pistole 49 semi-automatic pistol (1,000)
    Pistole 03 semi-automatic pistol (Military Police)
    Glock semi-automatic pistol (Swiss Grenadiers, ARD 10, FSK-17)
    FN Minimi
    Heckler & Koch MP5 submachinegun
    Brügger & Thomet MP9 machine pistol
    Tuma MTE 224 VA machine pistol
    Remington 870 multipurpose shotgun (known as Mehrzweckgewehr 91)
    Sako TRG-42 8.6 mm anti-personnel sniper rifle   (Scharfschützengewehr 04)
    PGM Hecate II 12.7 mm anti-materiel heavy sniper rifle (Präzisionsgewehr 04)

                           (Info from Wikipedia)

I could not. without permitting, own or keep a machine pistol, an MP5, or any weapon with fully automatic capability. Don't want one -- couldn't afford the ammunition even if I had one.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 09:49 AM

Oh, I couldn't have the FN Minimi either -- that's a light machine gun.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 10:52 AM

> The Magna Carta is far from being a sacred document; it was a bunch
> of toffs protecting their own interests from the monarchy. Why it's
> touted as some sort of milestone in the freedom of ordinary folk is
> beyond me: it's the aristocracy making sure they're all right.

I agree with some of your analysis, MC was never a social contract between the government and the populace.

The reason the MC is a milestone is because it is the first time law was held as applying to an absolute ruler. It was the first step on the road to our current position - which although it can be much improved is still far far better than it was 1000 years ago.

Take a look at all the failed states around the world (especially those with dictators) and in a lot of cases applying a modern Magna Carta would probably improve things.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 10:54 AM

Does "defending the document" include making excuses for the massacres in school yards?

Fascinating, the breadth of humanity you get on Mudcat, from normal people to frankly disturbing views.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Janie
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 11:29 AM

I've been participating in an on-line discussion sponsored by News21 for the past 4 weeks - invited through my participation in the Pubic Insight Network. Has been interesting. News21 has now gone live with their multimedia reportage. It is extensive - and maybe not that informative in some ways, but does reveal the deep divide in the USA regardin issues related to guns. The discussions on the forum in which I participated were very informative regarding attitudes and the philosophies and paradigms that guide folks views. I have come away from it with the understanding that there are some rivers over which it is going to be very, very difficult to build bridges.

Here is a link to the News21 project. http://gunwars.news21.com/

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 01:02 PM

Again, y'all are confusing the laws with the abusers thereof.

It isn't the gun LAW that is at issue in the US, the same legal rights to weaponry exist elsewhere.

The issue is that Americans have come to believe that they have an inalienable right to Happiness directly, rather than to the pursuit thereof.

And that using violence is seen as a viable second or first or third option, rather than as a last resort.

And that using a gun, in particular, is macho, cowboy-ish, admirable and cool, like all (Marlboro) men should be and all women admire and be round-heeled for.

If people had realized Bush II was a redneck and not a cowboy, he wouldn't have gotten nearly as far.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 01:18 PM

"the same legal rights to weaponry exist elsewhere"

Not here in UK, they don't; and we continue to gaze in amazement at the results of yours. I repeat, yet again that 2 y.o post of mine on the "Drugs or Guns" thread --

just look again at that table on that other ongoing thread of #s of deaths over a year by gunshot in various nations -- all in one- or two-figures except for the US, which is in the 2000s -- an unspeakable disgrace to your otherwise great and rightly-widely-respected nation...

How do you go on living with it? Justifying it? Making all sorts of excuses for it?

Just look at those numbers again; & for god's sake stop and THINK!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 02:25 PM

If you are framing the Second Amendment in the heritage to Magna Carta, then you must recognise that it is specifically feudal, in that it is in the service of Law, which the Charter had a lot to say about, establishing the first neutral legal system in the UK for hundreds of years. And to claim that the Charter is uniquely of benefit to the Barons is nonsense, if you read it: it had much to say about the Laws of Succession and of individual property at all levels of society, much of which was against the Barons customs and practices.

The evident consequence of the NRA argument in that it allows all to shoot it out at will is actually in denial of the first principle of the Constitution, the enjoyment of life. It also denies the ancestry of the Constitution, in the Charter. Clause 39 remains to this day: "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land."

And in plain common sense, I think you now have adequate pragmatic precedent to call their bluff.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 02:47 PM

I'm not saying they exist everywhere else; I'm saying that where people have the right to weaponry they don't go around shooting each other except here. Look at the number of guns owned per person in Canada - yet they don't go shooting each other over what music someone is playing in their car! That kind of gun violence, or shooting up a dorm full of women because you couldn't get as laid as you felt you should have been, takes an American sense of entitlement to not have to put up with annoyance, an American sense of violence as an acceptable response to annoyance, and an American attitude that shooting people who annoy you is something to be proud of/aspire to.

It is not the legal right to own the gun that is the problem.

Many, many Americans are legal gun owners and not over-entitled, trigger-happy would-be cowboys.

Criminalizing them doesn't make the problem people any less overly entitled, less trigger-happy, or less cowboyish.

The attitude is what needs to be addressed.

Nobody has the right to happiness. Nobody is entitled to use a gun on someone who has merely lessened their happiness.

Making guns illegal won't deal with that stuffy and arrogant attitude any more than making cigarrettes illegal would detract from the Marlboro Man's appeal to popular American culture.
Make smoking uncool and it diminishes as a problem.

If we could make shooting people a shameful act...

But oh, yeah, we're not allowed to shame people any more.

Pah.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 03:20 PM

Could not be more wrong most area's that have the most guns... Like in PA where I was from.. Gun violence is non existent. Unlike Chicago or LA Where the right is essentially removed

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 08:53 PM

Everyone i know owns and arsenal and never hurt anyone for any reason. Good people which the vast majority are don't do criminal activity. But criminals do and no law would unarm them

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 09:15 PM

Look at this, and please, ignore the media hype...one school shooting does NOT change the trend but it does produce low-grade hysteria.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 09:29 PM

Just out of curiosity, why is this yet again being "debated" on Mudcat? Nothing said here will change anything anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: LadyJean
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 09:32 PM

I most fear being shot when I'm driving down Glass Run Road during hunting season. It's a wooded area and there are always a couple of people in there after deer. I hope and pray that they're sober and good shots.

Many Americans consider it their God given right to go out every fall and bag a buck. Including a neighbor of mine, who had an impressive arsenal, which he was wise enough to keep locked in a safe, where his elderly mum wouldn't get at them, and possibly shoot her foot off.

Anyway, I think they have hunters in England too, don't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 10:27 PM

Lady Jean mine are in a safe also. Most responsible people use them to secure their weapons. You are right. And there is nothing wrong with venison. I don't hunt anymore because it is just me and my missus and she don't like venison

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 01:59 AM

"I most fear being shot when I'm driving down Glass Run Road during hunting season"

The thought of being shot never, ever crosses my mind because, in general, we don't let people here have access to firearms. That's called sanity, BTW.

LJ, we don't have 'hunters' in the way you're thinking - we have a small number of people, mostly farmers, who go out shooting pheasants, partridge, rabbits etc. using shotguns. No-one has, or uses, high-velocity rifles, nor does anyone have hand-guns.

Americans only think they need guns because they've already got guns. Over here, where sanity has prevailed, we know that nobody needs a gun when nobody else has a gun.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 04:38 AM

Apologies, we do have 'hunters' (sic), there are a few remote areas where very nasty, unpleasant people go to get a hard-on shooting beautiful deer, but those are very much a tiny minority.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 04:59 AM

well you'll be relieved to know that your gun laws are the main reason, i won't visit America. It seems like a scary place.

All these freaks on the crime channel. Not just the celebrity killers like Bundy and the Green River bloke. You seem to have lunatic serial killers on every street. Every episode starts with, 'Bongville, Illinois.... a sleepy little town....a great place to bring your kids up in , and walk the the dog........But the we meet THE DOG WALKER MANIAC....nobody had noticed that he practiced quick draw in the supermarket and had car stickers saying I WANT TO KILL LOTS OF PEOPLE...

Look at poor John Lennon.

Defend free speech.....you have got to be joking. None of you fuckers listen to each other - so it hardly matters what you're saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: kendall
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 06:45 AM

What we need is a cure for "Testosterone poisoning."

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Stu
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 07:19 AM

"well you'll be relieved to know that your gun laws are the main reason, i won't visit America. It seems like a scary place."

Well, that's a mistake. Americans are a wonderful people and I've never seen a person with a gun whenever I've been, including out in the backcountry where there are bears etc. I did see a 'no guns' sign when I went into a museum in West Virgina and that was a bit of a shock (what sort of person would take a gun into a museum anyway?).

So it's not a scary place, but it is a scared place. People have guns because either they are frightened or they're cock-wavers. You don't need an AK47 to hunt bears (as one chap on the TV was doing recently) and no-one needs automatic weapons full stop. These are designed to kill people, nothing else.

The big cultural difference between us and the US is the acceptance in the states of a culture of ultra violence, to the point where killing unarmed people, school massacres and tots being shot by accident have become everyday occurrences that are accepted as part of society.

I can't wait to get back to the US, and never think of guns when I'm there as I don't when I'm here. If my behaviour had to change because of intimidation by folk with guns I'd probably think twice though; there's enough fear in the world without exposing yourself to it for no good reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 07:32 AM

You ought to fear the cops in the good old US of A, the seem to go round shooting unarmed black kids for no good reason.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 09:31 AM

I'm with Stu.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 10:06 AM

According the the Small Arms Survey for 2014 and in spite of its many errors and criticisms, the US is ranked #1 world-wide in small arms ownership. The UK/Wales is #88, tied with Bulgaria and Honduras and trailing Switzerland (#4), France (#12), Canada (#13), New Zealand (#22), Northern Ireland (#25), Australia (#42), Ireland (#70), and Iran (#79 and tied with Israel).

Let Britain beware! Your former colonies are coming to get you!

(Please note that this survey of small arms is an estimate, albeit a good one, and includes as small arms morters of less than 100mm, light machine guns, and submachine guns. I'm certain that Canadians possess many 81mm mortars in civilian hands, probably as many as in the US.)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 10:15 AM

Out of curiosity, I just did a quick google to find out if it is even possible for responsible UK citizens
to join an accredited shooting club to train in recreational handgun marksmanship;
hiring weapons for use restricted to club premises, and owned by and supervised by qualified shooters

.. and it seems the simple answer is NO !!!

So if I want to experience the sensation of firing a magnum 45,
I'll just have to shut my eyes, hold my hands forward in a firing position,
and pretend, and shout BANG, while the wife swiftly smacks me in the wrists with a heavy wooden tea tray....

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 10:43 AM

"Let Britain beware! Your former colonies are coming to get you!"

Nawww - we'll send a gunboat down the Nile, that'll have the buggers shitting their pants! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 11:15 PM

"well you'll be relieved to know that your gun laws are the main reason, i won't visit America. It seems like a scary place."

I maintain that the laws are not the problem, it's the over-entitled cowboy mentality that is.

Don't be afraid to go to places with guns. Be afraid to go to places where guns aren't for hunting.

And the tea-tray should smack you in the hand, no? More like the end of a bat?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Aug 14 - 11:46 PM

Guns exist. Many people want to shoot them.

It seems to me a rational, morally mature gun law would be some kind of sensible compromise
between the different extremes of US and UK legislation ???

.. ok, call me naive...

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Aug 14 - 12:29 AM

I made the mistake of posting a complaint to my local newspaper about gunshot vandalism in my area, and said it seemed that too many people had too many guns. Here's one response:

Joe Offer, this has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with some moron who dosnt understand how to deal with life's problems in a normal way! No you you feel the need to attack gun owners, and if your so against guns just move away from Placer County, we all love our guns in this area, and there here to stay!!!

I note that those who defend guns most vehemently, are often lacking in grammatical skills.
Is there a connection?
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: LadyJean
Date: 22 Aug 14 - 12:35 AM

There are people in the U.S. who hunt to put food on the table. Among them my sister's neighbors.

What the Second Amendment says is: A well regulated militia being necessary to any state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.

When that was written, most towns had a militia that met on the village green and drilled regularly. Most Americans were farmers. Guns were single shot muzzle loaders.

The world has changed,

There was a time when even the NRA understood that, and pushed Congress to keep automatic weapons out of the hands of folks like Baby Face Nelson. Not a bad move. They became hardline in the sixties.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 22 Aug 14 - 03:04 AM

Perhaps Max's funding of Mudcat issues could be solved overnight.

There are enough shitkicker redneck attitudes in this thread to persuade The NRA to sponsor Mudcat....

Guns, capital punishment and spray on cheese. The three main obstacles between having right of residency and taking it up. (I came very close to moving out to Monterey a few years ago.)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Aug 14 - 08:53 AM

I know Americans are wonderful people. I have seen them on television.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Aug 14 - 11:52 AM

PIMPL!!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Aug 14 - 01:29 PM

Mrrzy, PIMPLE is spelled with an E : )

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Aug 14 - 01:35 PM

Okay, I looked it up in the acronym dictionary; I hope you have a spare pair of pants. : )

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 14 - 07:47 PM

Perhaps it demonstrates how the US and UK are two Nations separated by the same language is the different meaning of The Arsenal in each language: both are religions, but of very different backgrounds.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Aug 14 - 01:19 AM

Up The Gunners!

Down with the dysfunctional gun·laws which shame a great nation.

≈Michael≈
lifelong Gooner

I repeat yet again my post from the old "Drugs or Guns" thread—
"just look again at that table on that other ongoing thread of #s of deaths over a year by gunshot in various nations -- all in one- or two-figures except for the US, which is in the 2000s -- an unspeakable disgrace to your otherwise great and rightly-widely-respected nation"...

For clarification just in case needed by some benighted hillbillies somewhere: Arsenal Football Club, the greatest in our football League, are nicknamed "The Gunners", and their supporters are called "Gooners"

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 23 Aug 14 - 03:05 AM

Dang! - I'm gonna have to cry myself to sleep yet again because some lily-livered Limeys don't like the laws in my country. Once asleep, however, I'll doze peacefully knowing that "on the other side of the pond" (China? Ghana? Toronto? Jamaica?) people who happen to speak English but have no relation to me whatsoever are hard at work culling statistics from the Web and solving my country's problems with the application of good old John Bull Common-Sence. Shucks. If only they were so generous with sharing their recipe for Brown Sauce.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 23 Aug 14 - 08:41 AM

No need to cry me old love.

You are irrelevant anyway.





Whoever you are

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Stu
Date: 23 Aug 14 - 10:05 AM

"If only they were so generous with sharing their recipe for Brown Sauce."

You're not ready for that, you need civilising. Get rid of the guns, grow and up and we'll consider it.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Stu
Date: 23 Aug 14 - 10:05 AM

'grow up'

Bah.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Aug 14 - 10:56 AM

"Could not be more wrong most area's that have the most guns... Like in PA where I was from.. Gun violence is non existent." olddude 20 August 3:20

Dan, that statement didn't ring true to me so I looked it up. Here is what I found:

Pennsylvania Gun Violence Fact Sheet
"Pennsylvania has been one of the deadliest states over the last 10 years.
• From 2001 through 2010 there were 12,941 gun deaths in Pennsylvania—the fourth-most gun deaths of all 50 states.
• In 2010 there were 1,307 gun deaths in Pennsylvania, or roughly one every seven hours.
Every two days, three people are murdered by guns in Pennsylvania.
• There were 501 gun homicides in the state in 2010.
• From 2001 through 2010, 5,061 people were murdered by guns in Pennsylvania. That number is as many as all U.S. combat deaths in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined."

Guns_PA.pdf

Now, it is quite likely that the stats in Pennsylvania were quite different when you were growing up. As they were, in most places.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 03:05 AM

Ebbie's post above was a while ago now Olddude.

In the words of John Lennon, shot by a man with a gun in The USA...

"A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words."

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 01:15 PM

Your could be right Ebbie. I grew up in Central pa in the mountains. Back home we still have no gun violence. But in philly that does restrict them I think that is what makes your stats off. Philly is gang violence and thugs with illegal guns

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 01:16 PM

Ebbie what is the status in your state of alaska where there are no restrictions at all? I don't know but I would be interested

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 01:28 PM

I have a different take. Me I am highly trained. I like to level the playing field. If an attack is done on anyone when I am around. I shoot back and I would bet I am a far better shot. Hopefully that will never be necessary. Cop's are not everywhere

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 01:38 PM

Here in the UK, No-one ever even considers the possibility of being shot at, it doesn't happen because no-one has guns - and therefore no-one needs them. And we don't need geriatric ex-forces and ex-cops talking tough about what they'd do 'If', because 'If' simply doesn't happen.

In 67 years, I've never seen a firearm except in the possession of the armed forces, police firearms-unit officers, farmers and individuals involved in farming and sport-shooting. And that is a great comfort.

You're brainwashed. So brainwashed you don't even know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 01:39 PM

Even my Amish close friends have an arsenal of firearms. This is a big deer hunting area. I don't hunt anymore. I just like to watch them now. My backyard is full of deer and turkeys

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 02:31 PM

Dan.. at one point you said your weapons are "in a safe"... then just above you say: "If an attack is done on anyone when I am around. I shoot back .."

Surely you don't run home to a safe when there 'might' be trouble? Do you carry a weapon when you leave the house...in that area where you also seem to say there is little gun violence?

In any home where access to a gun is touted as important to home security, that gun must be readily available and loaded to be of any use... and the user must be sure of the reality of a threat...etc.
There was just a trial of a man who shot a 19 year old woman on his porch because "he was scared" at her loud knocking.
It just doesn't add up that easy access to a gun does much good in most situations. Even in that shooting of the Congresswoman in Arizona, a young man with a 'legal' gun almost fired at the wrong person in the chaos.

I can just imagine having nervous old ladies being expected to learn gun-oriented 'self-defense'.

The NRA's slogan that "the solution to bad people with guns is good people with guns" is nothing but hyperbole designed to protect financial interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 03:19 PM

"Even my Amish close friends have an arsenal of firearms."

You've made a fair number of pretty scary statements in these 'gun-nutcase vs. normal people" threads, but that's one of the scariest.

I'm so glad I live in a country where we aren't all living in fear the whole time.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 04:18 PM

I know what you're saying John - but let's face it. they must like it that way. its a cultural difference.

they have queer ideas about all sorts of stuff

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 07:28 PM

My shooting was trained by the military (infantry officer with Special Forces after me), and I've shot at International competition level with them. But I don't regret not continuing, given the alternatives.

There are certain aspects of OldDude's postings which make me think he's never been properly trained. Yes, keep your weapons in a safe, but also keep your ammunition in another somewhere else in the house, and ensure that neither is obvious as a weapons cache. That way everyone can be certain that a Pistorius situation is not accidental. Indeed, in the UK the military tend to keep breech blocks/firing pins separate unless there is a reasonably imminent need to have the weapons useable, and of course that needs good record keeping so the right block goes back in the right weapon.

And if he's not been trained properly, then not much of what he says can be taken as good practice, sadly. Paranoia is not in and of itself a qualification for continuing the way they have: he needs to present local statistics for his neighbourhood to argue his case. In our precinct area in North London, there has been just one weapon incident in a year, someone with a knife. No need, for all that we were on the front line in the 2011 riots.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 08:17 PM

I. Have concealed carry permits good in 26 states and as far as trained.. Just ask the navy seals. Yes my firearms at home are in a safe when any of my grandchildren are anywhere around. When my Mrs and I are the only ones sometimes not. Not good for criminals to test it. Some times I carry some times I don't again not smart to test it

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 08:19 PM

Amish have an arsenal because they hunt this is a hunting area with lots of woods

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 08:28 PM

By the way they make all kinds of rapid access handgun safes. That Are kid proof I won't explain how they work. But if you were knowledgable you would not make such statements
Again talking about something you know nothing about. I don't argue with my doctor about medical stuff. Don't argue with a certified instructor.. Oh I forgot I wasn't trained Lol

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 08:29 PM

Hey gnu and rap hear that I have no training right

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 08:30 PM

And bill I respect your opinion. We just differ that's all

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 08:38 PM

Remember a few years ago when jacqui wanted a machine gun dummy round for her grandson. Remember my response. I go to my basement and make one. I sent her two. Yup I like target shooting with everything and I have the license. Those were 50 cal rounds

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 09:11 PM

And rahere the only safe way is to pull the slides and bolts I did that when my kids were growing up and ammo can be stored in another locked area yes with them
I even disassembled my wheel guns when they were little. They are adults I have no such reason anymore as it me and Mrs and outside the military you folks know nothing of firearms. Here we grow up with them and do know how to store them for heaven sake you do not know what you are talking about

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 09:13 PM

Read this, y'all- might just save your asses:

http://www.populist.com/20.14.crowther.html

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 09:17 PM

And I like every other shooter I know even reload our own rounds oh the folly #@#@+

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 09:45 PM

olddude-
In what way would any of the proposed limitations on gun availability or magazine capacity or automatic operation or background check requirements negatively affect you? Or Kendall, for that matter?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 09:50 PM

Doesn't affect me dick I want them to get rid of the gun show loophole that would make a big difference in making every one safe

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 10:12 PM

What pisses me off is we have 20000 gun laws on the books. And most all negated by the gun show so most of us say enough laws until you get your act together and make one that makes sense

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 24 Aug 14 - 10:18 PM

And carrying a firearm is no fun. I said before a pocket watch is far more comfortable. However there are reasons for a firearm at times
I leave it at that

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: PHJim
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 01:47 AM

Mrrzy - PM
Date: 20 Aug 14 - 02:47 PM

"I'm not saying they exist everywhere else; I'm saying that where people have the right to weaponry they don't go around shooting each other except here. Look at the number of guns owned per person in Canada - yet they don't go shooting each other over what music someone is playing in their car! That kind of gun violence, or shooting up a dorm full of women because you couldn't get as laid as you felt you should have been, takes an American sense of entitlement to not have to put up with annoyance, an American sense of violence as an acceptable response to annoyance, and an American attitude that shooting people who annoy you is something to be proud of/aspire to."

***************************************************************
Gun owners in Canada are mostly hunters. Handgun owners are not allowed to carry a loaded gun in an automobile or on their person. If they are transporting the gun to a gun club, the ammunition must be separate from the weapon. Guns in the home must be stored in a separate location from the ammunition. Concealed carry permits are all but non-existent and I have never seen anyone out of uniform open carry except when hunting.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 02:44 AM

"And carrying a firearm is no fun. I said before a pocket watch is far more comfortable. However there are reasons for a firearm at times
I leave it at that"

From my post 24 Aug 14 - 01:38 PM:-

"You're brainwashed. So brainwashed you don't even know it."

QED.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 02:45 AM

Alaska has a very high rate of alcoholism and that may be a partial cause of the gun violence statistic. There are surely other reasons also, among them isolation, the perceived need to carry weapons in defense against wild animals, guns used in hunting everything from grouse to moose and bear, even subsistence hunting for seals and whale. Besides which, Alaska is a very outdoorsy kind of place and there are a lot of macho people in it who pride themselves on their ability to handle whatever is thrown at them. I doubt there are many snow machines and dog sleds that don't have a rifle or two tucked away.


"The analysis finds that Alaska:
Had the highest rate of firearm deaths in 2010
Had the highest rate of children under the age of 18 killed by guns in the 10-year period from 2001 through 2010"

****************************************************************8
"Alaska exemplifies this trend by having the second-highest rate of overall gun violence and some of the weakest gun laws, ranking 12th-weakest in the country according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
The 10 states with the weakest gun laws collectively have a level of gun violence that is more than twice as high—104 percent higher—than the 10 states with the strongest gun laws.
Of the 10 states with the strongest gun laws, nine are among the 25 states with the lowest levels of gun violence, including 6 of the 10 with the very lowest levels."

"Louisiana, as of 2010, had the highest rate of gun violence."

http://www.americanprogress.org/press/release/2013/04/03/58669/release-alaska-has-the-second-highest-rate-of-gun-violence-in-the

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 02:54 AM

I suppose it's the combination of the law allowing people to have guns and people like Olddude having them that makes a frightening situation. Yeah, we have idiots who go around saying they used to be in the paras etc but their only weapon is a pint pot or keyboard. They might glorify bang bang but they aren't allowed to have any.

You can get firearm licences in The UK for hunting and target sport, but it involves an interview with the police who also inspect your safes. I can say with full certainty that if Olddude said any of his scary shit to the interviewing policeman that he has said above, he would be classified as not fit to hold a firearm licence.

But he doesn't live here. So whatever Mickey Mouse registration licence they give out where he lives is different. Licences here specifically preclude self defence. They also preclude most lethal firearms that would be of interest to armed criminals anyway.

We agonise over gun crime here, yet the figures for The UK as a whole don't even reach that of a single LA neighbourhood.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 06:10 AM

We agonise over gun crime here, yet the figures for The UK as a whole don't even reach that of a single LA neighborhood.

There are a lot of things where the The UK as a whole doesn't even reach the amount in a single LA neighborhood...

Which should tell you that comparing the UK and the USA has very little value. Or at least make you wonder why it is not two other different nations that are being compared so much in this forum. Or why the comparison usually comes from the UK side.

The UK and the USA are completely different countries. I don't know what makes people in the UK think people in US give a damn about what they do in The Shire. The Shire is not The Hood, and we don't have many Hobbits here. I live in Los Angeles County. "Across the Pond" is Asia. Across the Border is the developing nation called Mexico. Not far off is one of the hottest places on earth. For most people, England is a blip on the radar only rarely, and even then the discussion is not how she should drive on the right side of the road to come in line with the rest of the world's nations.

I don't have firearms, I don't want a firearm, and I don't give a crap about firearms. But this thread is just another excuse for Britons to sit around "advising" the US from the butt-hurting seat of the Empire. It serves no purpose. Richard started by posting a URL (I'd call it a link if I could click it) with absolutely no commentary….Why? Surely there are plenty more threads of this shit. Well, because it is just another way to say you hate America and you reckon you're superior because you live somewhere that's not USA. How lucky you all are to have olddude play along; he was able to provide the sample-type of the Culturally Backwards/Brainwashed America, to kick around like a football and to be the example to nitpick and launch off with endless repetition of the same irrelevant Hobbit opinions.

Unless it's just caring, humanitarian interest. Is that it? You people are just so concerned about the lost lives - and you're too old to go to the Amazon rain forest to hug trees - so you've found a cause: lobby remotely for gun law reform in USA by slowly winning over socks'n'sandal folkies with fresh testimonials of "I ain't got no guns in West Stains, and I'm totally fine!"

My only guess is that British media is far too obsessed with things happening in America - and especially the most sensational things - that some are just so sick to death of "[Britain-mediated] America"…and who could blame them?…that they have to lash out like frustrated media-staurated Americans lash out at yet another Yahoo! "article" on Kim Kardashian's ass. But we don't start threads on Kardashian's ass, see?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 06:20 AM

Looks like you nailed 'em Musket!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 07:32 AM

all very well Gibb - but it could be your kids getting mowed down on school. your life partner getting picked off from the clock tower.

that British people feel compassion for the neatest and dearest of the numerous people killed by your dopey gun laws doesn't make them hopeless tree hugging idealists.

it really has to bite you on the arse to get through to your brains.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 08:09 AM

What brains? I was astounded at that ranting load of codswallop from the generally quite rational Gibb. What can have rocked his boat, then, I wonder, to make him throw all his toys out of the pram like that?

Sounds to me a bit like a bit of post hoc rationalisation of what he knows in his ❤ to be an untenable position.

And he'd better understand that, whatever delusions he might harbour, the rest of the world hasn't got this irresistible urge to be as much as possible in every way like the Good Ole US·of·A. Guns represent one of those ways that we thank our ✵✵✵ on a daily basis for being different!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Stu
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 08:14 AM

"The Shire is not The Hood, and we don't have many Hobbits here."

"The Hood". That is simply hilarious.

"Is that it? You people are just so concerned about the lost lives"

Wow, so much hate in this nastily little sentence. Sneer away, you insular, isolationist child.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: pdq
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 11:41 AM

In big round numbers, approximately...


800 gun deaths per year are accidental

11,000 gun deaths per year are homocide

300 are judged "justifiable"

200 are "undertermined"

20,000 are SUICIDE

Some areas like Alaska are almost all accidental or suicide.

Washington DC, almsost all murder.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 11:49 AM

Yeah I do have fun sometimes pressing buttons breaks the work monotony Lol. Sometimes I play along. What I want now is an uzi.. Don't own one of those

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 11:50 AM

Shot lots of them however. 9mm

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 11:55 AM

I don't own a musket but I do own a. 338 lapua

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 11:58 AM

I wish you were my uncle olddude...

I'm a bit of an anomaly - a rather militant left wing Brit,
who openly admits he'd love to experience firing off all the weapons he sees in movies and on the Discovery channel.

But obviously under safe controlled conditions of course.


Aparently a recent US movie production crew 'shooting' in England
were surprised to discover they were not allowed to film with the guns they wanted to use on screen
because they were banned outright here in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 12:15 PM

Hey punkrocker come over I will take you to the range. I can let you try a fully automatic. 30 cal

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 12:27 PM

Well... Gibb did protest a bit....ummm... intensely, but boiled down, he simply made some of the points I have made in the past about America bashing- especially when threads are started with the sole purpose of pointing a finger at some aspect of the US that we (most of us) already are quite aware of.

We KNOW guns are a problem here. We KNOW there are embedded cultural, legal, constitutional and practical barriers to sensible changes which would benefit us all. We also know that sarcastic, superior and basically useless explication of our flaws, with no attempt at friendly, helpful suggestions, are not going to cheer us up or inspire us.

The problems ARE deeply embedded in a Catch-22 situation of interpretations of the 2nd Amendment coupled with the complex requirements to change that amendment and the full force of hundreds of millions of $$$$$ groups like the NRA are willing to spend to lie, distort, and frankly, BUY a continuation of the status quo!

I... and many others.. do everything we can to effect rational changes. But all those forces are entrenched in interlocked ways to defy rationality, we get weary..... and then someone else starts a Mudcat thread pointing to something we not only know, but have just been writing our congressman about or voting to get rid of him for supporting the idiocy of most gun laws.

I am reminded of an old sign I saw:

"If things don't improve soon, I may have to ask you to stop helping me!"

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 12:38 PM

You are correct bill.. So many times I explained the gun laws and how many we already have only to give easy access to criminals via gun show. Each new ineffective law that us law abiding citizens follow. I can hear the criminals say.. Hell yes pass more of them. You see they want to be the only ones.
Me I am going to the range today. I promised spaw I would try out for top shot his favorite tv show. Rap should also. We use to talk for hours about that show. I don't think they can beat me witha hhandgun but I will get spanked with the automatics and rifles. Need practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 12:41 PM

And if Richard just wants shit slinging threads. Then sling away. I am your Huckleberry

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 12:46 PM

I do a lot of UK bashing in some ways. Credit where it is due I suppose.

It isn't the situation wherever, it's defending the indefensible wherever it happens to be. Thats what I am seeing here. Getting touchy about your laws is one thing, putting nationalistic pride before morality is quite another.

Gibb Sahib speaks as if nobody other than Americans know America. Putting aside the cringing "hood" reference, which was at least funny, the international business machine has sold The USA to the point where its values are exported.

Perhaps thats why it comes under such scrutiny.




Personally, I like the bit about making kids put their right hand on their breast and chant some absurd notion about "land of the free." Up till fairly recently, I lived both sides of the ubiquitous pond on and off, and to be honest, I decided my kids stood a better chance being raised over here for just about every reason.

But don't let that stop big business interest keeping your kids unsafe and your unhinged weirdos armed to the teeth.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 12:56 PM

Which reminds me I really do need to practice with a musket. They used them on top shot one challenge. Black power rifle and smooth bore brown bess
Haven't tried one in awhile

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 01:01 PM

You'd have to be in fine fettle to play with me. I'd make your eyes water....





By the way, despite everything, Bridge was being provocative starting this thread and I am as guilty as the rest in perpetuating it.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 01:06 PM

Facts Worth Defending:


Guns are fun
from the startling adrenaline high
when they bang
to the magical distance they can
make a hole.

Guns are fun
when their power can give you
the power of
life or death or crippling injury
at your touch.

Guns are fun
to target practice or compete
with great skill
or supply your family with food.

More kids die
from their bullet wounds
than Cancer
In the good old USA.

That's a fact Jack.

dh

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 01:08 PM

this right to bear arms - how far does it extend? Are you allowed to have bombs, nuclear devices, poison gas....?

It reminds me of Dirty Harry. What DOES have happen before you take this situation seriously?

I know all countries have inherent problems. We have a class system that lies at the root of all our problems. Everything from the economy, the law, the education system is there to bolster and preserve the fortunes of a fortunate and very short sighted few. nothing short of a guillotine seems to be the answer.

Still its a quiet sort of thing. With your set of problems, you'd think the sound of guns going off would be a sort of wake up call!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 01:22 PM

Do behave Al. You give them decent tea and instead of brewing it with boiling water, they drop it in the harbour.

How can you expect them to behave with guns?






(If I stop posting, remember me over a pint...   I have just finished sound checking in a marquee and its pissing it down. I have had to isolate the earth for the active speakers and my guitar DI because of a hum. When I get on stage later, it'll be far more scary than guns, trust me....)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 01:28 PM

Much of the NRA position of defending the status quo is based on the fallacious "slippery slope" argument, exemplified in the "If gun are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" slogan.

The trouble is, they have made that slogan into a self-fulfilling hypothesis. They have promoted gun a scared so many people and allowed almost anyone to buy guns, that if all law abiding citizens gave up their guns, there WOULD be 100,000,000 illegal ones still out there.

Thus, we have a practical matter of how to manage an already awkward situation that the NRA has perpetuated for business reasons. Think about it.... the weapons industry has the problem of how to make money tomorrow! If everyone is convinced they have all the weapons they need, what will you sell them?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 01:30 PM

btw: We actively sought and found "cures" for many potentially fatal childhood Cancers.

Seeking and finding cures for potentially fatal childhood bullet wounds is something a rational person would not defend against.

2nd amendment fundamentalists have a sick & warped idea of Fair Game, collateral damage and murder in pursuit of their guaranteed freedom hobby.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 01:40 PM

"2nd amendment fundamentalists have a sick & warped idea of Fair Game, collateral damage and murder in pursuit of their guaranteed freedom hobby. "

- Or they simply choose not to think about the actual families and victims who pay the ultimate price for the gun hobbies and lobbies so dear to their 2nd amendment heart.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 01:43 PM

What drives us nuts over here (I'm sure I'm safe speaking for others) is the constant, vociferous defence of the indefensible that gets thrown out by US-ians every time there's a gun-related 'incident' over there (and there are lots).

We know, from our own experience, it's perfectly feasible to live safe and happy lives, free of fear and paranoia, without firearms - we all do it all the time. Yet every time there's an incident in the US out come the all-teeth-and-trousers meat-heads with their brains in their balls, rattling on about 'the bad guys' and 'mad-dog killers', talking like John Wayne, and telling us we don't know what we're talking about.

Compare the numbers of gun-deaths in our respective countries - it's QED.

We know that it's not simple, that there's a huge cultural implant to be overcome in the minds of many Americans. But hand-wringing and moaning that it's impossible isn't what the world expects from the US - you used to be the 'Can Do' nation, what's gone wrong with you?

There are a lot of people outside the US (I'm one) who love your country and its people. But it's becoming increasingly difficult to love and respect a nation of people who think it's their right, and perfectly OK, for every citizen to possess firearms, the only purpose of which is to provide the means to kill fellow citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 01:55 PM

I'll be sorry for getting mixed up in this, but here goes....

Which preacher of light from the land of Shakespeare will tell us wayward former Colonials exactly what practical steps we should take to eliminate gun violence in the USA?

Don't buy guns? There are so many out there that many of us feel the need for self-defense. Just in case.

Repeal the Second Amendment? As I've said elsewhere, this will not happen in our lifetime - or our children's - or ever. And if it did, how would local, state, and/or federal governments collect the now outlawed weapons without shooting it out with many of the tens of millions of owners? The situation would be a dream come true for every heavily armed, radical-right and anarchist hate group in the country. And then what?

Outlaw the civilian firearms industry? See above.

Look at it another way. With 300,000,000 Americans and allegedly a similar number of firearms in private (including criminal) hands, why is the annual gun-death rate so incredibly *low*? Even if it is sky-high compared to, say, our Canadian friends, it is still low. The average American is extraordinarily unlikely ever to be shot at by anybody.

The last time I checked, life expectancies in the US and UK were within about a year of each other. Does anyone believe that the UK has the edge because there's a constant hail of bullets over here?

I've never known anyone who had a gun pulled on him under any circumstances (and believe me, they would talk about it!), and I know, through the news only, of just one person who was shot within a mile of me - and that was in a big American city. (It happened in 1970.)

Even in the most violent inner cities, the lead is not constantly flying. Other kinds of crimes and general misery are the main problems, as they are in every slum everywhere.

Americans are hardly the kill-crazy nuts some like to think we are. So let's be a little less pitying, patronizing, snide, and self-righteous in our criticisms. OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 02:09 PM

No, don't repeal the second amendment. Just read the fucker in the first place.

It's the language of the day for the government to expect people to defend it, or be drafted in modern language.

We have a "healthy" firearms industry here, but in the same way we produce plutonium but don't sell it on street markets, we don't sell guns to the public either.

No, sorry Lighter. On this, as with capital punishment and food, nothing to stop us looking down on you and smiling condescendingly.

Keep banging the rocks together eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 02:27 PM

Musket.. Come over I will change your mind we can go to the range and ppoke holes in targets. And no kidding my sheriff buddy has a brown bess and you can shoot that.. It is fun.. The swat team lets me rip off clips of fully automatic weapons on the range. I can have them let you try. Guns are no different from anything else can be used or abused

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 02:37 PM

Ebbie: I've been Googling statistics about causes of death, injuries, and hospitalization in Alaska and you live in a wild and dangerous place!;-)

In broad terms, you are several hundred more times likely to be killed at work there than in say, DC or NYC, and the "Intentional Death Rate" is really shocking. However, the homicide rate is actually the same as that for that gun-law laden "Bleeding Heart Liberal" state New York(4.4 per 100k of population)(and I say "Bleeding Heart Liberal" in quotes because I am one). The numbers are shockingly high because of the high rate of suicides, and many to most of those are gun deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 02:37 PM

Everyone likes to say how outdated the 2nd admendment is about maintaining a civilian military. Every wonder why american soldier's are so skilled. Yes their training. But most are already skilled marksmen long before joining. The document still applies. The us army sent investigators into Iraq because so many bad guys were shot in the head
They feared execution but the end result was they could shoot and damn well. A needed skill in war

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 02:42 PM

Want an example.
Look up carlos havcock who was an old country boy. You can see how one man could damage the enemy by skill. His rife was a deer gun

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 02:45 PM

if you stick to air rifles, you can shoot in your own back garden. i do. no need for a rifle club. and you'd be up shit street robbing a bank with one. or attempting to massacre people.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 02:53 PM

Not true al my air rifle fires a. 155 pellet @1080 fps. A. 45 handgun is 900 fps
The pellet gun takes a person out just as quick and has no sound to speak of. They are not toys I use to hunt squirrel with one

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 03:09 PM

Sorry spelling is carlos hathcock

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,punfolkrocker
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 03:35 PM

hathcock will travel ????

sorry, too terrible a pun to just ignore....

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 04:10 PM

At Walmart I can buy all sorts of BB guns and air rifles that shoots a pellet up to 1,800 - 2,100 feet per second. No license or waiting period required.

However you won't find them at a Walmart in Maryland or other Commie socialist liberal pinko gay tree hugging progressive states. You will find them in real American stand your ground states where murder is legal as long as you were at some point scared of your victim. Well, ya also gotta be white which goes without sayin.

They don't say how many pumps per shot it requires to fire one pellet at 2,100 FPS.

Someday there will be a truck tire attachment that will make your air rifle fully automatic. Hoowee , that wood dang sure liven up the 'ol double D truck stop/shootin range on a hot Sat. nite.

Ya gotta admit it . Guns are fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 04:54 PM

Sadly they don't sell rocket propelled grenades cause if legal I would have them also

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 04:57 PM

OldDude, I was military, infantry, I taught firearms handling, I shot at competition level. Yes if you must have firearms around it is essential you are not only thoroughly practiced in using them, but also be proficient in it - and the two are not the same thing, some people are practiced in missing every barn door in sight, making you a danger to the general public and utterly safe from the point of view of your target. The question is whether it is necessary to have firearms around. The UK shows it is not, with a very few exceptions. Me, I'd not shot for over 20 years when a retired colonel literally threw a rifle I'd trained on at me, without warning: I caught it instinctively at it's centre of balance and cleared it in a single movement, without thinking. That's the level of training I had, my body remembered.

I'm not clear from your postings what your training was. You say the SEALs know you - which is not the same thing as having been a SEAL. You say you and your family and the military - which again suggests you were not. I think you've made up your safety protocols, which means you're potentially a danger. I'd love to be wrong, but who trained you and how?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 05:07 PM

Somebody should get out a ruler so the rest of us don't have to listen to this shit. I'm sure Olddude knows what he's talking about. I think Rahere feels like he has to keep proving himself. You might know how to shoot, but you never quite figured out when to shut up, have you?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 05:20 PM

Lol jeri like I said honey if they want shit threads so be it. I will answer any gun questions
Ya know swat uses all the new fangled automatic weapons but nothing beats the Thompson. . 45 cal high rate of fire easy to clean and will work even if it was in the mud
I would want one if I had to do house to house search and destroy. Tends to creep up on full auto if you don't lean into it

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 05:22 PM

Carlos Hathcock was not a typical "old country boy". He was unusual even among trained snipers in his patience, skill and stubborn perseverance.

Owning and handling firearms does not always result in "already skilled marksmen"

-----------------

Backwoodsman: you say "We know that it's not simple, that there's a huge cultural implant to be overcome ..." and then follow it with "what's wrong with you>?"

WHAT you? Nothing is wrong with many of us! What would you have us do? A "can do nation" is a slogan, not a simplistic answer to the very things you admit are "not that simple".
*WE*& are not "a nation of people who think it's their right, and perfectly OK, for every citizen to possess firearms,..."...*some* are that way, and they have bought congressmen on their side! What part of the Catch-22 situation of 2nd Amendment, legal process & "states rights" coupled with Gerrymandering and fear mongering do you not understand?

We see constantly various media reporting, explaining and educating on the issue... but those who want to keep all those guns do not WATCH those media... and they have a vested interest in NOT seeing a sane view of the situation.

I sometimes think that a 'liberal' buying an AK-47 and shooting up NRA headquarters might get the message across, but they would just claim it proved their point..

somehow, images of Sisyphus & King Canute come to mind

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 05:31 PM

Best carry gun i think is the glock 23 but not fo. AA novice. I carry one. 40cal no external safety just trigger so it's fast but many have put a new dent in their ass by not avoiding the trigger when holstering. I know rap will say the 1911. 45 but it's big and heavy. The. 40 cal or 10 mm round what it really is I think superior to the. 45

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 05:41 PM

I told a cop 10 years ago don't shoot reloads in your glock unless you really know how to make them. Blew his gun up. The 1911 will feed anything but not the glock on reloads. I do my own but check every round closely

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 05:56 PM

Hey Bill, lots of problems solved get rid of the gun show and most street guns will dry up

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 06:06 PM

Ever hear of the civilian marksmanship program. That is supported by the us government.
Why cause they want more skills in shooting 2nd admendment for skilled soldiers

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 06:07 PM

Sorry,olddude, I but with all due respect, am a bit doubtful about your "shot in the head" story. It's a bit vague. It is close to impossible to go back and make an inquiry into manner and cause of enemy casualties. It's hard enough to get accurate information on our own.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 06:27 PM

Stim it is true.. It was stated by a general when he was talking about the military on tv. The first Gulf War there was a concern
That the kill rate from head shots was so high
How do they know. Every engagement there are drones and helmet cams and the outside human rights folks filed a complaint that was investigated

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: pdq
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 06:37 PM

Any Grateful Dead fans out there?

Yes, Jerry Garcia was a ...true libertarian

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 06:58 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Marksmanship_Program

No...I never heard of it till now. Seems like a fair idea until you read that they sell surplus military rifles to 'approved' club members.

I could not find any data on how many clubs there are or how many go on to military service... but I did find a disclaimer about how stories of its demise were not true. Maybe it's not a well-attended setup.

No matter what the truth is about claims of military accuracy and the virtue of particular weapons, I find those to be only superficially relevant to whether & how civilians should be allowed to buy and own various weapons.

I totally agree that gun show laws should be revised and strengthened, but I have no faith that it would solve much for very long. I suspect it would just lead to more smuggling and private trading. It would at least make it more trouble to make certain sales and 'possibly' strengthen penalties.

If all new guns were stopped tomorrow, gun crime would continue and the many millions of illegal guns would circulate for many years.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 07:09 PM

Last year, there was this article about the CMP. I suppose that's what the disclaimer was about.
I'd have to research what has happened with that supposed plan.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 08:20 PM

copied from Facebook for olddude: *grin*


I took that Zimbio "Which Very Rare Disorder are you?" quiz and got

Gun Turretts Syndrome- The compulsive shouting out of the names/ calibers/firing rates of various firearms during normal conversation.
GTS patients have difficulties at airport security, Sunday church services and banks; and are frequently mistaken for a member of a militant survivalist clan.

" Wanda, don't HOWITZER know how you feel about dating coworkers THOMPSONSUBMACHINEGUN but I've got COLT45 a couple courtside LUGAR Laker's ticket for Saturday and 12POUNDER I was wondering if you AK-47 were busy."

GTS patients are advised against jobs as a hostage negotiator or Yoga Instructor

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Janie
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 08:57 PM

Quoting from one of the many articles in the link I posted earlier - a pretty exhaustive coverage of issues, positions and opinions related to gun control/rights in America, published by News21.

"It's the beauty and the danger of America's Constitution," said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a Second Amendment expert. "Its great generalities are so vague that anyone can interpret them in light of their own experience and their own interests. And indeed, the Second Amendment is one of the most confusing textual provisions of the Constitution."

Says a lot about how formed USA people's positions already are, that, as best I can tell, no one here has taken even a peek at it. Can't say as I blame you. It is extensive and the lay-out is a bit confusing. I haven't read or watched the entire yet, and have spend several hours over several evenings so far going through it.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 09:46 PM

Rahere you don't know the first fucking thing about me do you. I put my experience and training against yours anytime by a factor of 10 . But why are you so worried about america do you live here no but you have fun with total shit threads started by an Asshole. I served my country in ways you could not imagine. And no I won't explain. I don't answer to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 09:52 PM

And for the past 8 years Richard threads have costed mudcat in the loss of some major talent that left. So if that is all you want in threads then lets play I am here

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 10:01 PM

Just watched "The Washington Snipers" (2013)
"Blue Caprice" (original title)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2027064/

A low budget indie movie - Not a great film.
Underwhelming, patchy narative, requires patience to watch to the end.

But interesting and relevant to this thread.

No idea how well researched or accurate this movie is.

It depicted downtrodden ex military guys.
One was shown to keep his arsenal of guns in a chicken wire cage in his garage,
secured only with an unlocked padlock.

These were the weapons taken and used by the snipers.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 10:11 PM

Punk those guys were terrorists for sure. That is why good guys need to be vigilant.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 10:16 PM

Jeri.. Apologies for out burst.. Seems all mudcat wants is bullshit threads anymore so people who been here a long time like me say bring it on you get what you serve
Now we need some religion threads and political ones how about it Richard.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 10:19 PM

Punk I think the Washington killer got his weapons at a gun show if I remember properly. That's a law we need to get rid of

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 10:50 PM

A hamilton 992b Pocket watch is much easier t . Carrying than my glock

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Janie
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 10:56 PM

Darlin' Dan, how about taking a deep breath. xo, Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 11:04 PM

Yup Janie I am putting my guns down now honey xx love but a martin Guitar is the best and I will not budge on that one d-28

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 11:07 PM

I suspect some of the people are forming opinions about guns in the US based on TV shows and films and haven't spent time here. It's not reality. Questioning is good; believing, not so much.

PFR, here's one review of "Blue Caprice" on rogerebert.com.

But I do think that when you base a story on life while removing or altering a lot of key details, you should fill the voids with images and ideas that are just as fascinating. "Blue Caprice" doesn't do that. Granted, it's fiction, so it's under no obligation to educate or enlighten us, but we should at least get a sense that it understands the people and story it's transforming into fiction, and that it has something to say. There are times where it's hard to say if the film is erring on the side of subtlety or just playing it artfilm-cool, so that you can't accuse it of failing to do things that it is, in fact, trying to do, and failing.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 11:20 PM

Dan, you don't have to do a house to house search....so you don't really need the Thompson.

you seem to be as nuts about guns as I am about guitars.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 11:40 PM

Big al no not really. I like shooting but fishing is my passion along with song writing. And I don't need a Thompson. My D28 martin is enough. My arsenal is because everyone dies and leaves them to me. The handguns I bought for target and competition

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 11:53 PM

I'm reminded of my mother saying that something or other was "as easy as shooting a duck in the chest" - we *think* she was reaching in a strange Hungarian way for "as easy as shooting fish in a barrel" but were too busy falling around on the floor laughing to ask.

Also misread the above post as "my 28h martini is enough" so I should really stop now.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Aug 14 - 11:54 PM

28th, sorry

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 26 Aug 14 - 02:44 AM

Let's let this one go, Dan, because it isn't worth getting worked up about.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 26 Aug 14 - 02:54 AM

Fishing with guns is cheating...

I hear what you are saying about target fun Dan. It doesn't change my view.

When I left school, I joined the RAF although due to them wishing to tinker with apprenticeships, I left after three months. However, during my recruit training at RAF Swinderby, I got my marksman certificate with a 7.62 SLR. I know the "thrill." I remain appalled that the thrill of a target is replaced by the thrill of another human for those who take their hobby slightly more seriously.

A friend seems to spend most weekends at Bisley, the home of competitive bang bang here in The UK. Fair enough. He talks of his latest Italian guns, which wood makes the best stock, the pitch of the barrel rifling etc in the same way I am rattling on to everybody I know about my latest guitar, hand made to my specs.

The difference is between target sport and bearing arms. I am sad to note that you have no issue with the former.

I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 26 Aug 14 - 03:38 AM

Latter......

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Aug 14 - 04:07 AM

poor old John Dillinger - he had to risk his life to raid a police armoury to get hold of a Thompson......nowadays it seems it could get the lot from a gun fair.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Aug 14 - 04:16 AM

Anyone seen anything of Bunter lately? He started this, and then walked away.

Typical.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Stu
Date: 26 Aug 14 - 04:17 AM

"he simply made some of the points I have made in the past about America bashing"

It's not America bashing Bill, it's gun nut bashing. I'm sick of saying how much I love the US and it's people so feel free to form your own opinion of my intentions (hum?).

In truth, all many of the UK posters are doing is pointing out that life is better without the constant fear gun ownership causes. We know this, because we live in a society that, by common consent doesn't want guns on our streets. The guns that are on our streets are either in the hands of the filth or criminals. The coppers frequently make mistakes with guns and shoot the wrong person, and there is always a big discussion/official inquiry etc afterwards.

The guns in the hands of criminals tend to be used against each other. I know this as a relative is a DS with the Met and once worked on gun crime and it was gangs shooting each other, albeit not often.

It's worth getting a view from the outside, although I understand that any criticism of the the USA, however well-intentioned is seen as some sort of act of belligerence by some of the locals and causes the sort of ultra-defensive reaction seen on threads like this. That and fear.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Aug 14 - 04:31 AM

Precisely, Stu. Couldn't agree more.

Unfortunately, on sensitive topics like this one, over-sensitive Americans seem to have an unfortunate tendency to bite the hands of those who are trying to be their friends.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 26 Aug 14 - 05:23 AM

Why bite when you can shoot from a safe distance?

Sorry.. Couldn't resist it.

Reminds me of The Simpsons where Ned Flanders complained that his wife was always underlining text in his bible and not her own copy. Homer said "it's a good job you don't have guns in your house."

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 14 - 11:37 AM

My apologies to all and sadly big al is right. You could get a Thompson at a gun show but not fully automatic. However the gun is too easy to make fully automatic. That is same for the Ar15 or ak47. We need to get rid of the gun show. The checks and balances don't apply at them and it is a big loophole for criminals

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Wesley S
Date: 27 Aug 14 - 10:11 PM

I'm surprised this story hasn't been posted before:



Arizona Shooting Range Instructor Killed by Girl With Uzi

BY HASANI GITTENS
A shooting range instructor in Arizona was accidentally shot and killed by a 9-year-old girl who was learning how to shoot an Uzi, authorities said on Tuesday.

Charles Vacca, 39, was teaching the girl how to use the automatic weapon on Monday morning at the Last Stop outdoor shooting range in White Hills, Arizona, when she pulled the trigger and the kickback caused the gun to lurch over her head, investigators said.

Vacca was hit by a stray bullet and airlifted to University Medical Center in Las Vegas, where he was pronounced dead late Monday. The girl was at the range with her parents at the time, but their names were not released.

Sam Scarmardo, the manager for the Last Stop's shooting range, told NBC News that "the established practice at most shooting ranges is 8 years old and up with parental supervision."

He said Vacca was a "great guy, with a great sense of humor" and called him "very conscientious and very professional."

Scarmardo said that the range has never had a similar incident in over a decade of being open — "not even a scratch."

"I just ask everybody to pray for Charlie, and pray for the client, she's going to have a hard time," said Scarmardo.

The Arizona Department of Public Safety referred inquiries to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, which didn't return calls for comment.

Ronald Scott, a Phoenix-based firearms safety expert, said most instructors usually have their hands on guns when children are firing high-powered weapons. "You can't give a 9-year-old an Uzi and expect her to control it," Scott told the Associated Press.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 14 - 11:19 PM

Couldn't reply sooner due to the crash

"It's not America bashing Bill, it's gun nut bashing..."

Perhaps that's what most of the people really think, but that's not what they post. I know, Stu that you in particular have clarified that you DO admire much about the US, but certain members have for years started threads of posted to them with phrases simply describing this country categorically as flawed in this way or that way.... and when it comes to gun laws, a casual reader would think that most Americans are either wild fanatics about owning guns or almost criminally complacent about tolerating them.
It may be that online time is so demanding that folks just can't be bothered to type longer explication of their complex views, and they just assume "everyone will know what we mean". I dunno....
   I have on occasion wondered about various quirks of the UK, but I try not to do so without context, my reasons, and my willingness to be educated. When it come to the maddening US gun laws...or lack thereof... all I usually read is "you crazy lot! What are you thinking?" I KNOW what the gun nuts are thinking..all 27 flavors of them, from pure collectors of antiques to rabid hoarders of guns & ammo. SOME of us are doing what we can in the face of this madness to educate, deflate ... and elect sane congressmen who will get us out of this.
In the meantime, please help by showing some sympathy and understanding of the historical & political dilemma we are in...


thank you in advance

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:29 AM

Yeah. I thought of this debate when I read that "the land of the free" were free and easy with giving a nine year old girl an Uzi to play with.

That's two more families grief stricken in the name of an unfortunate industry and it's shareholders.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 04:17 AM

Jeri, people are dying for real in the States because the gun lobby make the rest of us shut up, and I find that seriously wrong. Those of us who are good shots, who might have done it as a, well, I don't think it should qualify as a sport, but perhaps as a meditation, have had to give up because of the nutters, and that entitles us to a voice, to criticise the irresponsibly loose US mentality which keeps it that way. Yes, I have shot at Bisley too, I know the fascination and deny myself it.

Where I left this before the Cat outing, was asking OD to substantiate his authority. He wouldn't, which suggests he can't. I should out of courtesy, as I'll never ask someone to do something I can't do myself, this guy's a personal friend, I worked with him and a number of his colleagues, heck I paid their salary and pension, for twenty years - I can talk about him because he's become well documented with a chapter all to his little self in a major work on the Squadron. I wasn't one of them, but very close to them - and you never leave, even in retirement, they sought me out. My honorary rank is Colonel. I am, noduff, two degrees of remove from the US President and UK Prime Minister, I call someone and they call the bosses. I'm joining the Savile Club at the moment, spook central. A right dick, in other words.

Now, for all that OD has a reputation here, none the less it doesn't qualify him to dictate on weaponry from a position not perceptibly different from that of the parents whose poor kiddy just shot Vanna. My target is his ilk, not him specifically, but one has to start somewhere and he's responsible for more than a little claptrap on this subject here, which has its consequences.

Most guns are designed for adult hands and adult judgement, real accountability. That poor lassie had fired that Uzi in single-shot mode beforehand, until Vanna moved it to automatic. That to me was an accident not just waiting to happen, but inevitable, and still, still, even now, nothing's happening. Death by 9 year old, the hammer of the recoil of the entire magazine being loosed off in a fraction of a second needs big hands, big arms and a big body to control it. It's exactly the point I was making, that you must have correct protocols, and guns in the hands of kiddies are not correct protocols, they do not have the strength to be competent handlers of the weapons. The first weapon I fired was a .303 Lee Enfield No4 when I was 14, and that was only just in my control: as a single shot weapon, it was OK. There is no way a nine-year old female could control thirty-odd 9mm bullets, the recoil would have been double or triple her body weight, everyone around, the cameraman and her parents included, was at risk. We have been shown film in that context of kids as young as four pulling the trigger of weapons, admittedly held rather plus or minus by an adult, blasting live rounds in the general direction, one hopes, of the butts. But the way one of those guns was flopping around, some of the rounds must have missed the butts, and from that kind of assault weapon, might travel up to three miles (yes, I was taught how to design a rifle range, that was the safety zone behind the butts in the 1970s, I don't know if it's changed since). God help the neighbours and the local livestock.

That is a worked example of why the US protocols are incorrect, murderously so. If you must use guns, train with them under the orders of a qualified Range Officer working to strict discipline and routine, and not involved with the shooters. "With a magazine of five rounds, Load". Check all weapons are pointed downrange and under the control of the firers. "At the targets in front of you, five rounds, single shots, Fire." Try to count the bangs. "Cease fire, make safe." Check all weapons remain pointed down range. "Unload, open breeches." Working from the right hand endof the firing line, positively check each weapon is cleared, no bullets in the magazine or breech, weapon still pointed downrange. As each is cleared, the firer can make the gun safe, closing the breech block and applying the safety, and withdraw from the firing position without crossing in front of any weapon not yet made safe. Any untrained firer changing position other than minor adjustments to the grip causes an immediate "Cease fire".

Half the problem is that familiarity has bred abuse. You may be competent, until the other guy has proved it too, you must presume he is not. A trained man never minds the repetition and check, fail safe. Which is why the UK doesn't have guns, because that is safest.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 04:33 AM

Sorry, forgot to sign my last.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Stu
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 04:39 AM

Bill, I don't know what to say mate. If you want me to be uncritical of a society that sees it as acceptable that a 9 year old girl fires off a machine made for the sole purpose of killing other human beings then fine. Does the US consider itself above any criticism from the people it shares the planet with, making it's presence felt beyond it's borders in a million different ways, good and bad?

If UK catters say the gun situation looks bonkers it's because in a country where guns are very, very tightly restricted the whole thing does look bonkers. Everyone with a gun thinks they're the ones whole should have them for whatever reason (being trained, ex cop, ex forces or whatever). If you don't understand how insane this all appears as we read about another dead gun victim, then I just don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 07:59 AM

Like the poor sound engineer in Omaha who discovered getting mixed up in police propaganda's not the wisest of moves. I know many here would think on occasion of shooting the sound engineer, but actually doing so is another thing entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 08:57 AM

If UK catters say the gun situation looks bonkers it's because in a country where guns are very, very tightly restricted the whole thing does look bonkers.

This isn't just a UK perspective. There are lots of other countries with relatively loose legal controls on gun ownership where people don't make guns into objects of religious veneration in the way Americans do, and where nobody would ever think of telling anyone else they had an obligation to own one or to think about them all the time. The US is not unique in its gun legislation, but it is unique in its gun culture.

It doesn't make any sense to try to fight that culture by legislation. Nutters like olddude will kill anyone they perceive as trying to take their toys away. What does make sense is to spread the perception that gun culture is a sick aberration, and that owning a gun and obsessing about them means there's something wrong with you. So I welcome incidents like that twisted Uzi instructor getting his Darwin Award. Trying to pass a law against things like that happening is utopian stupidity and a complete waste of time; the more such events occur, the less credibility the gun culture will have. So we want MORE of them.

It needs to be seen as a decluttering issue. Americans need to start realizing they've got dangerous lumps of metal junk in their cupboards that they'd be better off without.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Jeri
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 08:58 AM

Rahere, you have OD categorized as an "ilk" because it's easy for you to lump him in with a bunch of people you don't like and dismiss him.

I'm quite sure he knows what he's talking about.
You, on the other hand, spend WAY too much time talking about yourself and your friends, and your stereotypes for me to believe you.

I can shoot, too. Neither that, nor the qualifications of a guy in the UK, has nothing to do with gun laws in the US. I figured Richard started the thread as an easy troll, so I suppose this "mine's bigger than yours" stuff is par for the course.

Out.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:03 AM

Looks like my point is made above by the dickswingers. The US police shoot people with their hands up - or with toy guns - because they want to be robocop.   Nutters want to keep their penis substitutes until they are taken from their cold dead hands. Pretend frontiersmen claim to need to hunt deer to survive. Wannabee Clint Eastwood film roles brag of their prowess.

Call that a civilisation?

I didn't need to say anything, Primitive Tribesman. They spilled their hatred and conceit all by themselves. Oh, as it happens, I have a marksman badge too.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:06 AM

> a 9 year old girl fires off a machine made for the sole purpose of killing other human beings then fine.

That was hardly the case, my friend. The girl was not trying to kill anyone, or practicing to kill anyone.

Which is obvious.

She is the victim of foolish, unthinking parents, an inept instructor (who paid with his life), and the stupid owners of the gun range who (it seems) allow 9-year-olds to shoot submachine guns that they can barely hold properly. TV News tells me this is not uncommon, though accidents are, luckily, extraordinarily rare.

We do need tougher laws, and Olddude is absolutely right about the damned gun-show loopholes, which (among other things) one of my state's senators has promised he will *never* interfere with. (Get this: he's being opposed by the Tea Party as "too liberal.")

But in the shooting-range case, the only necessary law would be a law against idiots. The tragedy was 100% preventable by people exercising reasonable caution and common sense (which most of us the US have plenty of, by the way).

What were the parents thinking? Are they able to pay for the extended counseling this poor girl will require? And how about the instructor's family? There are certainly possibilities for civil lawsuits in various directions.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:15 AM

All political arguements aside.
First and foremost, this killing by a 9 year old is a 'Health & Safety' in the workplace issue.

Sadly the instructor has payed for his, and his employers, negligence with his life.
This may also now become an insurance and expensive lawsuits issue..

Bullets and Burgers !!!???

If this was not already actually happening in the real world
it would be a near perfect imaginative construct for a satirical comic book & movie franchise.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:23 AM

No, she isn't the victim of bad parents or inept instructor. She is the victim of being born in a country that is not as advanced as many Western countries, a country where guns are a way of life.

We see it on our continent too where Eastern European countries have neither the will nor freedom from criminals funding politics to elevate the country to a more respectable position.

The millions of Americans who find gun culture abhorrent might do their community a good turn by standing up, being counted and see how many votes The NRA can deliver their congress members, senators and governors once apathy leaves for the coast.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:58 AM

I read yesterday that, although there are as many guns as people in the USA, those weapons are in the hands of 1 person in 4. So the brain-dead gun-nutters are outnumbered three to one FFS! So why in Dog's name aren't the 75% who dont have guns kicking the shit out of the 25% who do? (I'm speaking metaphorically there, BTW - I mean kicking the shit out of the gun-nutters by the ballot box and by marching on Congress and the White House).

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 10:29 AM

" If you want me to be uncritical of a society that ..."

Stu.... I'm not sure if you really, really read what I said. I am protesting against wholesale criticism of **a society as a whole**. I sit here and criticize the gun laws themselves, and by extension the mind set of individuals & groups who propagate them and defend the idiocy!
"politicians" are criticized in the same way, but there are honest, decent politicians who are trying to work within the system to mitigate the damage done by stupid, dishonest ones!
   I simply hate blanket statements which make no attempt to recognize this, or to do any creative thinking that might help! I have explained the Catch-22, circular logic our gun laws have us buried in.... what would you have us DO?


". Does the US consider itself above any criticism from the people it shares the planet with, ..."

See what I mean? The US doesn't "consider itself" at all. Individuals do... and sometimes groups do, as a collection in supposed agreement about some issue.
That sort of phrasing of your criticism makes those who basically agree with you on the crazy gun situation... like me... to be "guilty by association".

You may criticize a situation, or a policy, or an analysis, or a stupid piece of logic...etc, as long and clearly as you wish.... and I will join with you on most of it regarding guns.

Read Lighter's post above. He makes similar points to what I'm trying to say. "A law against idiots" would be nice.... but you see the problem. The idiots ensconced in congress would simply pass a law defining 'idiot' as anyone dumber than themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 10:46 AM

Bill you are right. Like gun show laws and lack of federal standards. Even so nothing can protect against the terminal stupid. Some drive drunk some take pills and some own firearms. Some all the above. There are those also who talk the talk and others who walked the walk with firearms. Oh spent five minutes in the army and know everything. But know nothing in reality. Now Richard how about a good ole troll religion thread

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 11:01 AM

There is an answer, Bill. Charge the parents with Murder 2 Manslaughter as they are responsible for their daughter and she killed someone with their full knowledge of what she was doing. Maybe that will dissuade anyone else from walking that route.
Being an idiot is natural. Not allowing for it in what you do is criminal.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 11:03 AM

I have no problem with that

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 11:19 AM

That may well be an answer to THAT particular incident... and a charge 'might' deter a few others from letting very young kids handle 'some' guns.... but I'd bet it would have little effect on those who firmly believe that their kids should 'learn about guns'. They would just agree that handling Uzis should wait a few years.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 11:31 AM

I wouldn't be surprised if the "Sons of Guns" and "American Guns" workshops
haven't already R&Ded and manufactured modified Uzi and AK-47 stocks and handgrips for primary school kids...???

I've probably missed those episodes....

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 11:51 AM

https://news.yahoo.com/american-police-departments-losing-tons-military-grade-weaponry-174620174.html

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 11:52 AM

....maybe ammo with smaller loads for less kickback....

Wouldn't surprise me, either,

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 11:52 AM

Punk they already have conversion kits to turn high power full automatic to. 22 cal. Red Jacket is awesome. But notice their clients. Mostly military and police. Nobody needs full auto. I shoot them with sheriff when I don't have to pay for the expensive ammo. Others are FFL license holders. Bill there is nothing wrong with teaching your kids to target shooting or hunt. I went hunting with dad at 8 and could shoot but only highly supervised . But with a kid and high power full auto.... Terminal stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 11:57 AM

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152688861644171&set=a.41417569170.48044.563084170&type=1&theater

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 11:57 AM

Even though reloading your own is a quarter the price it is still an expensive Hobby if you had the full auto license

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 12:01 PM

Still the thin end of the same wedge. We tried it in the UK, didn't work, so we're taking a complete time out from everything and maybe in a generation will look again. Hopefully by then the response will be well-deserved ridicule.
For those who say, "Oh, but we need it", exactly the same thing was said when it came to outlawing the short sword a couple of hundred years ago. Probably the same as when they outlawed the club a few thousand years back. But if you don't want to go there, keep bashing the rocks, guys.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 12:03 PM

And what kind of ass takes a nine years old to guns and burgers for full auto 30 cal fun. Charges of child abuse should be filed

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 12:12 PM

Seems to me the USA gun laws indulge too much freedom on the dangerously stupid and disturbed;
while UK gun laws are far too prohibitive for intelligent responsible mature adult citizens.

In my considered semi serious/semi facetious manner;
here is my idea..
which really should appeal to a tory government keen to see every public service organisation
paying it's way and turning over a profit one way or another...


UK Police and military firearms training ranges could be opened up to properly vetted paying customers
on designated weekends

Marketed as 'Guns Experience" packages; even sold through Amazon Local.

People from all walks of life could experience safe properly tutored hands on training
with a selection of popular weapons - as seen at cinemas and on TV.

The police and military, might even welcome the opportunity for PR
and potential recruitment...

... Yeah ok, it's the UK, it aint gonna happen....

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 12:35 PM

What sort of deranged country has a guns n burgers whatever in the first place?

Here's an idea. Stop seeing dangerous equipment as fun in the first place. Stop glorifying something that is at best a penis extension for inadequate rednecks and young disaffected results of society's failures and at worst the biggest scourge on any society.

I'm sure Hollywood could find something else to glorify. Bernard Wrigley once suggested picking your nose and flicking bogies at each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:04 PM

" the USA gun laws indulge too much freedom on the dangerously stupid and disturbed;
while UK gun laws are far too prohibitive for intelligent responsible mature adult citizens."

**err on the side of caution**

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:10 PM

Lol musket my booger is bigger

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:11 PM

Just in case anyone wants to visit here's a link below. They have packages for bachelorette parties and extreme sniper adventures. What more could you ask for?


Bullets and Burgers

For some reason the recent death isn't mentioned. Fancy that.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:20 PM

Dan, I suggest you try looking up the words to Bernard's hilarious monologue, "Robin Hood and the bogey rolling contest."

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:29 PM

I'm sure Hollywood could find something else to glorify. Bernard Wrigley once suggested picking your nose and flicking bogies at each other.

Somebody once challenged Abraham Lincoln to a duel and asked him to choose his weapons. Lincoln said "cowpats at six paces" and that was the end of the challenge.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: bobad
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:30 PM

A little while ago a mother was locked up for letting her nine year old daughter go play in a park by herself yet a parent can legally bring their nine year old daughter to a shooting range and have her fire automatic weapons. WTF?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:43 PM

olddude's b;uster - "I can outgun the baddie even when my gun's in the safe" blablabla - is the puerile stuff of countless westerns. But even a supertrained Rambo like olddude (though Rahere seems to have undermined those boasts a bit) is no match for a nine-year-old with a semi-automatic machinegun, hehehe.

I do love that story, by the way. And what a blessing that the kid's direct hit was captured on video, so she'll have something to show the grand-kids. Let's hope she takes encouragement from such early success, and notches up a few more instructors before too long!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ernest
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 02:18 PM

Thread creep alert:

Anyone noticed the irony in gun law critics using nicknames like "backwoodsman" and "musket"?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: gnu
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:06 PM

Good gun laws are good gun laws. Bad gun laws are bad gun laws. Been lots of threads in Mudcat in the past. Thousands of posts. Lots of good info and lots of misinformation based on sensationalism. Go back and read em if ya wanna bother. If ya just wanna spew and shit... both sides... fill yer boots and chase yer tails. At least half of yas haven't a clue what yer talkin about in the first place and, thereby, can't offer meaningful solutions.

9 year old with an Uzi? I disagree. Olddude defending his family with a legal firearm? I agree. Citizens defending themselves from any aggression with firearms? I agree. Citizens open carry of any kinda gun... I... WTF is THAT shit?

Yet again, I shall say gnightgnu because this thread will go on and on, become vile and childish at times, never come to a logical and considerate consensus... essentially, it will mirror MANY such gun threads herein this forum over the years. I'll just say this. The US will solve it's gun problem when it solves it's social problems so don't hold yer breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:20 PM

Ernest. Possibly because "Musket" isn't denoting a disturbing fascination with machines designed to kill.

It was a school nickname and was fuck all to do with guns. Not my fault I have an impressibly huge willy...

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:22 PM

Under mind me Lol not in your dreams

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:38 PM

I often wondered who modelled for that guy in Viz with a wheelbarrow.....

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:45 PM

Rambo was a pussy

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:46 PM

So was James Bond even more so

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:57 PM

"Anyone noticed the irony in gun law critics using nicknames like "backwoodsman" and "musket"?"

In my case, no irony at all. I used to be 'Strollin' Johnny' until an extremely unpleasant, aggressive female member referred to me as a Backwoodsman (on the basis that I live in a small market town in a rural county, rather than in London, which was where she lived).

As she'd decided I was a backwoodsman, I decided to take it as my name. Nothing more sinister or mysterious than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:58 PM

I am a pragmatist. So I will say it again. All the countries of the western world have an annual rate of gun deaths in single, or at most low double, figures. In the USA the rate never drops below somewhere about the 2000+ mark.

How can any of you over there justify such a situation in any terms whatever?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 04:08 PM

Yeah but if everyone is armed the playing field is level

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 04:11 PM

And if everyone is UN-armed, the playing field is equally level. And nobody gets shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 04:16 PM

Very true but getting them here

To do that.. No

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 04:21 PM

Then you're fucked.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 04:25 PM

Michael... NO ONE can sensibly defend or justify those figures....but **some** choose to look the other way! I can explain some of their rationalizations ... money, politics, testosterone...etc. but I never try to justify.

A real pragmatist (I studied it for 6-7 years) would start with what IS and examine both the causes and the political & legal possibilities as they might be pursued. This means... to MY pragmatic views... that such ideas as sending 'authorities' into every home to confiscate all guns is not a 'pragmatically' good idea. Neither is the idea of legislating that every household be required to own a firearm and training members to use it... as has been tried in a couple of communities.
You can no doubt list other stupid, not-so-pragmatic ideas; that's easy... please DO make some suggestions about what would help..other than the already logical, but hard to do bit of banning or restricting sales at gun shows!

I want MORE education and media focus on the issue and on every tragic event until every mind that is not already committed TO guns is horrified. Some of that IS happening.... perhaps one day there will be some NRA owned politician denied re-election because of his views... maybe... perhaps..

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 04:29 PM

Duck Baker put on his fb page that more women had been murdered in the US with guns by their partner since 2001 than all the US soldiers killed in Afghan wars.
not a good situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 04:39 PM

Back in the day you could order a Thompson right from Sears in their catalog.. Good old days

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 05:20 PM

No need to ban the firearms, just the ammunition and materials to roll their own.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 05:29 PM

Now that we solved that problem can someone send money to fix our national debt

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 05:33 PM

For me a bigger problem is you can buy a shit load of gun power without any checks for most states. Sadly though no C4 that you would have to make

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 05:41 PM

Al. You are confusing cock and balls. You refer to Buster Gonads and his unfeasibly large testicals. My burden is, as the weather, changeable.

Anyway. Least said soonest mended. I don't wish to attract begging letters.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 05:43 PM

I am going to quit now before I get the powers to be pissed. You do realize I am just busting your balls anyway be good. I would like to see my thread on British catter music revived instead of troll threads

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 06:04 PM

It's hard to read between the lines sometimes and know exactly when someone is teasing or bear-baiting.... I use all sorts of **tricks** and 'emphasis' to show my intent.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: pdq
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 06:09 PM

...for Backwoodsman:


While running for president in 1968, Pat Paulsen, a comic and friend of the Smothers Brothers said:

       "Guns don't kill people, Bullets do. Ban Bullets".
         

He also said about personal ethics:

       "I've upped my standards. Now, up yours"

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 06:11 PM

I only have about six or seven pounds (about 2.95 kg) of gunpowder and smokeless powder at home. Hardly enough to even detonate.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 06:12 PM

I have the powers to get pissed. The powers of Adnams.

I assume it means something else in foreign countries eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 06:56 PM

Civil War guys were in the park this summer dressed up in uniforms etc. No kidding they must have loaded five pounds of black power in their cannon.. Damn that thing shook the windows.. It was awesome, I was jealous

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 07:01 PM

Rap did you see pawn stars with the guy who had a Gatlin five barrel cannon from 1898.it fired a one pound explosive each crank holy crap. It was rare he wanted 300k my wife wouldn't let me

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 08:07 PM

Истины свободы

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 08:14 PM

Никогда не оставляйте

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:14 PM

Те, кто сохранит их.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:24 PM

rap

Правильность моего брата

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:27 PM

Я не так хорошо, как в до

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:29 PM

Тайные дней

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:37 PM

rap

Они не имеют каких-либо идея моего брата

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:39 PM

Всегда добросовестное

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:49 PM

Согласны мой брат

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 10:41 PM

бомбы, пули и пьянка

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 11:00 PM

Μόνο κάποιος που έχει γνωρίσει η δουλεία μπορεί να εκτιμούν την ελευθερία.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 11:26 PM

Τόσο αληθινό

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 11:33 PM

старой доброй дней

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 12:22 AM

Too much powder does that to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 06:04 AM

? ‎מיכאל       למה זה

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 06:58 AM

Don't encourage him Michael.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 07:53 AM

To be fair to Michael and with respect to his irrational fear of his newsagent, I should have said

אחות! הוא יוצא מהמיטה שוב!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Stu
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 07:53 AM

"**a society as a whole**"

I understand that Bill, and I agree about sweeping generalisations as being English I'm subject to them all the time. A good example of this is the Scottish independence debate; I'm a socialist and supporter if the yes vote, but as my country is run by a public school elite I get tarred wight he same brush. So of course individuals have their own opinions, but they are also part of the society they live in and with that comes a degree of responsibility.

At the end of the day, if people in the US thought there should be no guns then that consensus would (ideally, if it happens anywhere these days) be listened to. But the consensus amongst your countryfolk is that guns are good and the odd massacre and accidental death is a price worth paying for your 'freedom'. Here in the UK the consensus is firmly against guns except for people that use them for a living or under very strict control; the peelers (although thankfully most of our force is unarmed), farmers, sorts shooters, toffs that enjoy killing and the occasional conservationist hunter.

One of your countrymen was on the radio yesterday on a phone-in discussing the Uzi-wielding 9 year old. He made is very clear that he loves the UK because he feels safer as everyone isn't armed and can walk the streets without fear.

There's a cultural difference here too, but let's not discuss that. It's obvious if you look.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Stu
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 09:25 AM

I think I'm really shit at communicating via the internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 11:44 AM

Stu... very few are really good at it. We depend on voice, body language, eyes (facial expression)...etc. You at least read and respond to what you read instead of just making a quick remark. It ain't necessary to agree on everything to further education & comprehension

So... I will have a go at this:

"At the end of the day, if people in the US thought there should be no guns then that consensus would (ideally, if it happens anywhere these days) be listened to. But the consensus amongst your countryfolk is that guns are good and the odd massacre and accidental death is a price worth paying for your 'freedom'. "

Sadly it doesn't really work like that. Polls have shown that a majority of the total population actually does favor some serious revision gun laws...(not total ban, as there are still areas of wilderness where guns actually make some sense). But that majority is distributed in awkward ways in different states and cultural areas... and unless you live here, it's hard to comprehend the concept of "states rights".
   Imagine if Sussex & Lancashire and Wessex and Kent & Norfolk all were allowed to allow or ban firearms depending on changing voting habits... and if each had different rules... and if cities in each could modify the basic rules to suit local opinion. ... and if Kent allowed guns and London didn't, Londoners could just pop over to Maidstone and buy whatever they wanted.
That's what we have...even more complex... and imagine if every 10 years the voting districts in all the areas were redrawn by whatever party was in power to group voters they approved of together to maximize their representation in Parliament. That's what we have. And all those awkward legal situations are set in Constitutional law which can only be changed by a tedious process involving voting---by whom? By states which have just been redistricted by the ruling party.... who also 'may' get to appoint judges to settle complaints ABOUT the voting & redistricting system and...oh yes, on the legality of various gun laws.
Much of all this made sense in 1789 when we decided to forego being ruled by mean old King George. *grin*

So... the "consensus" among us may not be what is enacted into law in any particular place. Every 4 years we get to elect a president who has certain abilities to control stupid laws passed, but even he is not elected by pure national majority, because we have the "electoral college" where more populous states get more votes. This has twice resulted in the election of a man who got less than a majority. Guess what it would take to revise the electoral college system?

There are multi-millions of us who do NOT like gun laws, abortion laws, labor laws, etc...but the system is awkward to change... and all too many have given up trying to vote as a losing battle, because much of each voting round is influenced by huge amounts of money. We need to change the "campaign finance laws".... guess how that would be done?

ALL THAT is why I plead with Brits to at least show they SEE our problem, even if it seems crazy.... sweeping generalizations just don't cover the situation. Some of us are trying.. and we have 'some' media which are doing a pretty good job of waving the problem in the face of everyone who will listen.... (did I mention we have about umpty-eight competing media outlets?)

Our one hope right now is that the newly emerging 'minorities' will register and change the voting patterns... if they are not totally redistricted into patterns which make them irrelevant.

But.. I live here. I have to try.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 01:13 PM

Inescapable fact: with 300,000,000 or so guns in existence, *no* imaginable gun laws can reduce the incidence of shootings - whether by gangsters, enraged spouses, psychotics, nine-year-old girls, or the nearly nonexistent krazed kops - to anything like zero.

Is this so hard to understand?

The best we can do is to do as much as practicable to restrict gun sales to sane and responsible people who want a reasonable number of guns to protect themselves and their families. What's a reasonable number? I'd say in a four-person household, two or three would be about the limit - one for each parent (I know, it's hard to imagine the necessity) and one for the household.

But of course, no such limit will ever be imposed because the Founders, who had no concept of either semi-automatic weapons, armored vehicles, vast criminal networks, or instantaneous communication among nut groups, said (or seemed to say) that no Federal law would ever infringe the right to bear arms.

A "God-given right" some insist (though not the Founders, please note).

Getting back to the general Yank-bashing for a moment, I recall a moment a very smug British or Canadian individual ridiculed America's Constitutional Founding Fathers as a bunch of "backwoods lawyers."

A neat example of the proud ignorance and childish sarcasm of so many of his or her ilk.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 01:40 PM

So did Australia.
But apparently, the world's greatest nation, the former 'Can-Do' country, can't-do any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 02:37 PM

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/28/1325414/-After-9-year-old-shoots-instructor-NRA-pipes-up-with-worst-possible-response?detail=email

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 03:14 PM

This is not just about police brutality to blacks. This is about a bullying police attitude - the feel they can demand anything, whether within their legal rights or not, and use unbounded force if met with reasoned and legally correct response. To protect and serve - my arse. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/28/1325341/-Living-While-Black-Police-attack-men-for-sitting-not-resisting-not-walking-pockets?detail=email

What do you think about American civilisation? I think it would be a good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 03:31 PM

"...bullying police attitude - the feel they can demand anything, whether within their legal rights or not, ..."

SOME do... we need to get rid of those-- just as we need to educate some UK lawyers that not every issue is simple not this or that-- guilty or not guilty--- black or white--- right or wrong. And not every member of every class or group is stamped out like cookies/biscuits.

Hiring and training police is not easy. We need them to be intelligent and competent enough and brave enough to do the job, yet sane and calm enough to not overreact when someone doesn't do things to their liking. Same with soldiers we send into battle.. or even with school teachers in some cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 04:01 PM

Not "can't": "won't."

Do you see the difference?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 06:16 PM

Lighter: referring to Backwoodsman'post?

If so, I am disappointed .. you are usually a beacon of sense on these topics, but I simply cannot fathom this idea that seems to be so easy to toss around that 'won't' can apply to ANY country as a whole.... especially in light of my brilliant, insightful *cough* explication of the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 06:58 PM

We can see your problem, but consider that as electors it is your responsibility, each and every man jack of you as individuals, to call time on the tendency of The System to silence you. We have held our tongues too long after past massacres, snd now feel that matters have to change: we asked you a while back who would apologise to the parents of the next generation of dead schoolkids, explaining why thye did nothing, and now we can show you tht no explanation is rational: you have no choice now, you must ban those weapons or be equally guilty as the murderer the next time something happens.
Change.org is working in this direction both here in the UK and in the US. The problem with a two-party system is that it makes targetting your representatives an easy technique, if you have the funds: the petition system in the UK is adding a vox populi dynamic, with both parties trying to recruit them, unsuccessfully.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 07:29 PM

"But the consensus amongst your countryfolk is that guns are good and the odd massacre and accidental death is a price worth paying for your 'freedom'."

" -snip- And all those awkward legal situations are set in Constitutional law which can only be changed by a tedious process involving voting---by whom? -snip- "    Bill D.

I apologise for taking your comment out of context Bill, but this particular sentence is germane to the validity of the first comment here.

That Constitutional Law is based upon an undeniable misinterpretation of the Constitution (which refers to the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia, against a tyrannical government), and it is therefore unconstitutional to apply it to the shooting of other citizens by individuals, as a right. Somewhere along the line, the understanding of the Constitution has been corrupted by applying an interpretation not endorsed by those who formulated it.

That, I fear, wasn't as a result of a popular vote, or indeed any kind of vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 07:44 PM

Well, Bill, "won't" is a natural induction from everything you and I and others have already said.

I hope I'm wrong.

Perhaps we can learn from the Australian example, but one thing we know already is that Australians now register their firearms by serial number with the government. I cannot imagine such a measure passing both houses of Congress in the world as we know it.

Because the other thing we know about Australia is that it has no Second Amendment "guarantee." Americans do not want the government restricting any Constitutional guarantees. In Australia, this seems not to have been an issue, because (I assume) relatively few Australians assume that "liberals" and "socialists" and "radical liberals" in government are always to subvert the Constitution. Americans who hate and fear Washington are a fringe minority, but if you try to take their away guns away they will shoot you.

When I was in public elementary school in the 1950s, we were taught that because of the Second Amendment, armed citizens could some day protect us from a berserk government; or, better yet, make the government think twice before going berserk. Many gun owners are convinced that is true, and they will surrender their firearms to the state only over their dead bodies. (I don't know how often Adolf Hitler was seriously invoked in Ozzie as the world's most typical gun-control advocate, but it's still happening here.)

Some day, perhaps, the gun-show loophole will be closed.

But how many lives that would save is not at all clear. Remember that virtually all of the most notorious mass shooters used weapons that they or their family owned legally.

I don't mean to be negative, only realistic. Which at least 50% of the time means "pessimistic."

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Janie
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 07:51 PM

There is no consensus regarding gun rights/control. Our political system has become so dysfunctional that there is also little will to compromise on the part of the strong and well-financed lobby that opposes any efforts to regulate gun ownership.

Keep in mind that consensus and compromise are not synonyms. I don't hope for consensus. I do think compromise is remotely possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 08:17 PM

I sincerely hope you are right Janie, because if you aren't, the USA is going to descend into the Hollywood idea of the Wild West sooner rather than later.

Looked at from outside, it is more than halfway there.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 09:52 PM

I suppose my Wyatt Earp song is a sort of defence of US gun law....

http://youtu.be/3QvH4EAjSts

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 09:59 PM

Troubadour
"That Constitutional Law is based upon an undeniable misinterpretation of the Constitution ...etc"

Undeniable? Why there are many denying it every day! (He said with tongue in cheek)

As a matter of fact, I basically agree and have said so in lengthy posts here on several occasions. It is even more than undeniable, it is outdated even if it WERE true, because the weapons referred to were single shot guns belonging to the individual...etc.

".. the understanding of the Constitution has been corrupted..."
It was NOT done by a vote.. but it must undone by a vote, and in a very complex way, it is very difficult to get anything resembling a vote on the issue thru even the 1st step.


Lighter

"won't" is a natural induction from everything you and I and others have already said.

Umm... not exactly... because 'induction' is not itself exact. (I studied deduction & induction in several classes.) Induction is valued for determining probability and possible reasonable choices.

"Don't" might be closer, but that doesn't have the force that "won't" conveys.

"Remember that virtually all of the most notorious mass shooters used weapons that they or their family owned legally."

Quite true... even more to the point, most of those people, even the ones some 'worried about', were legally competent and not convicted felons, and thus would not show up in a database of those not allowed to own guns.
In these days, there is no shortage of the mentally ill and of those who are taught to hate and fear. As population rises, so will the total numbers of dangerous people and the odds of reading about a horrendous crime by one of them... or of being NEAR a crime.
Even if the percentage of crazy vs. sane does not change, one crazy can still affect many people and many crazies can cause consternation out of proportion to their numbers.

Closing the gun show loopholes and serious penalties for illegal gun trade and use are at least a step in the right direction, and might 'possibly' (by induction) serve to change a few minds.


I live in a major metropolitan area and gun crime is never far away, though I have never in 35 years seen any or even heard a local gunshot...but I can read.. and I know it's there.
I also know a 'few' who own guns, but far more who would not allow one in the house. Guns are an **addiction**. Holding one changes a person, and owning one changes one even more.
(Yes, I have seen this in person. In order to justify owning one at all, practice & training is required, and the very process of shooting in practice changes the mindset about the value of guns.)

So... I know the problems, and I know about pragmatism and induction and demographics and political will when influenced by money... and the more I know, the more I argue for care in describing the problem and the causal factors and the possible solutions.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 10:47 PM

Bill if you live there do you want to use one of my handguns. I got lots

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 10:56 PM

Don't fear guns.. Fear JELLO now that's the scariest shit I ever faced. Not even bring blown up once is as bad

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 11:11 PM

Fear JELLO it will eat ya up ever see the movie blob well that's what it is. Outer space shit invading our homes and dinner plates
Ya can't even shoot it. It still moves after impact

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 11:22 PM

Remember one thing a gun is a tool no different than many other things made for a purpose most consider it a tool for hunting or sport shooting. Hell the Olympics has it. It can be used to save lives or take lives. Having laws that make real sense is the issue. Janie said it best

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 11:34 PM

I got a campaign going on to search and destroy all jello via laws. None of the political guys have the balls to sponsor the bill. We are all going to get the big swirley if it continues to be given to kids and hospital patients and thanksgiving dinners

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 01:12 AM

And ye shall know the truth and the truth will set you free

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 02:53 AM

Bill, if you have a political system that, if not 'set in stone', has been constructed in a way that prevents modernisation and carefully-debated adjustment to that system, then it is seriously flawed.

We understand that there are a great many Americans, you included, who want no part of the madness that is your firearms industry. I read recently that there are approximately the same number of guns in the US as there are people, but that those guns are in the hands of just 25% of the population. Yet the sane 75% allow the minority-gun-nutters to control the situation!

That is what we find so hard to understand - why do the huge majority allow their lives to be threatened by a comparatively small minority? I can only guess it's because of apathy on the part of non-gun-owners, and an acceptance that guns are somehow 'normal' in your society.

So I have to ask, why aren't the 75% getting themselves organised to fight for the reduction of firearms in US society? If your government announced they were going to quadruple gasoline prices (which would bring them up to UK levels, and many of us believe that would be a good thing for the planet!) there would be uproar, citizens would be out in their hundreds of thousands, protesting, marching on the Capitol etc., etc. Yet 12,000 of your countrymen, women and children are slaughtered by firearms every year, and the 75% do virtually nothing. A few moans, a few crocodile tears, but no real action.

Why are they not organising themselves? Why are the vast majority who want nothing to do with guns not getting together to take on the crackpots who think owning a gun is their 'right'? That's what we (certainly I) don't understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 02:57 AM

Or is it a case of they are, but it's not reported so we don't see it over here?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 08:20 AM

> I studied deduction & induction in several classes.

Heh. I *taught* induction and deduction for many years. (I *love* moments like this.) And I stand by my use of "induction." The premisses reasonably suggest a conclusion but do not prove it.

> Guns are an **addiction**.

Well, they certainly can be, though hardly in every case. Many (perhaps most?) people who have purchased handguns for defense are too lazy to practice with them. They figger you jest point 'n' shoot, like on TV.

But collecting *anything* can be an addiction, and even when it is, it's not necessarily harmful - so long as it's only collecting and you can afford to buy what you want.

Tougher gun laws, by all means! But gun crime won't disappear, although incidence per capita may well decline (a worthy goal). The occasional maddened spouse will still shoot, and, with tens of millions of gun owners and millions of illegal guns still on the street, every year or so some undiagnosed loon will go off his rocker and shoot a bunch of innocent victims.

Such tragedies are the chief impetus for these discussions. But do you see a cure for multivictim hate crimes and "suicide by cop"?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 09:06 AM

I suppose the main problem to sensible gun reform would be that US sceriptwriters would have to write a proper plot for their cop dramas.
they do get away with a lot of boring shit - people ahooting at each other for unfeasibly long periods of time.

Generally speaking in a police situation - the situation does seem to resolve itself rather quickly when the guns come out.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 09:12 AM

> US sceriptwriters would have to write a proper plot for their cop dramas.

So true. As as often been pointed out, American policemen almost *never* fire at anyone. Ever. That's why it's big news when they do.

And when they do, there is an administrative review and every shot must be explained and accounted for.

Nor do I see any real-life reason to believe that US police are any more "heavy-handed" than their UK counterparts. Crime is crime, police in a democracy are police.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 09:17 AM

This is the biggest gun headline news story in the UK at the moment:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28986319

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 09:47 AM

But lighter... In The UK, it is only criminals and a very few specialist police who carry guns on the street.

Hence a far safer, saner place.

Those who need them for target sport in licensed premises or hunting in controlled areas / agricultural pest control don't carry them in the street.

I don't know why Hollywood is obsessed with wild west as something different to now, I don't feel safe when in the Dumbfuckistan states or even the safer parts of USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 10:06 AM

When my fairly close relative commited suicide by legally owned shotgun.
It may well have been the only gun death in the entire county in that entire year ???

Another close relative attempted several unsuccessful suicides by Paracetamol.
A far more prevalent statistical trend,
perhaps due to the widespread unavailability of privately owned guns.

Even so, Paracetamol is now becoming more tightly controlled at point of sales
in high street shops.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 10:41 AM

Bill, if you have a political system that, if not 'set in stone', has been constructed in a way that prevents modernisation and carefully-debated adjustment to that system, then it is seriously flawed.

There are those who are under the misapprehansion that the U.S. of A. is a functioning Democracy.

And since Corporations beame "people", Buckley v. Valeo decided that money is speech and the Citizens United court decision it is even less of one.

Democracy in the U.S. is being deconstructed as I type.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 11:44 AM

Probably very true Greg, but those of us lucky enough not to live there don't necessarily hear of, or 'get', all of the nuances and influences at play in the US governmental system.

But there are 400 million of you, enough to kick serious ass - bloody hell, your gun-crackpots claim to be a 'well organised militia', armed to the teeth in order to prevent being fucked-over by the establishment and its supporters. So why aren't they doing it?

Well, don't answer that, I already know - because the 2nd Amendment means diddly-squat, and it's just a convenient excuse for dick-heads to claim they 'need' their prick-enhancer-firearms in order to protect their (apparently, according to your above post) non-existent 'freedoms'

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Stu
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 11:48 AM

" I can only guess it's because of apathy on the part of non-gun-owners, and an acceptance that guns are somehow 'normal' in your society."

I would say it's the other way around. The sort of libertarian that supports gun ownership in the civilian population is an idealist, not a rationalist. This is an issue science comes across often and it's no coincidence that libertarians also tend to be climate change deniers etc.

Like climate change deniers, the pro-gun lobby are happy to impose their views and their guns on the rest of the population; if your idea of freedom is living in a world where ordinary folk don't carry deadly weapons, then you're fucked, and those with the weapons don't care that they're fucking you; they are increasing the risk of you being shot simply by having a gun and being willing to engage in a gunfight. Collateral damage? Acceptable, it appears.

Evidence is ignored or dismissed; if the evidence is presented to them that they are over 5 times more likely to be shot by simply carrying a gun (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/) they will simply deny it, call it a hoax, suggest the study is flawed without presenting evidence why (in which case they can respond to the study formally - it's free) or start sneering about academics and real life.

What this means is that gun owners are imposing their ideology on others without their consent. The freedoms of these people is utterly irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Janie
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 12:04 PM

"The times, they are a'changin'"   All over this very crowded globe.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 12:06 PM

Probably very true Greg...But there are 400 million of you, enough to kick serious ass.

So one would think, but when up against political lobbies like the National Rifle Asassination and their affiliated State "clubs" with unlimited funds to spend on purchasing legislators, carrying on disinformation campaigns and influencing legislation PLUS individual arseholes with an agenda and unlimited funds like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson (Addle-son?) doing the same in contravention of the democratic process, it becomes a bit more problematical.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 12:09 PM

Oh, and don't forget the massive Republican-sponsored funding cuts to U.S. education across the board from pre-school thru university of the past 35 years now bearing toxic fruit.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 12:57 PM

How many roads does a man walk down... As many as he wants with the right firearm

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 02:12 PM

And then, there are plenty of assholes who actually believe preposterous shit like this:


CIA now admits that President Obama is a radical Islamic enemy of America
August 28, 2014

Today, a former CIA agent bluntly told the newspaper, World Net Daily, that America has switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama. Clare Lopez was willing to say what a few members of Congress have said in private, but declined to say on-the-record.

Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy and a Senior Fellow at The Clarion Project, the London Center for Policy Research, and the Canadian Meighen Institute. Since 2013, she has served as a member of the Citizens Commission on Benghazi. Also Vice President of the Intelligence Summit, she formerly was a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee from 2005-2006, and has served as a consultant, intelligence analyst, and researcher for a variety of defense firms. She was named a Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute in 2011.

Lopez said the global war on terror had been an effort to "stay free of Shariah," or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates. Lopez believes that the Muslim Brotherhood has thoroughly infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government. One of the most outrageous of those appointments is Mohamed Elibiary, a senior member of the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council. According to a report by the Center for Security Policy, Elibiary supports brokering a U.S. partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist group. Two months ago, a firestorm erupted online after Elibiary tweeted that a "Caliphate" is inevitable and compared it to the European Union.

Ms. Lopez also believes Obama had essentially the same goals in the Mideast as the late Osama bin Laden: "to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands." The former CIA operative's perspective affects her prescription for what the U.S. should do about the terror army ISIS, as she called for caution and restraint.

While there has been a sudden chorus of politicians and military experts calling for the immediate elimination of the terrorist army after it beheaded American journalist James Foley last week, Lopez believes the U.S. should have an overall strategy in place before fully re-engaging in the Mideast militarily.Any military action would be further complicated, she told WND, if it were not clear which side the U.S. is on, either in the short term or in the overall war on terror.

Lopez felt it was impossible to understand why the president and some of his top appointees, such as CIA Director John Brennan, who is believed to be a Muslim convert, "consistently seem to apologize for Islam, even in the face of such atrocities as the Foley beheading," adding, they "take pains to assure the world they don't think IS, (or the Islamic State, also called ISIS) or whichever perpetrator it was, has anything to do with Islam. How can they possibly believe that genuinely when everything these jihadis do tracks directly to the literal text of Quran, hadiths and Shariah?"

"In any case, and for whatever motivations, there is no doubt this administration switched sides in what used to be called the Global War on Terror," she said.

http://www.examiner.com/article/cia-now-admits-that-president-obama-is-a-radical-islamic-enemy-of-america

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 03:17 PM

So much to respond to....

"Bill if you live there do you want to use one of my handguns. I got lots"

Dan..no thanks *grin*... had one once, in Kansas. a .22 5 shot pistol. The rules fro ownership were pretty lax. (I was about 26) I fired it ONCE way out in the desert ..just to see if it worked. I loaned it to a lady who thought she had prowlers. Someone broke in and stole the gun. It was pawned. The pawn shop notified the police, who wrote me and said that if I wanted, I could redeem it by paying the pawn shop $35 that he had taken it in for. HA! I never ever came near having one again, and have never needed one.
------------------------------------------------------

Lighter.." And I stand by my use of "induction." The premises reasonably suggest a conclusion but do not prove it. (did you ever teach 'abduction'? I still can't quite cope with that one.)
well then my explanation was unnecessary, though your answer is part of my point,,,'won't' is one possible inductive conclusion, but in such cases, the one a person chooses may be highly subjective. I happen to think that "won't" implies much too strongly that a fairly common attitude can be extrapolated to apply to a class (the 'country' as a collective noun).
----------------------------------------

This "From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 02:53 AM"

is harder to reply to, though I have answered almost everything in it several times.

"if you have a political system that,....has been constructed in a way that prevents modernisation and carefully-debated adjustment to that system, then it is seriously flawed."

Yes.. what's to dispute about that? But it BECAME flawed because of the changing times & technology. No one in 1789 could have foreseen AK-47s. We had a frontier society with wilderness and danger as it expanded to the West. (No matter what one says about the crimes inflicted on the Native Americans). By the time mass-produced, standardized weapons were common, after the Civil War, the idea of owning a firearm was taken for granted, and much of the West was still 'wild' until about the end of that century. The really serious problem of easy access to guns was not big news until the 1920s and prohibition and Al Capone and such having sub-machine guns. By then the basic idea of there being guns everywhere was pretty much set. Not everyone had one, but every farmer & cowboy and trapper did.

"Yet the sane 75% allow the minority-gun-nutters to control the situation!"

There's another word... "allow". The LAW allows.... I have explained how difficult is is to change any law that many 'like' and most think IS okayed by the Constitution. No one NEEDED to misinterpret the 2nd amendment until recently...it just 'was'. By the time it became obvious to many that it was "seriously flawed" due to its references having morphed, "militia" and "keep & bear arms", too many guns and too many owners were entrenched! And some of them WOULD shoot you if you tried to disarm them!

"That is what we find so hard to understand - why do the huge majority allow their lives to be threatened by a comparatively small minority? I can only guess it's because of apathy on the part of non-gun-owners, and an acceptance that guns are somehow 'normal' in your society. "

"Apathy" fits a few... but 'awareness' is the word that seems to fit most... awareness of what the status is! If the law says folks can have guns, and "states rights" allows local jurisdictions, with all their prejudices, to control those laws, and the NRA's propaganda clouds the issue, any degree of frustrated inaction may look like apathy from the outside.
   There ARE groups working VERY hard to change things, and some of the recent sad tragedies have given the movement some traction. They have fairly wide support in polls, but revising the 2nd amendment require either a very tedious (almost impossible) political process...OR... a Supreme Court which will strike down and revise the interpretation of that awkward phrase. Right now there are just too many idiots..ummmm conservatives on the court, several of those are still young enough to be around awhile.
(Obviously, we need a series of Democratic presidents to outlast the idiots and appoint sane judges. We shall see... I have hopes.)

I keep trying to answer your "whys", but no answer, no matter how clear & accurate, can be satisfying. The word is full of frustrating 'whys' these days.... the Middle East, Ukraine, N. Korea..etc... a few years ago it was 'why' in Northern Ireland, and they mostly used bombs, I think. It appears the sides just got weary of the carnage... I don't remember them having to revise the laws to quit killing.

I hope that a multi-pronged attack on the situation will help... gun show laws being revised, more help for the mentally disturbed, more cameras in certain areas, better checks on gun purchases, more education, fewer TV shows & movies glorifying weapons...etc.

But 'why' is still only answerable by pointing... "there! See?"

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 03:31 PM

I revise my own conclusion: "Why" is answerable by looking at the capability of we 'civilized' human beings to rationalize and lie to themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:22 PM

> "won't" implies much too strongly that a fairly common attitude can be extrapolated to apply to a class (the 'country' as a collective noun).

I disagree, at least to the extent that I'm thinking not of "the country as a whole" but of the majority of our state and federal legislators, who would have to pass any new gun laws.

So far, those individuals, as a group, show not the least inclination even to close the gun-show loophole, an incomplete but simple remedy.

For the oft-repeated reasons, their attitude is "No New Gun Laws." Period. It may well be possible to close the loophole one day, but that day seems far off. One reason is that preventing a seemingly unknowable but (some will assert) small number of shootings is a less attractive option politically than to do nothing while saying, "I support the Constitutional rights of responsible citizens to own and bear arms!"

My pessimism comes also from a belief that, with millions of guns in existence, the rate of gun homicides cannot be significantly reduced by any new law that I've heard of that has even the faintest chance of being passed.

But maybe I'm wrong. Any reduction would save some lives at the price of inconveniencing gun dealers and buyers.

Are they ready for that inconvenience? The NRA and plenty of our leaders say no.

And getting back to comparisons with Australia and Canada, my impression is that despite their "frontier heritage," Australians and Canadians have never fixated on firearms (pistols especially) as an emotional symbol as we have. (Consider Oldie's recent post about "roads.") For many Americans, firearms bring pleasantly to mind history, individualism, nonconformity, personal skill and power,the romance of the West, the thrill of the hunt, freedom from tyranny, and the ability to defend oneself and one's family against otherwise unstoppable aggressors.

You don't even have to get Freudian to see what a heady mixture that is! Does it makes sense? It doesn't even have to!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:38 PM

"How many roads does a man walk down... As many as he wants with the right firearm"

Not down my road here in Cambridgeshire, he doesn't, Dude. Shouldn't try it if I were you!

Best Regards

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:43 PM

Lol ok see your road is protected.. Grreat

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:48 PM

Seriously no cia operative or supervisor would say that statement.. But people can publish anything.

Any way forget guns a tactical nuke solves all problem . But sadly we can't own one even with the 2nd admendment

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:50 PM

" I'm thinking not of "the country as a whole" but of the majority of our state and federal legislators..."

Oh well, if you want to be that specific, you shoulda said so! I can't much argue with that- I can only describe the various reasons most of them act that way.... mostly fear of losing their jobs to someone further right - along with $$$$$ from contribution from the NRA and their related sycophants & alter-egos.

"Does it makes sense? It doesn't even have to!"

Nope.. it doesn't have to. Like the famous business explanation: "There's no particular reason for it; it's just our policy."

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:51 PM

But you can buy a Russian icbm launch key on ebay if you want one. I suppose the icbm is sold off ebay. But they do have them on there

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 05:01 PM

Seriously no cia operative or supervisor would say that statement.

But that don't stop millions of eejits from believing it, Dan. Just like the Jack-Booter Storm Troopers of th'Gummint gonna come and take away their guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 05:04 PM

So true Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 05:36 PM

I got a nasty shock a few minutes ago on Facebook. A little Amish girl- 16-17, I would guess - stands with a rifle slung over her shoulder. Her caption: Daddy bought me a gun today! so happy!:)

It is a 44mag, she said, her father got it at a swap meet and she is going to use it to hunt deer.

Now, mind you, the Amish are a frugal people, active, outdoorsy, independent. They grow and hunt much of their food. So I'm not objecting to that.

I just think that five years ago there is no way she would have stood in that boastful, strutting way and in a public place. It seems to me that today's climate of 'stand your ground', 'open carry', "I can take it anywhere' has infected even the Amish.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 05:46 PM

Ebbie my best Amish friends will absolutely notaallow their pictures to be taken.. Graven image etc. Hmmm wonder where she is from

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 05:52 PM

I gathered that she was in Florida, Dan, a place where the Amish let their hair down, so to speak. PLus, judging by her 'covering', she is not one of the more conservative Amish orders.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 06:07 PM

Maybe daddy encouraged her to post.

Good for the ol' self-esteem, wot? And will her friends ever be jealous!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 06:40 PM

Very true Ebbie. Here they are very conservative.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 10:55 PM

Not just the picture, but how did she get to Facebook?

The Amish I'm familiar with wouldn't be on FB, although they might use electricity if it came with a farm they were working for someone else because it wouldn't be "right" to insist that it be removed to satisfy their beliefs.

Hey, I still read "The Budget" when I can get a copy.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 11:42 PM

Rap at that age she could have been on rumspringer or however it's spelled that would explain fb and photos,

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 01:26 AM

Really I think most Americans don't give a rats ass what the British or any other country thinks
Most don't care who is banging who in Hollywood. But firearms, that Is political suicide for political leaders that is why we get laws that don't make sense. However no one is forced to visit
I been all over the world and ya know what guns exist everywhere. Even in your country. It is naive to think otherwise. Maybe your news media doesn't have an agenda other than news. Ours now is a rag magazine. So guns is a high sensational value to them. The world is an unsafe place. Your naive views are not real world. People kill people people want to harm others and their way of love. It is sad but true. Burying your head in the sand only gets your ass kicked. Freedom is not free. Go to Langley and look at some stars on the wall or go to Arlington. You are talking here because someone else picked up a weapon to allow youto
talk.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 01:42 AM

That is way of life. Can't type. Anyway my service is done it is now up to younger people to understand the nature of what it takes to keep a nation strong and it ain't folk music. It is up to them to gather the information and protect and defend the constitution. Because in America that is the only thing that keeps this nation free. And up to our military to act on threats in a decisive manner
That all starts at a civilian level. And yes jack I am a crazy son of a Bitch and I am proud of it

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 01:51 AM

"Because in America that is the only thing that keeps this nation free".
.,,.,.

How pathetic!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 01:55 AM

Yes you are but I can give you a quarter to call someone who gives a shit

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 01:58 AM

Any time you would like to discuss this personally I would be happy to oblige just drop me a line michael and be there

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 02:40 AM

No, thanks, Dude. Do not wish to become embroiled in private correspondence on topic on which we start at two such different points. What, after all, could we find to say which can't be said here on the thread -- which it probably has already been anyhow? But would draw attention yet again to my views on our national differences in this topic, which I copied from posts on previous thread, above on this thread on 20 Aug at 0100 am.

Best regards nevertheless

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 02:42 AM

Same to you michael by the way Cambridgeshire is a lovely place. If recall SIS had an office near by beautiful area
I actually love great Britain so much history

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 03:21 AM

The history is one thing.

The advances in society compared to Dumbfuckistan?

Priceless.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 08:44 AM

> Most don't care who is banging who in Hollywood.

Which, as we know, is far more important.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 08:49 AM

perhaps they're more advanced than us. its a sort of check on over population.

Apparently Jeremy Paxman doesn't think we've paid for the health service or the old age pension.

it could the way forward - give everyone a gun when they get to pensionable age. let them shoot it out for a hospital bed.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 09:32 AM

Who gets the bed, winner or loser?

(An aside. When I do a wee bit of teaching, medical students mostly and management trainees occasionally, I tackle the thorny subject of paying for The NHS. I demonstrate the business model of over trading as a problem. I then ask them to guess which was the first year The NHS over traded, (did more than it was given money to do.)

1948/49.

And ever since.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 09:55 AM

Man of the people?:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/09/iowa-senate-hopeful-will-use-his-glock-to-blow-your-balls-off/

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 11:01 AM

*sigh*... that particular senate race has 2 crazies running. We can only hope they split the vote. That "man of the people" has reason to be angry, but his message is just beyond the pale.
It is quite common for wing-nuts to use an election they have no hope of winning to attract attention to their 'cause'.

The Democratic candidate Bruce Braley seems to have a reasonable agenda, from a brief read.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 11:16 AM

I think there is a serious risk the American attitude of My Country Right or Wrong could cause civil war in the UK, now the FBI is helping in Heathrow. True, we saw a first step in allowing the French to run their border controls at St Pancras for Eurostar, but none the less.
The point is that in the UK, we neither love nor trust our police and security services, not least as a direct consequence of the incessant spin telling us that we do. There is nothing more guaranteed to make a Brit question what's going on than telling him what he has to think or believe, something which has not yet penetrated the noddles of our politicians. On occasion, we respect our armed forces, but as guarantors of the peoples freedom and not as our rulers. The Army first overthrew Parliament in 1648, might have done so again in 1848 (special political measures were undetaken), 1919 (Spanish Flu blocked it) and did for certain in 1945, in General Election. The aftermath of that rumbles on in the South Yorkshire child abuse case, where people complaining were fankily not only given the bum's rush, but gagged and discredited into the bargain, and in the King case, where a British citizen has ended up under arrest without breaking the Law, simply because he disagreed with the NHS - a clear breach of Article 5 of the Convention on Human Rights and Articles 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

By contrast, OldDude considers the population are a form of militia, right behind the Armed Forces. He may be, but many aren't, even in the US: if they were, better provision would be made for the Veterans Administration, which cares for those who have paid the butcher's bill the hard way. Worse, organisations like Homeland Security (and how oxymoronic that last word is, Insecurity more like) trade in it, demolishing the reputation of their country elsewhere. He just doesn't get how seriously we disagree with that fundamental Might Is Right approach, because it plays straight into the hands of the less reputable business interests of the US. As it is, there is now, I think, every likelihood of a Labour government being elected in nine months time, as people have had enough of the economy recovering but the population still being made to suffer. If we're damned if we do and are damned if we don't, then we might as well go down with people doing something to help rather than hinder.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 02:59 PM

The Democratic candidate Bruce Braley seems to have a reasonable agenda, from a brief read.

Wanna bet he loses to one of the wingnut assholes in a landslide, Bill?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 03:11 PM

> the American attitude of My Country Right or Wrong

You mean the attitude of nationalists everywhere. If not, you're applying a double standard.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 03:44 PM

You mean the attitude of nationalists everywhere. If not, you're applying a double standard.

If he is so applying, does that render the American attitude of My Country Right or Wrong correct and morally justifiable?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 09:10 PM

"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
                                     --Carl Shurz

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 11:29 PM

It can be very difficult and awkward to get OUT of one's own country if it has problems.... like Carl Shurz says, it's better to fix it.
Trouble is, so many things in this 'modern' age have created an atmosphere where is looks like Sisyphus & King Canute had it easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 09:04 AM

OK, Rap, but Schurz was responding with his "revised" version to the prevalence of the "un-revised" version of the saying at the time (1872).

Unfortunately, most U.S. folks using the phrase today aren't referencing the Schurz version.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 06:40 PM

How about Stephen Decatur's quote? Note the qualification.

'Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong.'

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 07:23 PM

well if you have intercourse with foreigners, you have only yourself to blame....
I dunno....shagging foreigners and shooting each other!

You yanks know how to live...!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 08:06 PM

> Unfortunately, most U.S. folks using the phrase today aren't referencing the Schurz version.

Or even the original version, an after-dinner toast proposed by Commodore Stephen Decatur in 1816, and reported in its earliest appearance as the rather less bellicose,

"Our country – In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right, and always successful, right or wrong."

It was a dinnertime witticism and a hope rather than a fervent declaration of aggressive nationalism.

Observe too that Decatur thought being "in the right" nearly as important as being "successful."

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 09:00 PM

One might rather observe that Decatur meant that it was most important that the U.S. be successful, even if in the wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 10:50 PM

You obviously don't know about Stephen Decatur.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 10:27 AM

Actually, I know quite a bit about the Commodore, Rap. Particularly his service in the War of 1812- posible the most idiotic war the U.S. was ever inviolved in, barring Viet Nam and Iraq.

And that he was killed in a duel - that equally idiotic testosterone-poisoned American institution.-

What precisely is your point? That he was a "patriot" & that he's lionized as a "hero" by some and thus can have done or said no wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 10:52 AM

> One might rather observe that Decatur meant ....

One might, but who cares?

He wasn't setting policy, and he wasn't whipping up jingoes. He was being convivial.

Anyway, "nations" and their policies are never morally pure or 100% right.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 10:58 AM

He wasn't setting policy, and he wasn't whipping up jingoes.

But perhaps he was reflecting policy and was a jingo himself?

One might, but who cares?

Apparently, you & Rap do - I did't bring up Decatur, YOU did.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 11:03 AM

"duel - that equally idiotic testosterone-poisoned American institution.-"

As you must know, Greg, dueling is far from being an American-inspired institution.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 11:09 AM

Yup, I DO know, and didn't say that the U.S. invented it.

But the U.S. sure as hell practiced and institutionalized it for a good chunk of the 19th Century - with devastating results. I'll have to look up the stats some time.

Now I think on it, its a wonder that the National Rifle Assassination doesn't promote duelling to increase firearms sales.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 12:20 PM

hmmmmm... dueling as a recognized 'sport', with round robin tournaments like jousting... using modern, rapid fire guns.

Might be useful to thin out the testosterone fueled bunch .......

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 12:29 PM

Russian roulette has never really caught on.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 09:19 AM

But the hunting season for your own feet seems to have started:

http://newsdaily.com/2014/09/03/idaho-professor-accidentally-shoots-himself-in-the-foot-in-chemistry-class/

Heck, some Americans don't even need a gun:

http://newsdaily.com/2014/09/03/washington-state-hunter-mistakenly-stabs-himself-with-arrow/

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 12:51 PM

sheesh I do believe that if I felt the need to 'conceal carry', I'd spring for a holster meant to carry. Putting a loaded pistol in one's pocket... For pete's sake.

Interestingly enough, when Congress decided that it was the right of armed people to attend all these places, they did NOT include the halls of Congress itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Carl, Yank from VT
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 06:00 AM

Well, if I were to start from the top & respond on down it would be quite an entry, so I'll mention a few highlights & argue a little & when I next have time to get bogged in Mudcat maybe answer a bit of the firestorm resulting. :)

Preface - OP, you didn't perchance hunt up olddude and recruit him for a foil before you started? I'll believe you if you deny it, but I've sure got to wonder.

Prologue - where I'm coming from: (physically, rural Vermont, small peaceful place in New England, no concealed carry permits here because it has never been illegal to carry either concealed or openly in this state) I am "pro-gun", an NRA member, and in fact even a Libertarian party member - apparently my ilk is mainly what is mostly wrong with the U.S. these days.

1. Greg E. & the hideous jihadist Obama - You're right, there are people who believe that crap, and you may well believe we are often bedevilled with them in the Libertarians. But the great majority of Libertarianns have no use for it, and even fewer of the country at large.

2. Various posts - There seems to be an impression that the NRA is supported by the firearms industry. I have no doubt they contribute, as virtually every business in this country supports those whose lobbying is favorable to their interests, but I believe the NRA is overwhelmingly financed by the voluntary contributions of us members. (I stand correctable if you will produce reliable data contra.) We(NRA members) hardly feel our political spendings to be improper when we are faced with the same from opposing views. I saw the very conservative Koch brothers mentioned above, but no mention of the vast expenditures of Bloomberg, the anti-gun activist from NYC. I am however delighted to hear that the NRA has "unlimited" funds for lobbying, and won't have run into the kitchen and send them a big check as a result of being scared by this thread.

3. Little Amish girl - coincidentally, my first gun, which my non-hunting, non-gunning-owning dad let me buy when I was 16 was a .44 mag Ruger. Dozens of woodchucks have bitterly regretted it.

4. Bill D. et al. - The other 75% of the country "allow" us to keep on owning guns (If enough of them wanted, the constitution could be amended) because most of them, tho not believing that they personnally need a gun, do not see most of us 25% people as threats. This might also be the place to ask the statistics-citers if they could kindly post per-capita gun death statistics. I daresay the U.S. will still lead the pack, but I think some of what's posted is absolute numbers, and when there are about 400 million of us (milliards to you Brits, no?) we are likely to have very absolute impressive numbers. Also, a comparison of overall murder rates might be enlightening - 'tis no pleasure to be shot, as RK remarked, but it's not noticeably better to be hatchetted or bludgeoned or carved.

5. Advance apologies to punkfolkrocker and anyone else closely touched by gun suicide, but it's part of the discussion. A good many of us, and I, believe that a person's life is primarily his/r own, and that s/he has a right to end it if so desiring. We don't advocate suicide, we believe in trying to talk our friends out of it if possible, but in the end we think a person is not a possession of the Socialist Collective, or a Resource of the Aryan race, or a Subject of his Most Royal Majesty; s/he is a human being that has a right to dispose of him/herself. Without guns would there be fewer successful suicides? No doubt of it - guns do provide a quicker and deadlier way of killing people than a lot of other things, and there are some suicides (and murders) that would not happen without a gun available. But first, how many? And second, what right do the rest of us have to coerce determined suicides into less reliable, quite possibly painful and mutilating ways of trying to end themselves? Why do we need laws permitting physicians to "assist" suiucides (a hot topic in these our incomprehensible ex-colonies these days) rather than simply saying to them "We recognize your right to shoot yourself if you insist"?

6. Con Law lecture: When the Supreme Court rules that the 2nd amendment prohibits the Federal (National) government from "infring[ing] the right of the people to keep and bear arms" it did not "corrupt" anything. The first ten amendments were put into the constitution at the insistence of the individual states, as a condition of their adherence to the constitution, to keep the Federal government from interfering with state dispositions in various matters, and when the court rules that the Federal government therefore can't do so, they interpret it precisely as it was intended to be. Whether that idea is still a good one is another question, but nothing has been "corrupted" or distorted thereby. Next, for what it's worth, the framers did *not* say "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of such militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", they said that the right of the *people* to do so might not. They may have been crude backwoods colonial upstarts if you insist, but they understood how to say what they meant. Further, look at the thing in the light of common sense - just how much help does the well-regulated militia provide when an irritated algonquian unexpectedly arrives to torch your house, or the bear is devouring the family pig? And most particularly, what happens when the sovereign, who controls the army & administration, needs to be restrained, either by fear of the power of the general population or worse-coming-to-worst by their use of it? It was very much on the minds of those constitution-makers that the government was responsible to the people and the people were to have the means to enforce that that relation. The militia *is* the armed people, which constituted itself, elected its own officers, and responded more or less as it felt inclined to its state governors. The necessity was for a "well-regulated" one as nobody, especially a bunch of well-to-do landed gentry but also the people in general, wanted miscellaneous mobs roaming around raising hell, but it was not conceived of as being merely an arm of the government. Again, maybe or not that's pertinent to today's conditions (arguments to follow that it still is), but as far as the constitution as she stands being "corrupted" when the court construes the 2'Am. as it has - balls.

7. I admit the opposition to what seem reasonable measures to curb the worst of the gun killings. But at least a significant part of this is indeed a fear of the "slippery slope", and the circumstance that most of the people in favor of "gun control" do not sound, when you study their ideas, as if they want to make & enforce only reasonable limits and restrictions, but wish to essentially disarm the people as a whole. I see very little in this thread to contradict that impression. If the "gun-controllers" stood up and said something like "I believe we must put significantly enhanced machinery in place to ensure that only sane persons of mature understanding and with basic safety-&-firearms-handling training are permitted access to firearms or ammunition, but **I firmly and adamantly support the right of such persons to own, carry & as legally permitted use them in self-defense, and in the militia**", and could still be believed when they did, they would find at least somewhat more of a willingness to compromise. I don't know anybody, even the idiotfringers, who don't support some "gun control". I don't know anybody who thinks a 5-year-old should be able to walk into a gun shop and buy a .45 and and ammo; I don't know of anybody who thinks convicted arsonists, murderers, rapists, aggravated assaulters should be allowed to possess guns; nobody thinks the evidently mentally unhinged should. So we all favor "gun control", and the debate is over what is a reasonable degree; and we "gun-people" say that a general disarming of the people is too much, and that much of the "anti-gun" legislation appears headed in that direction. Lord knows, not much of it seems to be consistent with other stated objectives.

8. Which leads on to what to me, and a good many others, is the fundamental reason for having an armed people: The need to restrain our own government. This is *not* an outdated notion, quite the contrary. The ability of the modern state, especially a high-tech one like the U.S., to become crushingly tyrannical is a hell of a lot greater than was Napoleon's, or Alexander II's, or ... you name them. Right, how could I forget George III? ;) It can't happen, people wouldn't let it, the Hitler stuff, and the Stalin stuff, Pol Pot, Rwanda, Darfur, that's all past, we're not like that anymore? Plenty of people still walking around who can tell you we haven't grown out of it. But the internet, underground publishing, modern telecommunications, it couldn't happen in any advanced country? Most countries have military & security planners who sit around working out responses to more or less far-fetched attack scenarios, and surely there are contingency plans for shutting that stuff down in a hurry if it comes to that. And those plans are to be carried out by the sort of people who are trained to carry out orders without a debate. Are these plans and capabilities aimed at their own countrymen by those who devise them? Rubbish. But if the capacity is there, the system is in place, sooner or later someone will come along who will pervert it if he believes he can make it work. So in the absolutely worst case, far-fetched but possible, the people have to be able to restrain the government & military by force. In the still remote but much more likely case, they restrain the would-be power-grabbers simply by their presence & numbers making a successful putsch look a very long shot. Do the people need howitzers and bombers, and tanks? No, they couldn't fight a conventional war against a conventional army anyway, and the government isn't going to be taking over the country by destroying it. What the people do need is to be a force of maybe 200,000,000 people who are, or at least might be, armed not too less effectively than a government soldier, facing a government military of perhaps 2 or 3 million. And those civilians will never need to fire a shot, because any administration will know that a putsch would be nothing but a huge messy disaster, and the attempt will never be made.

I realize that to most of you this sounds like the kind of paranoia people get from calling their crisps "chips" and their chips "Fries", but this stuff happens, it never has happened until it does, and it is most likely to happen to those who are not in a position to resist it. I have a copy of Conrad's novel *The Secret Agent*, with an introduction to the translation by a prominent author. He goes on (after mostly explaining various literary things about Conrad)
to tell the readers how it will be difficult for them to understand the mindset of the characters, because they (the readers) live in a country where authoritanism and czarist-style repression are so far behind them, where their degree of civilization will make the whole atmosphere of the story seem bizarrely improbable. I can't say how much difficulty those readers did experience, but I can say that within ten years of his introduction Thomas Mann had left the country where his works were being thrown on bonfires. The land of Goethe & Schiller & Rilke, of study & science & modernity, the last place anyone would have nominated for it, had been subjected to National Socialism. Would a true armed German people have prevented it? Maybe not, a lot of them embraced it, at least for a while, but by the time most of them were disenchanted with it, they *couldn't* realistically do much about it. Did the army rebel against what much of its leadership considered to be simplistic, ill-advised, ruinous policy? OK, was that because Germans are particularly prone to blind obediance to orders & constituted authority? That's what soldiers of any country are trained to do, follow their orders, and mostly they do. Anybody taking over a country is going to make it look to as many people as possible as if it's the only reasonable thing to be done under pressing circumstances, and he'll probably do it with utmost sincerity.

Ahem. Sorry about the long rant, but there's been plenty of wondering what can possibly be the matter with our Americans' minds on here, so some evening-up can't hurt you. One further pargr. and I will leave w/o addressing the entire rest of the thread.

9. Crime & self-defense: The victim is the first responder. As it is said, when seconds count the police are just minutes away. The police are a response force, not an on-the-spot deterent. A general deterent, yes, but most criminals attempt to operate when the police aren't present. What is an on-the-spot deterent is a suspicion that the victim is present, armed, & incalculably likely to resist lethally. Most people don't want to fight it out with somebody who's shooting at them, even if they suspect that person might not be too much of a marksman. (Tho that is one reason why what seem to be absurd amounts of firepower are not necessarily so. If the housebreaker/assaulter/&c. is confronted with a shaky, nervous victim who doesn't look like shooting straight, he might decide to risk one or two shots taken at him (the bad guy). If he sees 3 inches of clip sticking out of the bottom of the gun confronting him, it's going to cross his mind that *some* of those shots are going to hit him, just on random odds, and maybe it's time to call it a day. And if he doesn't, I hope some of them do.) Where I live, up in the hills, there is no cell phone service, no local cops (township of <700)and the state troopers minimum 10-15 minutes away - if we're lucky. And places do occasionally get burgled hereabouts, tho Vermont being a fairly high gun ownership place, most burglars are at considerable pains to be sure nobody's home when they set to work. Now, to actually have enough police to "protect" people, how many would you have to have? How much would it cost if you actually wanted that? The thing is impossible, even if it weren't horrible, and that would apply as well in the city as out here in the sticks. I doubt if there are a dozen houses in Vermont where you can't perfectly safely walk up to the door and knock like a civilized person, but there are quite a few where opening the door with a crowbar would be a very poor idea, and whatever statistics may claim, I can't believe that doesn't have a substantial deterent effect. An added bonus of our system vs. the Brits' is that you can credibly indulge in a little propaganda. ;) Shoot yourself a couple nice groups in paper targets, at a distance of 2 yards if necessary, or have a friend do so if you don't have a gun, and leave them lying carelessly on the porch, maybe with the widest shot circled and marked with appropriate vernacular. In merrie olde England they'll know your lying thru your teeth, but here it should give 'em pause. The idea, in re crime as in re tyranny, is to prevent the worst right from the beginning by a credible threat of resistance, but to be able to deliver on it if necessary.

One further advantage of on-the-spot crime-fighting: Say the convenience store/gas station gets held up, let's say at night. Bad guy[s] get nervous, one clerk gets shot/head-bashed with handy fire extinguisher/squashed with getaway car. After due investigation cops give the prosecutor their best suspect, other clerk is pretty sure it was him, B. S. can't clear himself, off he goes to clink for a nice long sit (specially, in all too many places still, if he's black). Eventually, after he's lost multiple years of his life behind bars, turns out it wasn't him. Very sorry Sir, but do have a nice life from now on. Now if, on the other hand, the perp is shot by the clerk right in the midst of his red-handed perpetrating, there will be no such confusion. Come on then, Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense, eh what? Seems fair to a lot of us.

Speaking of black men, let us close this overgrown post with a quote from Frederick Douglas, approximate, like most of the quotes I can't lay my eyes on at the moment, but guaranteed close:

"American freedom depends on three things: The ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box." He was right when he said it, and he's still right.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Stu
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 06:11 AM

"The need to restrain our own government."

it doesn't work. Your government spies on your every move and allows corporations to do the same. It gathers data on where you are, allows business to construct profiles of you to target advertising and who knows what else. Your phone allows them to track your physical movements. They're fucking you (and everyone else) over and all your guns can't do a thing about it. Heck, most people don't even know it's happening.

Your gun might allow you to take a pot-shot at a soldier or copper, but it's useless in the face of threats to your freedom other than violence, and even then if it's between you and a marine I know who'd I be betting on.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 08:29 AM

> American freedom depends on three things: The ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

He was talking about the Civil War. Makes a difference, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 08:51 AM

Two screenfuls of pompous guff like Carl's says to me that your typical American gun nut doesn't have enough self-control to be trusted with anything more dangerous than a popgun that spits out a BANG flag.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 08:58 AM

Bloody hell, a real NRA member, complete with cut and paste from their propaganda. This Carl specimen positively chills your bones, reading his awful bullshit.

To think, I like going to Vermont, skiing in Killington. I just thought it was the bears at the end of the season that were a danger to people. Seems some of the locals need key worker input before being let loose in public too...

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Sol
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 09:28 AM

"... the NRA president, Charlton Heston, gave an interview blaming the parents of the shooters, and the permissive culture that had allowed them to wear black trench coats to school"
----------------------------------------------------
Above is Mr Heston's view on the Columbine tragedy.
Says it all really.
Trench coats should be banned, not guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 09:45 AM

> blaming the parents of the shooters

Sounds more relevant to me than blaming licensed gun owners generally, even if it's nowhere near the whole story.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 10:08 AM

Which leads on to what to me, and a good many others, is the fundamental reason for having an armed people: The need to restrain our own government.

Oh, Lord, not one of THOSE loonies.

RE: the boxes metaphor, which originated with Stephen Decatur Miller, South Carolina "fire-eater", Congressman and Senator in 1830- and those cartridges were to be used to protect the "freedom" of southern slave owners to own property in human beings.

RE: Douglass using this same metaphor: the speech was made at the time that large numbers of Blacks in the South were being regularly murdered for attempting to exercise theit right to vote (which is what Douglass was talking about if you don't take his quote out of context. And it wasn't the government doing the killing: it was the Ku Klux Klan.

Note to VT Yank- its not 1830 or 1867 any longer - time you realized its 2014.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 10:50 PM

awwwkkk!! I just discovered Carl from Vermont's post.

It would take me a week to unravel the convoluted reasoning there.

The most important point to deal with is the 2nd Amendment, its history, its meaning or lack thereof, and it relevance to today's society... along with the practicality of even trying to update it.

I am too busy this decade.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 01:43 AM

As a white American male, Carl is a lot more likely to shoot himself than anything else.   He seems to be OK with that. Who am I to argue?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 02:25 AM

We live in hope, Stim. Him and the other crackpots like him.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 04:10 AM

Of course Backwoodsman, being a Derbyshire lad, I'd rather live in Hope than die in Staveley.

But this is about The USA and it wasn't really funny the first time.

But neither is the subject title. Although with his Hollywood credentials, I am at a loss why Charlton Heston became associated with an organisation for inadequate men to compensate for having small dicks?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Stu
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 07:34 AM

"I am at a loss why Charlton Heston became associated with an organisation for inadequate men to compensate for having small dicks?"

Because he's a shite actor?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 09:13 AM

How anyone in their right mind can consider that the American Government is constrained by their gun owning citizens beats me. But then of course, the NRA lobby don't seem to have minds, let alone hearts.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 09:41 AM

No, I don't think so -- Charlton Heston is indubitably a most accomplished actor. Just shows that such status doesn't necessarily bring good judgment in all matters.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 09:58 AM

> Charlton Heston is indubitably a most accomplished actor.

Sadly, "was."

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Stu
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 10:09 AM

"Charlton Heston is indubitably a most accomplished actor."

Really? Apart from Planet of the Apes I can't think of one good thing he's been in. All subjective I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 10:46 AM

"As a white American male, Carl is a lot more likely to shoot himself than anything else. "

Nonsense! Carl and many others, like olddude, are probably quite careful and competent when handling weapons... and it has nothing to do with "having small dicks". It 'may' have to do with an excess of testosterone, but that is a problem in lots of places. Some express it by collecting guns, some by making nasty posts in online forums.

The problem is all the not-so-careful, stupid, bigoted, aggressive idiots who are able to get guns thru the same ridiculously lax laws that allow them to Carl & others.

I do not approve of Carl, Dan, and various others who have debated this in Mudcat for a few years, having so many guns, but I would feel safe around most of them, even when I knew they were 'carrying'. That is quite apart from my fear & disgust with the myriads of others I don't know who treat guns like they did playing games at 10 years old!

If I could wave a magic wand, I'd soon have only hunters, ranchers who need to control vermin, police and a few carefully screened others who demonstrate a **need** able to access most weapons.... but we are far past that except as a fantasy.

   Gee... it must be nice to have such simple views of the world's problems. Too bad simple solutions¹ are not also on the menu.



1.simple solutions- like when Will Rogers was asked in the 1940s- "What can we do about the German submarines?"


paraphrased:
"Simple." replied Will. "Boil the ocean!"
"Oh c'mon Will, that's nonsense, how could we boil the ocean?"
"Oh, I'm just the idea man," Will said, "We have technical experts for the details."

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 10:55 AM

Yeah, but there'd still be German airplanes.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Stu
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 12:44 PM

"Some express it by collecting guns, some by making nasty posts in online forums."

True, but you'll have a heck of a job walking into McDonalds/school/shopping mall and blowing the living shite out of everyone with a nasty post from an online forum when the red mist comes down.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 01:11 PM

Bill uses the word "probably" when discussing the sanity and competence of people who think roaming around with guns makes you look cool.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 02:42 PM

Cool is as cool does.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 02:48 PM

Musket knows...or at least should... that that is not what I was discussing. I very specifically would NOT trust anyone who ostentatiously shows off by "roaming around with guns".

Careless interpretation of others' posts seems to be as popular a hobby as carrying guns...especially in areas where guns can't be the hobby.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 04:10 PM

Bill, guns CAN be a hobby in the UK but, having SANE regulations brought in many years ago by a government which actually had some balls, those guns are very, VERY closely controlled indeed.

Anyone who wishes to follow such a hobby has to show, amongst other things, very good reasons why he should be allowed to own a gun, and claiming to need one for 'self-defence', or to 'restrain our government' would immediately put the claimant in the category of 'Complete Fucking Crackpot' and debar him from ever having access to firearms of any sort.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 04:30 PM

One concurs.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 04:52 PM

Bill, my point references the fact that the great majority of gun deaths among white males are suicides. This has been pointed out our multitudinous gun threads. Carl, for his part, said that if someone wants to shoot himself, it is his right.

Vermont, incidentally, has a substantially higher rate of suicide than the national average, and a lower rate of violent crime. Neither of those is nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 05:45 PM

We must be making headway when the gun lobby have to import outside talent to defend themselves - and if that's the best they've got, it's even more encouraging. I suppose it becomes understandable when charges of corporate manslaughter could lead to the American justice system.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 06:02 PM

Ok Stim... in that context, I can see why one has concern about gun owners being at a higher risk for suicide. That is quite apart from an opinion about "if someone wants to shoot himself, it is his right." That question is about suicide as a right, not the method.

And I certainly agree with Backwoodsman that "having SANE regulations" is the goal.

Gosh... now all we need to do is unravel 250 years of history and attitudes! Easy-peasy, hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 06:05 PM

Regulations don't need to be a goal. You just introduce them in law and regulate.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 06:38 PM

> You just introduce them in law and regulate.

Any idea what it takes nowadays to pass a new law in the US on any "controversial" matter?

Or "noncontroversial," come to think of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 08:00 PM

"You just introduce them in law and regulate."
LOL
50 times..with amendments....

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 01:57 AM

See.......every time you're given the solution, out you come with the same old same-old - "Oh yes, you're absolutely right, but it's too difficult".

So.......back to my first post - 75% of you aren't interested in firearms! Why aren't you organising and forcing your will on your government and the small (25% FFS!) minority? Oh sorry, I forgot - it's too difficult. WTF happened to the 'Can-Do' nation we non-Yanks used to admire so much?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 03:37 AM

So penis inadequacy is the fault of corruptible government?

Keep banging the rocks together..

Anyway, that's a stupid response. The same lawmakers can ban smoking in public places so they can ban guns too. Despite all the bullshit about land of the free, I found that taking over businesses in The USA subjected us to far more red tape and regulation than in any other country we operated in.

So don't come out with that crap.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 04:05 AM

One concurs.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 09:31 AM

> The same lawmakers can ban smoking in public places so they can ban guns too.

Wrong.

There's no Constitutional guarantee of a right to smoke.

A Constitutional guarantee is inviolable. And guns are more popular than cigarettes, so to speak.

What's more, wiseguys, people have been organizing and urging and lobbying for stricter gun laws (not an unconstitutional "ban on guns") since the 1960s. And they still are.

Limited results, including a law ending the manufacture of assault weapons for civilians (1994). But Congress allowed it to expire ten years after they passed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 09:56 AM

There's no constitutional right to go around with guns if you bring in a law to say so.

There's nothing in any constitution about it. The nearest is something about the right to be drafted into an army or militia to defend The USA. I believe it is called the right to bear arms.

I know you are living in a lawless third world country but the democratic majority of your decent citizens want this criminal activity stopped. Take lessons from democracies and work as they do.

Eventually, you might get there. After all, the people wish it to be so. And your President is embarrassed when being lectured by world leaders about getting his house in order before criticising others.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 10:16 AM

Perhaps some are thinking too that our elected representatives are supposed to provide "leadership" as well as follow what their pollsters tell them is the "will of their constituents."

That *was* the theory.... But the over-riding real-world goal is to get elected and then stay in office.

This was frankly explained nearly fifty years ago in an Esquire article by Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, who later managed to get re-elected right after he was kicked out of the House for corrupt practices. (An extreme case, to be sure).

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 11:32 AM

"There's nothing in any constitution about it. The nearest is something about the right to be drafted into an army or militia to defend The USA. I believe it is called the right to bear arms"

That part of the constitution is a vague, antique formulation which made a certain sense for 150 years or so. It became obsolete as the world changed. The vagueness allows the idiots to hang on to it.

"...the democratic majority of your decent citizens want this criminal activity stopped. Take lessons from democracies and work as they do."

Do you really understand the procedures necessary to do this? The 'democratic majority' does not get to vote on such things in one National ballot! A few states have passed some laws that look like progress, but that 2nd amendment needs Congress to take the vagueness out of it. Congress has too many Republicans to pass any meaningful revision. If they were to magically pass a revision, **it would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states**!! Half of the states would likely defeat it. If 3/4 did magically pass it, what would you have? You'd have millions of angry gun nuts who have been stockpiling guns for years, and who have vowed to resist any such attack on their 'rights'.

Now, if that the democratic majority would rise up and overwhelm the crazies by.... lessee....hmmmm.. forming posses and knocking on doors and demanding everyone turn in their guns... sure.. that would work.....................bang, bang, bang.

What we need is Peter Sellers to bring the nation of Grand Fenwick over on a little ship and ......

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 11:50 AM

The estimates of gun ownership in the US are usually low because about one third of all gun owners answer "no" instead of saying "it's none of your business".


How Many Americans Own Guns?

Posted on December 21, 2012

That depends a bit on how you look at it. The narrowest definition of a gun owner is a person who has put money on the counter, fulfilled all legal requirements and taken a gun home. The broadest definition is someone who lives in a home with a gun. The most direct way of determining either number is to call up two thousand or so homes and ask.

Gallup has been doing something like that, with much the same result seen in the graphic on the left. Unfortunately, there is a problem with that. Gun "control," actually gun confiscation, drives have so many gun owners frightened to the point they will deny they own a gun. So other than the fact that a lot of Americans own a gun, polls like the Gallup poll are not very informative.

Since the main road is blocked, let's take a detour and see what the scenic route will turn up. Starting with the number of occupied dwellings.

The National Association of Homebuilders says there are 105,480,101 currently occupied dwellings in the United States. The 2010 Census found 111,800,000. Given the number of foreclosures and abandonment's, the NAH may be correct – but for appearances sake it will probably be better to use the official Census number.

Next, a private telephone poll that contacted 1,200 individuals found 58% of respondents indicated a gun in the home. This is slightly higher than the highest percentage from the Gallup poll, 54%, but the Gallup poll numbers are pulled down by fear engendered by active gun control campaigns in the Northeast and West.

A poll of individuals known to be gun owners contacted 758 individuals and found a 29% denial rate. When all the variables, including the geographic ones, are factored in, and with a three percent margin of error, 77.5 percent of American homes have at least one gun.

So we come back to the number of occupied dwellings. Using the Census number of 111,800,000 there are at least 86,650,000 Americans who own a gun.

On the other hand, if we allow that everyone who lives in a home with a gun has some ownership claim, the census says that each occupied dwelling in the United States houses 2.72 people. Which totals 235,675,000 Americans have some claim to gun ownership.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 11:50 AM

Are you people telling us that the United States of America, far from being the world's leading nation, is in fact a dysfunctional anarchy, whose legislative, executive, and judicial institutions are unfit for purpose?

If not, then what, precisely, are you telling us?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 11:54 AM

> a vague, antique formulation which made a certain sense for 150 years or so

It is conceivable - barely - that some future Supreme Court might somehow modify the current interpretation of the Second Amendment.   But then you'd "have millions of angry gun nuts who have been stockpiling guns for years, and who have vowed to resist any such attack on their 'rights'."

It was widely claimed in 2008 that Obama would come with jackbooted thugs to confiscate licensed guns. Six years later no thugs, but folks is still a-watchin' an' a-waitin'.

(Maybe I should have said "the folk." You'll remember them from other threads.)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 11:55 AM

A good share of the citizens - subjects?- in the UK is anti-monarchist. That being so, I cannot understand why they have not made their will known and abolished the system. Long since, even, because they have felt that way for a l o n g time. Their country knows that the whole concept, not to mention the actual reality, is class-ist, demeaning and archaic.

Instead they just keep banging those rocks. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 12:11 PM

Give us your statistics, and their source[s], to justify that assertion, please Ebbie.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 12:27 PM

Ebbie.. I just looked up the stats on UK monarchy, and there seems to be a disconnect between how many do not wish to be governed by a monarchy and how many want the entire system disbanded. Many enjoy the show & the history and the tradition.

------------------------
≈M≈

"If not, then what, precisely, are you telling us?"

Well I for one am telling you that your black & white, either/or division is simply not credible. Noting troubling aspects of the current status is not the same as trashing the whole concept. You know I can type long paragraphs dissecting various issues, but how to break down an accusation such as yours in a reasonable amount of time is just not possible.... and at the end, I'd just get a bunch of sarcastic remarks saying "So, you admit it's a mess, right?"

How long would it take to carefully explain the UK monarchy, it's history and the current attitude toward keeping it, tossing it or revising the details?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 12:32 PM

"Give us your statistics, and their source[s], to justify that assertion," M

Good gracious. "statistics"? I said "a good share".

My source? The UK. In Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 12:38 PM

A vocal minority are anti anything you like. But I think Australia said it best when they last looked at dropping the monarchy. The argument that won was "yes, but the alternative is someone who actually wants to be a president...."

The monarchy is a constitutional one, so "getting rid" happened when Charles I was beheaded. When his son was eventually put back on the throne, it was quite clear that parliament was in charge.

We don't have a monarchy to get rid of. We have a titular head of state. She has no power, and when Prince Charles's letters to ministers stating his views became public there was an outcry because they shouldn't interfere.

That said, if a party on a republican ticket came to power offering a republican referendum, it would happen and we could end up with a republic. Unlikely, but being a democracy, the ultimate will of the people happens.

Polls suggest a majority of people in The USA want guns banning. If that is difficult, ask yourselves how can call yourselves a democracy, let alone a safe place to live.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 12:58 PM

Well, "a good share" is hardly an overwhelming majority in any one's terms, is it, Ebbie? Do you really think it worth abolishing an ancient and revered institution, obliterating it from the face of the earth, because maybe 40% (quite a 'good share' I should say) of some sample of people might have vaguely said they don't like it much.

I haven't the least idea what you mean by citing your authority as "The UK. In Mudcat". I remember citing some survey-based statistics in one of the threads on the monarchy which appear to give an impression quite other than your none too specifically asserted "good share of HM's subjects" wishing her away. Were these, I wonder, included in your "survey" -- such as it may have been? They were on Mudcat.

I fear I think you are being uncharacteristically vague in the matter. And how you purport to observe any analogy to any anti-gun lobby as might exist in the US I cannot for the life of me see.

All v well sneering at my questions, Bill; but there is an awful sense of helplessness coming over from all these despairing posts about how the bloody guns are there and there is sod-all on earth that anybody in your Great Nation can do about it. Looks a bit dysfunctional & anarchic and unfit for purpose from where I am standing.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 01:02 PM

I greatly fear that you have utterly missed my point. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 01:06 PM

After that little monarchic red-herring, nobody has yet answered my point that the easiest way is to alloww the rednecks to keep their guns - but stop selling ammunition and explosive powders, which are NOT covered by any Amendment. OK, sell some to residents of Badlands areas, but beyond that, nix. At that point, the guns become glorified clubs.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 03:19 PM

My point, as you should be able to guess, is that everyone's sacred cow is sacred only to themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 03:32 PM

there is an awful sense of helplessness over here, also. That doesn't mean no one is trying.

I was not 'sneering'... I was disagreeing with the basic premise.
"Looks a bit dysfunctional & anarchic and unfit for purpose from where I am standing..."

I stand about 17 miles from The White House and 20 from Congress and I listen to & watch 10-12 forms of local media trying to assess it all.

The percentage I found was 70-80% in favor of continuity

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 03:43 PM

> stop selling ammunition and explosive powders, which are NOT covered by any Amendment.

What makes you say that?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 04:35 PM

The amendment covers, in recentish history, the right to draft young men to die or be terminally affected by serving in Vietnam.

Err. That's it

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 06:50 PM

As per PDQ's post--it strikes me that if a stranger called and asked if there were guns in the house, the prudent answer, regardless of fact, would be "Yes".

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 07:20 PM

Perhaps the word "prudent", which I associate with "common sense", is conditional.

If I thought a pollster would report his contacts back to activist groups, I would deny owning a gun. More than 30% of those polled must feel the same way.

Question really is (suggested by my post) is how can "the majority of Americans (be in) favor of banning guns" (as stated by the Mudcat Brits) while perhaps 77% of us live in households where a legal gun also resides.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 12:34 AM

And the majority of Americans favors "banning" guns? I doubt that very much. Most of us advocate the regulation of them, strongly favor strict background checks, strongly disagree with certain guns being available, strongly disagree with carrying guns inside many of the institutions currently allowed, strongly lament the gun-happy mindsets of so many Americans.

But banning? No. I live in Alaska. We have wild predators here. And besides that, a great many other potential situations where a firearm is needed. I remember an incident some years ago when a moose (large member of the elk family) on the rampage killed four dogs harnessed into a dog team.

I don't have a gun in my house. But then, I live in a town, not out in the bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 01:45 AM

"I just looked up the stats on UK monarchy, and there seems to be a disconnect between how many do not wish to be governed by a monarchy and how many want the entire system disbanded.

Bill, the UK is NOT 'governed' by a monarchy - it is governed by the Government (the clue's in the name!) sitting in The Houses of Parliament. The monarch has no executive powers whatsoever, she merely acts as an 'advisor', a sounding-board, to the Prime Minister, and rubber-stamps the decisions made by Parliament.

The monarchy was stripped of its powers of government three hundred-or-so years ago (when the USA was still peopled mostly by Aboriginal Americans rather than a bunch of immigrants), signified by the King losing his head (literally).

The idea that the monarch is the equivalent to your president seems to be another American stupidity, pretty much on the same level of daftness as the standard American's conception that the whole of the British Isles is 'England'.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 02:04 AM

Backwardman, your last sentence there - well, let me just assert that we Americans are MUCH too polite to list all the daftness of people like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 02:14 AM

Ebbie, I doubt that the anti-gun lobby here are demanding a total, 100% ban on all guns. I'm certainly not, but the US needs to get guns under proper and effective control.

Even in the UK, certain types of gun are permitted, shotguns, target-shooting rifles et al, but possession of these weapons is very, very stringently regulated and controlled. The individual applying for a gun-licence has to show very good reason indeed for his having a gun - and 'self-defence' or 'to restrain our government' are not acceptable reasons. The effect is that very few Brits have, or ever come into contact with, any kind of firearm. Those who do are mostly farmers or sport-shooters.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 03:36 AM

BMan, I don't mind disagreement or scolding, for that matter- but I seriously despise blanket condemnations.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 03:54 AM

"Backwardman". Hmmmm, I've always regarded you as one of the classier acts around here, Ebbie, certainly one who wouldn't lower herself to personal insults and name-calling, so I'll just assume that was an unfortunate typo. :-)

Now, back to the subject of stupid gun-obsession and bad gun-control laws in the US.......................

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 03:56 AM

OK Ebbie, we've both had our say. End of?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 04:57 AM

What makes me say stop this gun mania? The lastest figures for the US for 2011 are 32351 dead. You made a big thing of the Twin Towers bombing, starting a war and no end of other stuff. Yet this amounts to TEN 9/11s - every year - and you don't twitch. In the UK, we had just 44. The UK has a population about 5 times the size of the UK's: that means the mortality rate because of this 2nd Amendment is 150 times as high, grosso-modo. It means 30000 families have been mourning someone gone before their time, and all the consequences.
So, if you can't control the guns, control the bullets. That you can do. And unless you do so, you have no claim to any any moral authority over the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 05:10 AM

PDQ has neatly yet inadvertently given us a way of ending this thread.

By saying that 77% of American household contain guns, we see a leap into fantasy and make believe.

As you can't argue against lies, and whilst accepting there are a hell if a lot of them out there, it's pushing it a bit to say that only 23% of Americans see themselves as normal people, even if you add a few for pure hunting and sports...

I'm sure PDQ accidentally pushed the wrong keys. It is 47% to include hunting rifles and registered sport firearms.

Still worrying considering the average IQ of your typical redneck.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 08:46 AM

> That you can do.

Explain how. Bullets are naturally covered by the "right to bear arms," which would otherwise be an empty phrase.

> no claim to any any moral authority over the rest of the world.

No one here has made that claim.

> You made a big thing of the Twin Towers bombing, starting a war

Yes, I must acknowledged that we responded when attacked by a foreign foe that had already blown a hole in a US Navy vessel and had officially declared war on us in a 1998 statement by bin Laden, for which we'd also shown forbearance. Britain subjugated India and repeatedly appeased Hitler. That led to war and no end of other stuff, but likewise has nothing to do with strict or lax gun laws, or civilian homicides committed by (according to the cited figure) 1/10,000 of the otherwise very law-abiding US population?

What's more, according to the link there were 551 homicides of all kinds in England and Wales alone (never mind Scotland and Northern Ireland) in 2013 - a dozen times the gun homicides your post chooses to focus on. Still a very low rate, but showing once again that many murderers don't even need guns.

Gun homicides in the US are actually in decline. Nobody is sure why. And as Ebbie cogently notes, few Americans (the people affected) even want to "ban all guns." As posts on this thread show, the claim that we "don't even twitch" is laughably false.

Some countries need no more than a "twitch" to pass legislation that is far more dangerous than the laws of a slow-moving republican democracy. Fortunately I don't live in one of those places.

I notice too that the US doesn't even make the top-twenty list of nations with the highest murder *rates* per 100,000 population (2010-2011). Most of these nations are Third World countries inhabited by the peaceful "earth people" of New Age song and story.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/262963/ranking-the-20-countries-with-the-most-murders-per-100-000-inhabitants/

Just FYI.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 08:49 AM

Just to make my position clear:

Ideally, no one would have a gun. Ideally, everyone would have wings.

But these ideals have nothing to do with the real world.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 12:03 PM

OK, BackWOODSman.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 12:16 PM

Thanks Ebbie! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 12:49 PM

Just to clarify....

I did not claim, assert or believe that the UK is "governed by a monarchy" these days. Nor do any significant numbers of Americans believe "The idea that the monarch is the equivalent to your president ....
My point was simply that approval of continuation of the trappings of monarchy does not constitute approval of being governed by such a system.
The relevance of my attempt to draw parallels is that even in the US, disapproval of one or more aspects of OUR system does not and should not imply condemnation of the entire system as it seems to be in several posts by Brits.
We have one political group which is using the system in ways and to degrees seldom seen in our history. It IS possible for a situation to be exploited by lies, distortions and political maneuvers that were never imagined by the framers of the Constitution.
In a certain way, the process of the UK moving from a monarchy to a democracy allowed establishing specific safeguards against that older form of central power.
We began with one early attempt at a Democratic Republic that seemed at the time...(and for many years after)... a good way to provide fairness to all. This, of course, required several adjustments in the form of granting voting rights, abolishing slavery...etc. Now the very language that seemed so reasonable at the time is being twisted to the detriment of many.
Yet, I see post after post here that say: "Well, just go pass new laws & stop the stupidity!" and no explanations of the problems of that seem to get through.

I wonder if Scotland has any idea what THEY are in for?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 01:44 PM

They are not in for letting semi domesticated rednecks carry guns for starters. Scotland may have interesting times ahead but you'll not see a gun battle between Akenaton and his gay neighbours.

Just ban them. It's easy. You are banning all sorts of things on ecology tickets, and at long last, this includes high emission engines in cars.

So why not guns? Politicians wring their hands in the prescribed manner every time a number of funerals of children from the same school take place. So why not ask them to do their job come election time?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 04:01 PM

Let's open Musket's 09 Sep 14 - 05:10 AM door a bit wider: does anyone else see a strange parity between the NRA fabulism and Putin's in Ukraine? Both have to paint a world image demonstrably different from reality to maintain their positions. It's called insanity, in passing.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 04:41 PM

Musket... you simply do not wish to comprehend the situation.

"Just ban them. It's easy."

You have had my explanation of the issue a dozen times. You either didn't read it or are just willfully ignoring it in order to perpetuate a view of the US similar to the way you remark on football games/clubs.

" So why not ask them to do their job come election time?"

Because at election time, there are more than that one issue in play! The &$@##**^% conservatives have also **Gerrymandered** the voting districts so that more & more semi-sane candidates are herded into small pens. Those sane ones are elected, but are in the minority! (I have a quite sane, competent Democrat as my Representative- and 2 decent Senators)... and even they are subjected to unfair pressures when votes on any controversial topic are laden with amendments which muddy the issue!

It's easy... bah....

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 05:49 PM

BillD, I quoted your exact words, cut and pasted from your post of 8 Sep 14 - 12:27 PM. In case you've forgotten what you said, here it is again, cut and pasted:-

"I just looked up the stats on UK monarchy, and there seems to be a disconnect between how many do not wish to be governed by a monarchy and how many want the entire system

Those words suggest that the writer believes that the UK is governed by a monarchy. I pointed out that the UK is not governed by a monarchy, and there is no system to disband.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 08:57 PM

Fine.. I did not take the time to phrase my comment in such a way that it was totally impossible to mistake my intent. mea culpa...

If you read it with a certain attitude, it may indeed 'suggest' that I was mistaking a clear fact about UK history. I am not an expert on it all, but I have known for 50 years that you have a bicameral legislature (different from many others, but still governed by debate & vote.

I just don't understand why my explanation of what I did mean and my disclaimer did not suffice.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 11:44 PM

" But I think Australia said it best when they last looked at dropping the monarchy. The argument that won was "yes, but the alternative is someone who actually wants to be a president...." musket 8 Sept. 12:38

Now, just who is equating the monarch with a president? lol

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 03:28 AM

Bill, I didn't read it with any 'attitude', I was a proof-reader in a former life and I'm used to reading and understanding what is before me without bias or personal interpretation. I read your post literally, no 'attitude'. You wrote something that was factually incorrect and then got pissed off when I corrected you.

Your 'disclaimer' was simply wriggling to try to avoid admitting you were wrong. It doesn't wash. You fucked up and now you're trying to lay the blame on my 'attitude', and my 'failure' to 'interpret' and 'understand' something that you didn't actually say - more wriggling.

I prefer to admit my own errors. You should try it, honesty is very liberating.

The End.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 04:35 AM

Equating monarch with president? Your point?

If you lose the monarchy you replace them with a president. See Ireland for details.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 06:48 AM

Leave the question of monarchy alone, Musket, it's a red herring allowing him to slide out the side door.

I suspect Backwoodsman's a bit like me, rather too high an IQ to be allowed to argue on sites like this: he's taken something of Bill's which is patently ridiculous rather literally. But then again, most of what Bill writes on this meme can't be taken seriously by anyone with either head or heart. OK, Bill has a decent heart on other things, but none of us is perfect, and I think this is an area where he's been brought up in a macho image he's going to find hard to leave behind. We can't help our parenting, but we can leave it behind: my old man was psoitively Edwardian, I left the world's mores go their own way in the late 70s (I have no detailed knowledge of anything in popular music since 1977, for example, as I got reet pissed off with the presumption I'd like hip-hop: I understand it, I just think it and virtually everything since excessively simple, rhythmn alone doesn't make music).

And in any case we're more likely to replace a monarch with a politician. A President should be a statesman - and I don't think we have any in the UK at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 08:10 AM

It's not my IQ (some would say the lack of it!) that's at issue here, it's that I called someone out on an inaccurate statement about the UK being 'governed' by the monarch, and they tried to make it my fault because I took their words at face value whereas I should have realised that what they said wasn't what they actually meant!

A simple "You're right, I fucked up" would have commanded far more respect from me than the energetic belly-dance that Bill performed to try to wriggle out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 01:52 PM

"The End."

apparently not.

".. energetic belly-dance that Bill performed to try to wriggle out of it."

A background in proof reading can help one find all sorts of things that might not have been there.
I repeat... for the last time... I mis-PHRASED my comment, I did NOT mistakenly assert the UK was currently ruled by a monarchy. I knew better than that. (I suppose my mea culpa should have been in a larger font and red text.)

like this THE END



I still am lobbying for saner gun laws in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 02:21 PM

> I still am lobbying for saner gun laws in the US.

Yeah, but aren't you afraid your unfortunate "bad parenting" and unconscious brutal machismo virtually insure failure?

Rather a shame, rilly. Er. Hmph!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 02:35 PM

Oh, I DO worry about that! (Except the part about "insuring" failure. *giggle*. MY proofreading past wants to warn you that other proofreaders may be after you for not using "ensure")

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 03:26 PM

I was responding to rahere's post, but I see you're still wriggling eh?

You fucked up and tried to make it my fault for not successfully interpreting what you didn't say. That's dishonesty, wriggler, and beneath contempt.

Grow a pair of balls and admit it.

What a pity you don't employ that obstinacy in your 'lobbying for saner gun laws in the US', instead of wringing your hands and whining that 'it's too difficult'.

And yes, it's 'ensure'.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 04:13 PM

They say the older you get the bigger your balls get.

From an anatomical perspective they just get lower.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 05:10 PM

♫"Do your balls hang low.
Do they swing to & fro?"♫

Nope... not yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 05:42 PM

Three dictionaries (including the Oxford English Dictionary, published in the very heart of Limeyland) agree with my own experience that "insure" and "ensure" in this sense have long been interchangeable.

Don't bother to apologize.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 06:56 PM

Jesus How many British does it take to win a war none the US has to do it for them get a firearm and grow some balls or you could blow your little police whistle when you are being killed

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 07:41 PM

Hi 'guest' (I'm sure I can guess who.).. you will no doubt get remarks from the local proofreader about your lack of punctuation....and a few other things, I'm sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 08:06 PM

> How many British does it take to win a war none the US has to do it for them

Well, they certainly made Hitler think twice - while US isolationists and pacifists were doing all they could to keep us out of the fight (1939-1941).

And it was the Brits who drove the Japanese out of Burma. There was that Afrika Korps business, too, and sinking the Bismarck and all. Not too shabby.

In 1918 the Brits had to teach the Americans how to fight. Quite well, in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 08:58 PM

Oh oh bloody brilliant kind of thing like when fishermen and other civilians had to paddle your army home when hitler was driving them into the sea at Dunkirk was it wot bloody good show. How about patton having to wait for monty wot yea right fuck you

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 09:29 PM

Southern man don't need you around anyhow or your advice

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 09:38 PM

Brits fought just fine in many, many situations. The US did pretty well when they realized that isolationism was foolish. There's no need to compare and debate 'better'.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 02:55 AM

Nobody likes a clever-shit Bill. I'd refer you to the comment commonly attributed to Oscar Wilde regarding sarcasm.

Sarcasm is also the final refuge of a moral coward who got caught out making an erroneous statement and hasn't the backbone to admit he was wrong.

Carry on wriggling and sniggering, it obviously makes you feel better about yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 03:02 AM

Bill D does not need me to defend him but oh, boy, are YOU wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 03:33 AM

Not on the evidence he's presented here, Ebbie.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 04:38 AM

I don't see how discussing USA vs UK has any bearing on this.

The UK holds its head high in the field of civilisation as we don't need guns to compensate for personal inadequacy. Let's not forget, we are discussing letting people carry guns for personal protection, something civilised countries haven't felt the need for in a very long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 06:11 AM

True, musket.
Your phrase "Keep banging the rocks together" is so appropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 09:03 AM

Truly, I don't think "civilization" is anything more than a very, very thin veneer that societies and nations break and cast aside when their interests are "threatened."

The Arabic civilization was light-years ahead of the European and in fact taught many things to Europe that had been forgotten during the "Dark Ages." The Celtic Christian church had its own ways, in many ways far superior to those of Rome, but was tossed when Rome demanded absolute obedience to its authority. In many ways Elizabethan England was quite civilized, but broke on the rocks of James I (VI), Charles I, and Cromwell.

No, I think it depends on whose ox is being gored...and who demands Power. As "Bath House" John Grogan to King Richard Daley I, "Seize the power and all else will follow."

"...to whet a stranger's lust for power and gold...."

When I took over in a job in top management, I was told that I'd have to take a turn at running a group that was spread across several counties (an area about the size of England). I replied that I didn't want that...I wanted to be the spider in the middle of the web. THAT'S power, and it can and will corrupt and can bring down empires -- see the USSR (I knew that and managed to avoid it).

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 09:07 AM

"Power comes from the barrel of a rifle." --Mao Tse-Tung

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 10:45 AM

Ah but even rednecks in deepest Dumbfuckistan know he was a "commie!"

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 10:50 AM

This habit of quoting some statement by a famous name, in tones as if it somehow settles everybody's hash, has ambivalent [at best] effectiveness. I think Mao was mistaken about pretty well anything it is possible to be mistaken about. So why am I supposed to give a flying one where he thought power came from, Rap? & what, precisely, are you trying to demonstrate by quoting it?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 03:51 PM

One problem may be that for years many Europeans and others across the way thought of the US in terms of the Wild West as shown in the movies where the stalwart hero with holstered gun riding on his well-worn chaps (not the UK version!) rescued distressed damsels and sweet old ladies and then rode away with nary a scratch. Or at most, a superficial wound to his arm, which, incidentally, was never his gun shootin' arm. Only bad men were killed.

Perhaps now they think the mythical Wild West has suddenly turned its guns onto itself. We have let down the mystique - and the fantasies of generations of youngsters were obliterated.

:) This is a smiley, folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 04:20 PM

... and a


☺


right back to you, dear Ebbie...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 04:41 PM

Well, now time for a little gun music interlude, to this gun-powder issue.

My favourite part:

""Time to get a gun
That's what I've been thinking
I could afford one
If I did just a little less drinking
Time to put something 
Between me and the sun
When the talking is over
It's time to get a gun""

Fred Eaglesmith 

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 04:50 PM

Is that an Iraqi supergun in your pocket or are you pleased to see me?




Phallic symbolism. A load of cock.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 05:55 PM

I pop popcorn before looking at this thread. It's fun to watch the last vestiges of the British Empire dissolve while people cling desperately to the notions of "Western civilisation" and Greenwich Mean Time. Come to think of it, more clock towers is what We Yanks need.

Then, every once in a while, I throw my toys out of my pram and yell "Balls!" like Sterling Hayden in _The Long Goodbye_.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 13 Sep 14 - 09:42 AM

And it seems a gun isn't even an effective defence against a kid wielding a clarinet;

http://newsdaily.com/2014/09/12/gun-toting-colorado-woman-threatens-boy-over-clarinet-practice/

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Sep 14 - 10:01 AM

That's the sort of thing that happens with promiscuous gun ownership.

As is the present tight corner that the gifted but eccentric athlete Pistorius has got himself into. I know it is not the same country — South Africa not USA — but the situations and principles involved seem not all that different.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Sep 14 - 02:53 PM

"... but the situations and principles involved seem not all that different."

Exactly... depending on a gun somewhere 'handy', like a bedroom drawer, for 'self-defense' in case of intruders, is FAR more often likely to be useless or lead to such tragedies.
If it happens in the middle of the night, most people are far more likely to be sleepy, confused, and in a hurry... leading to mistakes.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 13 Sep 14 - 03:21 PM

Or you could be in a civilised country where the idea of owning a gun for self defence sounds uncivilised, medieval and dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 13 Sep 14 - 08:10 PM

"Oh oh bloody brilliant kind of thing like when fishermen and other civilians had to paddle your army home when hitler was driving them into the sea at Dunkirk was it wot bloody good show."

You really need to get an education mate.

A grasp of simple English for a start! Then you might be able to read and understand history (probably just the Primary School version).

Two minutes research would set you straight on the effect on an expeditionary force, of having both flanks (Belgium and France) collapse, leaving them exposed to a pincer movement by a much larger force.

Getting 350,000 men off the beaches under fire was the victory which ensured that the UK would not be invaded, and indirectly sealed Hitler's fate.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 01:50 AM

Troubadour, don't tell me that you're taking the Guest Troll's (fake) view to heart! We all know better.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 03:35 AM

Quite so.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 04:07 AM

Oh I don't know. Sometimes you have to eat swill to gain affinity with the pigs.

We gave you knives and forks and you can't even get that right... No wonder you misunderstood the role of firearms in society.

See ? Easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 08:24 AM

One problem may be that for years many Europeans and others across the way thought of the US in terms of the Wild West as shown in the movies

A greater problem is the number of U.S. folks that STILL thnk of the present day U.S. in terms of the "Wild West" of the movies and behave accordingly.

Like the National Rifle Assassination, for instance.....

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 08:58 AM

...and in another instance this jackass.
That this guy should be granted a carry permit is really discouraging and an indication of how far we have to go.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 09:31 AM

Hey, that's FLORIDA - David Berkowitz could get a carry permit.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 09:48 AM

Tell me about it, Greg. I live about 100 miles south of the locale of the most recent Zimmerman lunacy in one of FL's most conservative districts.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 12:18 PM

Still, you have to admire the intelligence of their weaponry, if they're able to form an Association all on their little selves. Most other people would form an Association of Riflemen. Probably says something about those who bear arms, dumber than their own guns!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 12:47 PM

Well, this group dates to 1859, and so the US was just following the lead of Mother England on November 17, 1871....

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 12:59 PM

I think you'll find that the courses & objectives of the two organizations in question have diverged a bit since 1871, Rap.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 01:53 PM

In the USA, even the National Chamber of Commerce courses & objectives have changed from the original purposes. If an organization which begins as a reasonable interest group is co-opted by self-serving, greedy but clever marketers, it can be very hard to combat them and form counter groups. They use the rhetoric of their saner origins and distort the meanings until they are almost 180 degrees from the beginnings.

The NRA is a paradigm example.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 15 Sep 14 - 01:48 PM

Meanwhile, you can be the most lethal serial killer in history with a gun in your hand and another armed-to-the-teeth killer pal beside you and it still doesn't save you from getting what's coming to you at the hands of a fellow tooled-up psycho:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/03/16823532-american-sniper-author-chris-kyle-fatally-shot-at-texas-gun-range

I hope the Iraqi resistance fighters who put a bounty on Kyle's head have the decency to pay up towards Routh's defence fund.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 15 Sep 14 - 02:36 PM

Jack you are a tool but you know that you creep

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 08:37 AM

How many guns does the US need
Before they call it a day?
Yes, and how many graves must the families weed
Before they're taken away?

The answer, my friend, is pissing in the wind
The answer is pissing in the wind

How many times must we post this again
Before OldDude learns he's wrong?
Yes, and how many times does someone feel the pain
Of someone killing their son?

The answer, my friend, is pissing in the wind,
The answer is pissing in the wind

Because if the US made love not war
Their women would be peeing themselves in the street,
The size of the dicks they once thought they saw
No more than a small stalk of wheat.

The answer, my friend, is pissing in the street
The answer is peeing in the road.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 09:25 AM

I see that a guy in Holland shot up a courthouse today...and then there's that fella who shot up a museum recently....

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 09:29 AM

And how do those incidents compare numerically with the cases of gun violence in the U.S., Rap?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 09:31 AM

Irony Ahead:

But since they're not Americans, they're just "exceptions that prove the rule."

End Irony.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 09:59 AM

Rahere yes but you should see how good the audience is when I play at the coffee shop :)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 12:18 PM

According to my wife i am always wrong so I am use to it my friend

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 05:18 PM

Zug: 14 dead; Tours, 4 dead, 10 wounded; Nanterre, 8 dead; Erfurt, 18 dead; Freising, 3 dead, 1 wounded; Turin, 7 dead; Madrid, 2 dead, 1 wounded; Emsdetten, 11 dead; Tuusula, 8 dead; Naples, 7 dead, 2 wounded; Kauhajoki, 10 dead; Winnenden, 15 dead; Lyon, 10 wounded; Athens, 3 dead, 2 wounded; Rotterdam, 3 dead, 1 wounded; Vienna, 1 dead, 15 wounded; Espoo, 4 dead; Cumbria, 12 dead...and then there's Utøya and Oslo: 77 dead and at least 209 wounded. Of course, that's not at all current.

Maybe if Europeans were allowed to pack heat these wouldn't have been so bad -- or they still would have happened, just as they might have in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 05:43 PM

Rap, just makes the case even more firmly for not having guns, thank'ee.
In fact, your count is about 2 days' death count on a similar basis in the US - and those events go back up to fifteen years!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 06:13 PM

If the UK has it right, why is your violent crime rate EIGHT TIMES that of the US?

I'd be happier if the likelihood nut jobs could get their hands on guns, and anybody could get their hands on assault weapons was reduced, but this whole "my country is better than yours" stuff is just stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 06:19 PM

If the UK has it right, why is your violent crime rate EIGHT TIMES that of the US?

Hunh? WHAT statistics RE: "Violent Crime" (whatever that is defined as)rate???

And what have firearms to do with it?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 07:56 PM

Only took 2.3 seconds to get an analysis of comparative violent crime rates.

There are other pages, but this one says:

"Due to fundamental differences in how crime is recorded and categorized, it's impossible to compute exactly what the British violent crime rate would be if it were calculated the way the FBI does it, but if we must compare the two, my best estimate‡ would be something like 776 violent crimes per 100,000 people. While this is still substantially higher than the rate in the United States, it's nowhere near the 2,034 cited by Swann and the Mail."

It is hard to compare when societies have different definitions and reporting systems. The UK seems to whack on each other more, but do less average damage.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 08:26 PM

> substantially higher than the rate in the United States...

So it's a good thing the savages *are* kept forcibly unarmed, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 09:32 PM

One is inclined to think that if those in the UK had the kind of access to guns that we do in the US that everyone would be dead in a week. A month tops. Too bad, because we'd miss some of you;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 10:23 PM

OK- how about a rueful shake of hands?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 01:58 AM

Jeri, nobody's saying "Our country's better than yours".

We're saying "Our gun laws are better than yours". The fact that your gun-death rate is 30 times higher than the UK's bears witness to that. We're also saying how frustrating it is that your redneck small-dicks like oldude, rapparee, Stim, lighter et al don't seem to have the intelligence to make the connection.

That's all - not difficult is it? Not for normal people at least.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 03:41 AM

Frankly, I don't see a great deal of difference between dying of a gunshot or from a knife attack. If it had to be, I suspect I would prefer the shot.

What does make me laugh, however, is the notion that some here seem to hold that the UK is so much more civilised because it doesn't allow guns. It appears that, guns or no, you guys got a LOT of crime. What is so civilized about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 04:03 AM

Maybe we do, maybe we don't, Ebbie. I don't fell qualified to comment on that.

But what I do know is that much of our crime is very low-level stuff - shoplifting, driving offences etc.. Almost none of our crime involves firearms, or weapons of any sort - carrying what's classed as an offensive weapon (including guns, knives, baseball bats, hammers, screwdrivers, and a lot of other stuff) in the commission of a crime elevates that crime to the 'Aggravated' level, and will result in a doubling of the sentence, should the perp go to court.

And, compared with the US, a minuscule number of crimes here involve anyone being shot. There's a correlation there that only those who are either too stupid, or too wilful, are unable to get into their heads.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 04:18 AM

Something else worth bearing in mind is that much of our violent crime - shootings, stabbings, beatings etc. - involves attacks by gang-members on members of other gangs in our major cities, it's hardly ever a 'simple' robber/victim incident.

And murder is so unusual here that you can pretty much guarantee that every killing makes the front pages of our national newspapers! and is reported on national TV news - even more so if it's a shooting or a stabbing. I'm certain that's far from being the case in the US.

Although I argued with BillD over one silly issue of UK sovereignty, I'm in complete agreement with his views on changing laws. But, like many other UK-ers here, I'm frustrated by your political system which makes changing gun laws virtually impossible, by the seemingly meek acceptance over there that bringing change about is 'too difficult', and by the idiot small-dicks who think everything there is 'jest fine 'n' dandy y'all'.

Time to take my dog for a five-miler. Sleep tight.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 04:21 AM

Jeri, you have a responsibility not to talk bollocks eh?

After all, if the zoo keepers eat with the chimps, the zoo will never make a profit.

Ebbie. Here's something for you. We don't have much crime at all over here by US measuring or we have far more. No idea which is accurate. Before spending time looking at health systems used by Kaiser Permanante and what we might learn from their primary care approach, I made a point of looking at other cooperation studies, and policing was one of them.

Whether US or UK has more or less of anything crime wise is not know and can't be because we measure so much of it differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 05:21 AM

One 'difference', Ebbie, is that anyone trying to run amok with a knife in a crowded mall would not get very far or have the chance to stab many people before being stopped & overpowered. With a gun, judging by #s of deaths involved in your innumerable instances of such, and our very few copycat ones like Hungerford & Dunblane*, that is a whole lot more difficult.

≈M

*Honestly can't think of any others

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 06:44 AM

Another point is that, if you're un-armed and someone comes at you with a knife, there's a chance of defending yourself, even of disarming the assailant (and before the smart-ass small-dicks come in trying to say it can't be done, I've done it).

If you're un-armed and somebody's banging away at you from 20 yards with a gun, automatic or not, you're fucked and you're toast.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 07:05 AM

As ever. Bill D refuses to examine his documents: if he had, he'd have realised the figures quoted are examined in those texts and show the comparatives are chalk and cheese.

When it comes to knife crimes, the sale and carriage of combat knives are legally limited in the UK to those with folding non-locking blades of under 3", with the result that these days most knife crime involves kitchen knives. Even the carriage of these is questionable, they always come zip-tied into sheathes for this very reason.

So suggesting that the UK simply sublimates the urge to violence into knife crime is equally wrong, and worse, a red-herring, as it's based on two wrongs making a right. Whether the UK has a knife problem or not has nothing at all to do with the US gun problem, and the refusal of the gun lobby to take responsibility for its actions. We are pointing the finger here, and saying that the next time you have a massacre, the supporters of the gun lobby here will be every whit as much responsible for it as the shooter. All it takes for evil to win is for good people to do nothing, which is exactly what has happened in the past, and which must stop now. We said so then, and we're saying so now, with the difference that in the past, we didn't personalise the responsibility for the risk. Now we are.

A similar lie was perpetrated a while back in reply to my comment that ammunition and explosives are not covered by the Second Amendment, claiming it is "natural" that the Amendment extends that far. I have nowever discovered ammunition growing on trees, so how can it be "natural"? The Amendment is "to bear arms", to carry weapons, not to shoot them: you can carry them as a club, and be issued with ammunition as your National authorities see fit.

Responsibility for a wrong is not something which is shareable between those responsible for it, it is something each and everyone who could have done something to stop it shares full responsibility for. In the UK, a charge of murder can be levied in its entire weight against every one who was part of the crew who killed someone, it is not "twenty years divided by twenty perps", it's twenty years each, or whatever the judge sees fit.

No, the Gun Lobby has definitively lost the case, and it might be a wise thing dfor the Principal of every school to write to the President of the NRA holding him contingently liable should any of the children in the school be injured. This ducking the blame must stop, can stop, and eventually will stop. The only question is how many innocents must die in the mean time.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 09:25 AM

BWM -- If I might point out: not "another point", but the same point I had just made, differently expressed.

Regards
≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 09:40 AM

Ammunition not natural?

Lead is a rather common element. I can make potassium nitrate (saltpeter) in my back yard from old shit (literally, old shit) and sulfur is found in the volcanic remains near here. Charcoal can also be made, and willow (which grows in abundance) makes the best for gunpowder.

Nitrocellulose is simply nitrated cotton (other cellulose could be used, of course). Nitric and sulfuric acids are also made rather easily.

As for ignition, flint and steel (both are, ultimately, common).

Or, more simply, the archers at Agincourt set a pretty good pace in loosing arrows, didn't they? Silent, and an arrow will quite likely pierce a "bulletproof" vest. At a hundred yards or a thousand, you're still stuck.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 09:44 AM

Bent down, turned round & gave me a wink
Said "I'm gonna mix it up right here in the sink".

Have fun, Rap -

What about pointed sticks and sharp stones?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 09:46 AM

Apologies Michael - I confess I didn't read your post. Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 10:50 AM

Rap, you just fell foul of another of my points: changing the subject to mediaeval archery doesn't let guns off the hook! And claiming that just because cartridges are physical, it makes them natural is the largesse of a birthday, I guess. I've heard of a gum-tree, but never a gun-tree. The closest I can get is the offspring of a horse, which if argued would mean Samuel was hung - as opposed to hanged, which is what happened to many of his clients.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 11:07 AM

Changing the subject is the tactic of someone who knows that, by any normal person's standards, his argument is completely demolished. It's like trying to change the subject to (unverifiable) UK crime stats, when the thread is about the crackpot gun laws in the US, and the gun-death rates there that, by any civilised standards, are utterly appalling.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 11:37 AM

Who is it, now, who changed the subject?

The question was, "[Does] Anyone defend the US gun law?"

The answer was yes, and several reasons were given.

And that was the end of that particular discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 12:22 PM

What, ptrecisely, is "THE" U.S. gun law supposed to be?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,#
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 12:30 PM

US Gun Law: who has the gun makes the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 12:55 PM

Would you be more comfortable is bad guys used pipe bombs instead
How about a blade. Both rap and I are regarded as expert's on sharp edged weapons. Samurai sword. You see if one is going to kill the method is meaningless. Guns are not the problem people are

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 12:59 PM

Guy was killed two weeks ago with a broken beer bottle in a bar. Means doesn't. Matter I think. Dead is dead so do we outlaw beer

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 01:39 PM

I am genuinely distressed at someone of Dan's intelligence coming out with such indescribable idiocies.

This is not a sarcastic or satirical or ironic assertion; nor a truculent or pugnacious or aggressive one. Just a plain statement of fact. I can't find the words to express how unbelievably sad it makes me.

Sincerely

≈Michael≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 02:03 PM

". Bill D refuses to examine his documents:..."

All I was doing was pointing out that 1) it was easy to find what figures are available, and 2) that it is hard to compare figures from 2 different systems which don't categorize in the same way.
My little comment about 'whacking' was the sort of irony I am often accused of not getting myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 02:27 PM

Relax Mike I don't hurt anyone

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 02:33 PM

I would support better gun laws with loopholes closed not more ineffective laws that protect Noone and that I being serious

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 04:09 PM

> it is hard to compare figures from 2 different systems which don't categorize in the same way.

That is correct, but if the source has any credibility at all, we can reasonably conclude that the rates of violent crime are similar enough to discredit any assertion that Americans are especially predisposed to violence.

At least in comparison with the UK.

We don't need to know the precise degree of equivalence to draw so general a conclusion. (Which, perhaps coincidentally, accords well with common sense.)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 07:41 PM

we need a federal handgun carry standard. the state laws are nuts. some states impossible to get a permit, others like florida, if you can breathe you get one. like i said before we need better laws

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 07:51 PM

we can reasonably conclude that the rates of violent crime are similar enough to discredit any assertion that Americans are especially predisposed to violence.

Not at all. We're talking violence WITH FIREARMS as opposed to "violence" ( however that is defined) in general.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 08:54 PM

In this context, the violent nature of the group is reasonably indicated by the actual incidence of violent crime, not by the power of the weapons (or fists) that are used.

Group X (say 5000 people) has 500 violent crimes. Since they can't use guns, they use things like knives, fists, rocks, etc.

Group Y (say 5000 people) has 400 violent crimes, 50 of them involving guns.

Of the two groups, which contains the higher proportion of violent individuals?

The British claim was that Americans, by nature or nurture, are *as a group* far more violent than the British. There's no way even to guess whether one group or the other, with equal access to guns, would be more likely to use them.

For all we know, if Group X had had guns, they'd have used them far more often than did Group Y. But we don't know and can't speculate. All we *do* know is that Group X has a higher *rate* of violent crime, and by that measure is the more violent group.

Whether the "average" member of Group X is more or less violent than the "average" member of Group Y (i.e., more likely to use a gun if one is available) can't be determined from the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 09:18 PM

Dan, me luv, using a broken beer bottle to kill is violent, and it is effective. However, using that same bottle or even a series of broken beer bottles violent as it is, is not as effective in killing 25 people. I think that is what we are saying: Gun prevalence equates to mass killings.

We know that a gun is not as effective in killing masses as a bomb is but most people don't know how to build a bomb. Most people can figure out how to shoot a gun.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 09:20 PM

Lighter, I once worked for a boss who used your tactic, abstract to a n (in)effable degree of abstraction and then redefine in his terms. It's dishonest, discreditable and disrespectful. The theme of the meme is GUN abuse, so stop trying to prove a case you've fairly conclusively lost by changing the subject.

And if you must go back to that text, there is nothing in common in terms of proclivity to violence when you have to include combing one's hair in an aggressive manner as reportable violence (UK) to achieve your case.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 09:45 PM

Ebbi . I know hon just playing devil's advocate

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 09:50 PM

My point is that humans can take anything and make a weapon out of it. How many were slaughtered by smallpox-infected blankets distributed to the the Iroquois by the British? How many killed to open the opium trade to China? Range of a weapon is irrelevant to how many it can kill -- ask the victims of Jenghis Khan or Tamerlane or Eichmann, or those dead by gas in WWI.

I can kill more by derailing a tanker car of chlorine than I could with machine gun -- or by flying passenger airlines into buildings.

It is the intent, not the weapon itself, that kills. A 'dud' bomb dropped on London will quietly rust away until it is excavated...humanity itself bears the fault of turning innocent things into weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 09:57 PM

You are right rap and if I can still put my hand through a cinder block at my age, and I can then why use any weapon. I know you can also. Your point is well taken it does go back to people kill not weapons

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 11:16 PM

It's that last phrase that won't do, ya-no, Dan -- all this sniggeringly disingenuous "Guns are not the problem. People are the problem" -- that sticks in my craw and so saddens me & robs me of my SOH and makes me abusive of dear old windup devil's advocates like that charming old Mr O'C. The problem is ···the people + the guns··· ~~ If the problematic people can't get the equally problematic guns: why, then, game over!...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 12:42 AM

But what changed then Mike, it was far easier to get firearms back in the 50 early 60s. You could order war surplus from any catalog no kidding there was never anything like today drive by or school shooting. I can only assume that the people changed and not for the good. I can honestly say I never heard of a violence with a gun growing up in my whole county but Iccan't say that now

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 12:59 AM

For some reason in society and not just in America, people have become violent. Guys like solders or X national security had to learn the tools of violence for profession. Civilian hunted and would target shoot. Today they blow up innocent people or shoot them for no reason at all. People changed Mike I think not weapons

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 01:06 AM

I guess I really don't know the answer. Rap and I probably are not the best to ask, we both would be most likely not here without the ability to defend ourself but again that was military or government related. Probably why I taught my kids martial arts, sharp edged weapons and to shoot hoping they never needed any of it ever.
The world is too violent and good people need to realize that I think

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 01:15 AM

I honestly don't think that removing all guns in today's world would change much unless people changed. We would just see more pipe bombs and blades. I hope I am wrong and I am being serious. People would find a way to kill. I am probably being a pessimistic person but it is what it is

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 01:25 AM

Doubt the pipe bombs. Blades can't cause as much continuous damage in one incident -- see correspondence above. Really see no sort of advantage in guns being freely available, & an ∞ of disadvantages. The "ways to kill" people would find would just not be so destructive within each instance of their setting out to do so. It isn't the people - it's the guns.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 01:39 AM

Well I agree on real gun laws that make sense and I agree that a gun makes it one hell of a lot easier so we need laws but we are missing something. The human aspect of modern violence and I don't have the answer to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 01:47 AM

Mike, the rednecks KNOW the truth. They bring up the 'pipe-bombs' and 'blades' argument to avoid having to admit it. Changing the subject - the last refuge of a man who is absolutely beaten and he knows it.

Only a complete fool defends the indefensible.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 01:53 AM

Something changed from the end of wwii until now society wise for people to do things to others like today's world is. Sad, we can debate the tools of violence but some smart psychological study needs done to explain what happened to the people

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 03:06 AM

Let's stick to the absurd " it's people not guns" crap and see what that actually tells us;

It tells me that those who glorify them are the least suitable to owning them.

An inadequate redneck without a gun is less of a danger to society than an inadequate redneck with one.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 07:47 AM

Really?

That would negate all the training the military of every country gives in killing. It would make the work to overcome the natural aversion to killing others ("You shall not kill") irrelevant -- give someone a firearms and they'll kill with it, even if they've never held one before.

I strongly urge you to read titles like Keegan's "The Face of Battle", Grossman's "On Killing" and "On Combat", and S.L.A. Marshall's critique of US marksmanship training before saying more. Make a real study of violence and stop spewing out pre-digested pap.

Then go visit a veteran's hospital and talk with some of the people there. Tell them that the mortar round that took their legs off or the sniper shot that spattered their buddy's brains all over them weren't done by people who intended to kill.

Two things are necessary NOW, in the US and elsewhere:

1. Good, solid mental health programs without the stigma of "crazy" or "weak"
2. and sensible, logical, and consistent firearms laws.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 08:20 AM

I agree with 1 & 2 100%, Rap.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 09:07 AM

> How many were slaughtered by smallpox-infected blankets distributed to the the Iroquois by the British?

Possibly a few, possibly none:

https://journals.psu.edu/phj/article/download/25644/25413

Not that the idea wasn't considered.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 12:24 PM

I don't know about any other, but I cherish my redneckness. Hell I am a blue blood redneck. I suspect my family invented duct tape they are so redneck. I need a flag

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 09:11 PM

Part of what changed is the male population hasn't seen the bloody side of war. When you're sitting in a comfortable chair outside Lake Tahoe bombing the shit out of the Taliban and anyone else who just happens to be inside the blast range as "collateral damage" it stops being real and becomes another computer game, the kind of Hollywood movie where nobody is ever premanently injured or actually gruesomely painfully dead.
The WW I and II infantry saw that, it was their immediate neighbour. They never talked about the nightmares, but made certain it could never come visiting. It started to wander in Vietnam, Rambo's criticism of the Soldier of Fortune mentality is only too real, it's morlocks like that who pulled the prisoner abuses in the Gulf. Too macho, too gangsta, too computer game, where the dead aren't bleeding on your floor. How many points for hitting a politician in your getaway?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 09:57 PM

And there are those of us to whom such is all too real.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 04:23 AM

In which case they should understand the stupidity and futility of civilians being at liberty to own firearms without careful and strict controls being placed on them by their government, and should hang their heads in shame for some of the idiotic, testosterone-fuelled horse-shit they've posted on this thread in support of universal gun-ownership and, by virtue of that support, acceeded to the demands of the NRA dumbfucks.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 04:56 AM

Wow. Fascinating to get inside the mindset of people who think guns are cute.

A bit like the Jesus freaks on certain other threads.

I suppose there's nothing threatening about a billiard ball in a sock either..


This just in. Eight dead in Florida. A man shot his daughter and his six grandchildren dead before turning the gun on himself.

Still, he had the right to bear arms so freedom is safe. God bless America.*




*somebody has to.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 05:49 AM

35000 a year is close enough 100 a day, grosso-modo. That's just one hour's tragedies, move on, nothing to bother you...unless you're a real human being. Next...
In any one month, 3000 Americans die from guns. You get all hot under the collar about Al Qaida attacking the WTC, once, fourteen years back, killing fewer. One might ask who are the greater terrorists then, Al Qaida or the NRA? Because on a simple statistical basis, the latter are your own worst enemy. You're actually more likely to die from a gun than in a road traffic accident (2012:33561), there. You need cars (although a better bus network would help), you don't need so many weapons, except in a few areas.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 06:05 AM

An article once again underlining the US mindset where it comes to militarisation and the use of force:

School districts given free machine guns and grenade launchers

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 09:03 AM

Let me know if they start using them on truants.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 09:19 AM

When I posted my last comment I didn't think y'all would understand it. Having been in war does not mean that someone is opposed to ALL war or to all violence. Only to violence for violence's sake, only to the lawless sort. There are times when only violence will serve -- witness the ISIS or ISIL or whatever they are calling themselves. There can be no rational discussion with fanatics -- NRA, Nazi, anarchist, pacifist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Shintoist, Amish, socialist, or whatever. When true fanaticism takes over only the death of the fanatics will stop it. Why? Because true fanaticism means that the fanatic is willing, even eager, to die for The True Cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 09:26 AM

Oh its even bettet than that, Musket: The Florida idiot had a prior conviction for - you guessed it - shooting his son to death. Good old Florida...

---

BELL, Fla., Friday, September 19, 2014 (AP) — A man who spent time in prison a decade ago for the shooting death of his young son killed six of his grandchildren, including an infant, his adult daughter and himself in a rampage at a home where authorities in the small Florida town say they had been called to in the past. When a deputy arrived, the shooter, 51-year-old Don Spirit, committed suicide and authorities then found the seven gunshot victims "all over on the property."

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 09:42 AM

You're correct Rap. And that's the job of the Armed Forces, not a bunch of small-dicks with hunting-rifles that may or may not be stored in locked gun-safes, handguns they keep on the bedside stand, or automatics they picked up with no checks at the County Fair.

I was born in 1947, grew up surrounded by veterans from both World-Wars - they saw plenty of death, and I never heard one of them support the notion of civilians being permitted to own guns. None ever wanted to see a gun again, they were sickened by guns and what can be done to a human being with a gun.

No-one, except the police, the armed forces, farmers and boba-fide sport-shooters needs a gun in a civilised country. Australia and the United Kingdom prove that.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 09:58 AM

Might be a thought to require anyone wanting a gun licence to do a month in an Emergency Room first, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 02:04 PM

HOW MANY MORE?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 02:09 PM

"The parents are coming in with tears in their eyes," said Wendy Pineda, who brought her two sons to the school Friday morning."

Mmmmmm, words like 'crocodile' spring to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 04:58 PM

Nothing like learning from a mistake, is there? Better not to have to learn the hard way.

The death of his son, for example, is yet again the result of no training and indiscipline. What was a round doing up the spout when it wasn't about to be fired, when he was cleaning the weapon? How come it had got rusty? So having killed one of his children, he'd already crossed that limit, the rest wasn't as hard - on him, the swine.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 08:26 PM

" A man shot his daughter and.." etc.... but he wasn't allowed to have a gun! Why, he just broke the law! Naughty, naughty!

All we have have to do is carefully monitor all felons and keep track of all current & developing psychos... and have everyone register all their guns.... and explain to all the sane people how careful they have to be, lest some felon or psycho steal or buy their guns.

There... problem solved!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 03:34 AM

Or don't have guns around for them to steal in the first place.

Problem solved as per how we do it in the first world.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 08:14 AM

The longer this thread goes on, the lower my opinion of British acuity becomes.

I have to keep telling myself it's just a few nuts, just a few nuts, just a few nuts....

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 11:29 AM

There there, Lighter. All go on playing with your nice toys, and never mind what the grown-ups think.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 11:54 AM

Lighter gets the point.... and if King George had treated the colonists better and this big, wild country had remained part of the Empire, I'd bet the opinion & understanding of how 'gun culture' developed naturally would have many Brits analyzing the situation a bit differently.

The 'first world' (is that in the Magna Carta?) is not somehow naturally more intelligent and reasonable. Being smug & condescending about differences in history is not becoming.... no matter from whose perspective.

Those of us who despise and regret the situation regarding guns are also frustrated that the path to controlling it is such a Moebius strip.... and when we are told "just introduce new, sane laws & pass them", the discussion has nowhere to go.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 11:59 AM

this big, wild country had remained part of the Empire, I'd bet the opinion & understanding of how 'gun culture' developed naturally would have many Brits analyzing the situation a bit differently.

Or vice versa.

And how do you see how U.S. 'gun culture' DID develope?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 12:09 PM

I'm sorry, Bill. But putting men on the Moon but being unable to control the use of your firearms because you can't enforce laws even if you pass them, is just pathetic in anybody's language.

If you think that smug & condescending -- well I shall just have to live with it, shant I?

Regards

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 01:48 PM

Michael... putting men on the moon and having a legal & cultural problem with firearms is a 'false equivalency'. I could make assertions about some awkward issue in the UK that seems foolish, but I'm sure I'd be shot down over 'not understanding the history'.

Now if you have a serious idea on how to get out of that firearms situation, I am all ears...

---------------

and Greg, I have spelled out the history of the gun culture several times.

Big, wild country... Indians... defending against bears... war of independence ... ranchers controlling predators...etc. etc... it goes for several paragraphs. Look it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 01:58 PM

I'll say it once more: "I hate the gun culture!"

But we HAVE many millions of guns of various types distributed in godawful ways. You can go *tsk-tsk* all day about the stupidity of it, but that says NOTHING about a pragmatic solution. Read again my sarcastic remark above about 'how to solve it'. *I* know the problem... how am I supposed to reply to nothing but continual jeering and finger pointing?

I respect you, Michael, and 99% of your observations on most issues.... but I can't understand this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 02:14 PM

I answered that one earlier, Bill. Stop selling ammunition and the fixings to roll your own. No rounds, no bang: you can keep your psychosis on the risk of invasion, issuing ammunition from State arsenals if and when it ever becomes necessary, but until then, leave the ars'ole boys with what they have and once that's gone, no more.

Ammunition doesn't have an infinite shelf life, it's quite short (usually less than ten years), and if you don't use it in time it becomes more than somewhat problematic, sometimes not going off at all, sometimes becoming dangerous to handle. If you want, ban holdings as well, with a short amnesty to use it or hand it in.

Allow exemptions in particular areas where wildlife is a danger, but make the penalty for abuse in storage and use much tougher, and backed by police audit to double-check it. You had 20 rounds, you now have 10, where are the shell cases?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 03:11 PM

Fine, Rahere.. I agree those are good ideas.

And you say" Stop selling ammunition and the fixings to roll your own." and " If you want, ban holdings as well,"

It's that "stop" and "if you want" that are the sticking points. I can assert that many Brits drink too much beer.. and you might even agree... but it is so embedded in the culture that just the idea of limiting it is laughable. Would YOU like to design a law seriously limiting ale, and the campaign to get it passed?

Banning ammunition requires... how shall I say it?... BANNING it. It means passing a law almost as complex as banning guns themselves. It would almost certainly be resisted on 2nd Amendment grounds..('the people's right to keep & bear arms' implicitly includes bullets they would say). And there we are again, back at a Constitutional amendment, and good luck getting that introduced, passed and ratified by enough states!

The damned argument is circular... it is a legal version of M.C. Escher! "For want of a horseshoe nail ...the country is lost".

I can design a revision of the entire educational system to include teaching logic and pragmatism from the beginning which, if implemented, would have most everyone agreeing to limit guns... in, oh... 2-3 generations. HA!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 03:22 PM

"if you have a serious idea on how to get out of that firearms situation"
.,,.

Stop this pusillanimous can't-be-done handwringing for a start.

Declare gun possession illegal except in the sort of highly restricted circumstances that we permit here. Set a deadline date by which all weapons must be surrendered, after which possession will become a serious offence. Enact searches and checks for any unauthorised weapons after that date. Further enact the severest penalties, both custodial & financial [hit the buggers in the pocket] for being found in unauthorised possession.

Seems the sort of thing that any sort of organised modern nation with the law-abiding majority on which all successful law and its enforcement depends, ought to be able to undertake & achieve.

BUT THE WILL MUST BE THERE. ½·❤·ed despairing handwringing would kill such a project from the off.

Go on, the World's Leading Nation.

Give it a go. You can do it if the will is there!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 03:25 PM

Re your beer argument, Bill

WE'VE DONE IT WITH TOBACCO, IN A REMARKABLY SHORT TIME, WHICH WAS FAR MORE EMBEDDED IN OUR CULTURE...

I assert confidently that if we wanted to discourage beer-drinking to the same sort of extent, we'd do it...

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 03:45 PM

But you couldn't figure out how to treat the Irish fairly in nine hundred years of trying, could you?

Quite pathetic, old boy. Wot? Wot? Did someone say "Injia"? And that messy affair of those other colonies. Disagreeable quite.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 04:00 PM

Facetious rather than constructive, Lighter. You ought to do better than that.

When war was declared in 1941, your great nation responded magnificently -- because you had got the nation onside. Men & women responded to the call-up; obeyed their orders; fought the foe; & won... At home, Rosie riveted... Irving Berlin wrote that great revue...

Declare War on the bloody gun culture. Get the nation on your side. Treat the NRA & the gun lobby as the enemy they are.

YOU CAN DO IT.

Lighter thinks you can't, becoz HE DOESN'T WANT TO. I BET HE LOVES HIS GUNS so he turns defensive-destructive. It's people like him who are part of the problem Maybe not the actual enemy, but their 'useful idiot' 5th Column. Ignore him.

But don't ignore Bill. He's on your side. CONVINCE HIM!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 04:58 PM

Big, wild country... Indians... defending against bears... war of independence ... ranchers controlling predators...etc. etc... it goes for several paragraphs. Look it up.

'Cept for the Indians, Bill (and there were the Picts, after all) you could be describing Britain, tho several centuries prior to the U.S. experience. Or any number of countries on the Continent.

Try again.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 05:50 PM

And addressing the Constitutional precedent, I apologise for the legal mind-bending which follows, but I'm amongst other things a Constitutional Lawyer (I've written entire Laws and interpretations which establish primary axioms for Judgement in three different Jurisdictions - UK, as part of the Beta Tester team for the Legiislation.gov.uk online Statute Law database, Belgium, long-term mental care and financial procedings in charities, Albania, restabilising the economy after the pyramid banking collapse). If you need, skip the next paragraph, I only left it in for the formality of the argument.

The entire Constitution is predicated on the primary foundation of LIFE (liberty and the pursuit of happiness, albeit not happiness itself, in the Declaration of Independence which the Constitution impliments). The Constitution opens "We the People of the United States, in Order to for a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." In other words, the foundation document is the Declaration, and the Constitution an Implimenting Codicil thereto. The two are inseparable and must be read together. If the case were otherwise, then the Constitution would be void, refering to something undefined.
As these cannot subvert themselves, such an implicit interpretation is wrong in Law. If it were explicit, then it might be a legal incoherence, the Law is riddled with them, but an implication is not, it's simply a putative and therefore secondary application of Law and is bound by the primary texts.

In plain text, an interpretation is case law, and bounded by and must be coherent with primary law. The Constitution impliments the Declaration of Independence, which establishes that Americans have a right to life. Any interpretation of the Constitution must therefore defend that, and so your argument falls. A similar provision has recently been built into the European legal structures, more explicitly interdicting any such subversion of the right to life, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 06:36 PM

Ah, but then, Rahere, you must take into accouint the indisputable fact that the vast majority of U.S. citizens, and particularly the foaming-at-the-mouth, gun-nut, TeaParty types, have never actually READ either the Declaration of Independence OR the Constitution of the United States in whole or in part.

And for the most part, wouldn't understand them if they did.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 06:38 PM

Pursuing the historical foundation of the Second Amendment in the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution, I note that the current version of the PA Uniform Firearms Act contains a definition of a weapon as "a firearm which is not loaded or lacks a clip or other component to render it immediately operable, and components which can readily be assembled into a weapon."
That points me in the further direction of the rest of the US legislation, which has in the past forbidden sales of ammunition to certain classes of individual. Although these have mostly been repealed, the ground never addressed the Constitutional implication you make, nor does the NRA impute it, because it does not exist. Had it existed, those laws would have been unconstitutional, and indeed such limitations as do exist on the sale of ammunition also have the same impact, the Constitution does not extend as far as is being claimed.
Indeed, an even wider lacuna exists, in that only one State, New Jersey, forbids dum-dum bullets, completely forbidden by the Geneva Conventions. If anything, therefore, the entire US legal position on ammunition might be illegal in superior International Law even as it stands.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 07:45 PM

The United States Supreme Court cannot decide what the second admendment determines legal ownership. It makes my heart smile that you foreign guys have it all figured out. However the laws remain in the hands of the states. They determine that right some are very lacks indeed some are very restrictive as in my state but to date we have no federal standards except for automatic weapons. Until change are made i will support the constitution as my duty demands and guys like rap will also

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 07:52 PM

Passing laws and relying on law abiding citizens works for most of us. In a democracy you should be able to trust law makers not to abuse that notion.

You may as well decriminalise anything that keeps occurring by that logic. Don't worry, we'll send Stephen Fry out again to do a another documentary about how weird you all are. Interestingly, spending about 1/3 of my time in The USA for many years, I hardly ever saw the attitudes displayed by some of those on here. In fact in California I was more often than not rebuked for our hitherto allowing smoking in restaurants. We got rid of that overnight by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 08:02 PM

"Declare gun possession illegal except .." That is beautiful... with one tiny awkward part. Who would you suggest do this sensible declaring? I can *asser*t it is stupid to have so many guns, and have done so for years. I make sure to vote for only candidates who seem to be 'reasonable'. You surely don't believe Obama...or any president ...can make such a declaration? He'd be laughed off the stage.

I add in Rahere's discssion...with trepidation, as I am NOT a constitutional scholar. But Barack Obama is... he actually taught constitutional law for awhile.
   I submit that the constitutions of the UK, Belgium & Albania do have significant differences from ours... and different rules & standards for both interpretation and revision. It is technically possible that the right combination of Supreme Court justices could 'interpret' that ambiguous phrase about "the right of citizens to keep and bear arms" as being ONLY applicable to 'militias'... but we are nowhere near any such set of justices. The entire phrase needs to be stricken and/or amended to reflect the changes in culture, technology and geography.
Perhaps you, with your background, could pop over here and debate our legal wizards about how such amending could proceed?

I do not know he details of how a law in the UK applies to all local jurisdictions... but the [once useful] concept of 'states rights' makes it very hard to even design a National law that can supersede certain state's provisions. States can... and a few have... write local ordinances about various weapon restrictions. But other states, often right next door, can NOT do that.. and even be LESS restrictive! Yep... that sure does mean that illegal guns can often be obtained by just driving a few miles... and yes THAT is stupid, and that situation is being chipped away at by some jurisdictions. And IF such loopholes were plugged, there are all those millions of guns both legal AND illegal hidden away, with self-defined militias sworn to resist any attempt to ban or confiscate them. You think the FIRST Civil War was bad?

You say."In plain text, an interpretation is case law, and bounded by and must be coherent with primary law."
Seems sensible... I refer you to my idea of having you pop over and explain to the relevant parties how that applies and how to move from a sensible interpretation to carefully constructed statute. ... and I am only partially joking about that. I have very minor credentials as a graduate in Philosophy who tries to make sense of things. I have no credentials which would even get me in the door to testify to Congressional committee about the nuances of such laws.

And even with the length of some of my posts, I am not a touch typist.. I do this slowly with 2 fingers ...which need rest in order to spend more time in my workshop.....

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 08:21 PM

You are correct musket try smoking in some states near a public place. Immediately fined go to a gun show get an ak47 legal. Law abiding gun owners hate It to

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 09:37 PM

"Declare gun possession illegal except in the sort of highly restricted circumstances that we permit here. Set a deadline date by which all weapons must be surrendered, after which possession will become a serious offence. Enact searches and checks for any unauthorised weapons after that date. Further enact the severest penalties, both custodial & financial [hit the buggers in the pocket] for being found in unauthorised possession."MGM Lion

Bill D has said just about everything that I could say, but let me pile on:

"Declare gun possession illegal except..."

Who should declare it?   As has been said, we have states' rights here- one state can make rules that other states needn't honor. That being so, it would have to be the Federal government that would have to declare such a thing. BUT if President Obama were to dictate such a thing, there would be a mass uprising that you would not believe. Don't forget: our Supreme Court has decided that plain old citizens have the right to bear arms; the gun totin' citizenry has taken that to mean that guns may be carried 'most everywhere. We are farther behind than we were 10 years ago!

One other factoid you might enter into the equation is this: The Eastern Time Zone in the USA has more people than double the entire population of the UK. And that's just one time zone out of six- although granted that some zones have far fewer in population.

In addition to the greater population, consider the far greater land mass in the US and the far different conditions and expectations and histories of one state from another. It is a wonder that my country gets along as well as it does with its disparate parts.

That being said, US states are jealous states. No state will allow another state to make rules and laws that impact -against their will- that state.

We have states that allow gambling, we have states that do not. We have states that are dry, do not allow alcohol sales within its borders, we have states that barely regulate the alcohol industry. Incidentally, in Alaska we have many communities that are dry, and some that are semi-dry by the vote of their people. They have lawbreakers that go to jail on that account alone.

The glue that holds this together is the government in Washington DC. Washington can and does make rules and laws that states are duty bound to follow and that some states flout for a period of time. Take for instance the pot legalization that several states have recently decreed. At this point Washington has not changed its stance on pot use, sales and distribution- it's agin it, and it could -and still may - lower the boom and whack the states' rules out of existence.

All this to say that the issue of guns is complex.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 11:17 PM

What bothers me most Ebbie is a state like Florida where it is as easy as spitting to get a permit. 12 other states say we'll accept Florida permits so go ahead and carry. New York almost impossible to get a conceal carry and it is complex.. Yes I have one of the few given. But new york doesn't recognize other states may be now there are some I don't know but darn few because other states are not as rigorous at issue and application. Until the fed makes a standard it goes on

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 11:20 PM

Oh and I can legally carry a loaded gun into any bank. But not a post office.. See what I mean about laws that make no sense

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 01:08 AM

As I noted the other day, Dan, it seems ironic to me that the one place that Congress did not specify was open to the gun was their own halls. Maybe like the infamous 'going postal' they figure there are places more inherently high-risk than others?

I don't know. For me, guns are not an essential thing - except for the .22s that we had at home, I've never shot a gun. And I know that the various massacres we have experienced of late are viscerally disgusting, in addition to all else one can say about them.

On the other hand, we have to work with what we have. And what we have at the moment is millions of guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 01:32 AM

Yes, Bill & Ebbie. That's the way it is. So of course it can never change. States have their independent legislative powers. God said so, so that's the way it is; so nobody will ever be able to do anything about it. If the President or Congress or anybody else tried to change it, people would make a fuss, so fugged-it...

& all this from philosophically trained intelligent members of the community in the nation that claims to rule the Earth.

Wonder what Abe Lincoln would have thought of such arguments.

You asked me a question. I answered it. I can scarcely believe the feeble peeps I got in reply.

So go on killing each other in the home & in the mall & in the school and in the subway and in the bus in vast #s.

Have a ☯.

Bang bang. You're dead...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 03:06 AM

But why on earth would you want to carry a gun into a bank? Or anywhere public for that matter?

Bill. A federal law can be made binding on all states in certain conditions. Don't just keep saying it's complicated and we wouldn't understand. I probably understand it more than you think.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 03:27 AM

You may understand it more than we think, Musket, but in my opinion you don't understand enough. Nothing personal - and I do appreciate your efforts to understand - but you don't appreciate the differences between our nations.

When your country banned and appropriated the guns how did your government at the time go about it? Was there a referendum? A vote? An agreement or compromise? Was there an outcry?   

Or did everyone willingly say, "Well, if that's the way it is, that's the way it's going to be"?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 03:59 AM

We didn't have a referendum over rape and murder either.

There is no reason whatsoever for members of the public to need to carry guns. None.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 01:20 PM

Would you agree that in the current climate of the US certain people- whether out of fear, or the mindset of a hero - might feel justified in possessing or flourishing guns?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 01:43 PM

No

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 01:59 PM

Two dangerous people doubles the risk not halves it.

Why not let them keep anti tank missiles? It's only the number of body bags that's different.

The only people with hand guns here are criminals. Makes it easier for police to distinguish and puts the whole of our 70 million population on a par with your average US city.

It isn't a few Mudcat members who find your refusal to give up dangerous weapons in the hands of the public abhorrent, it's the rest of the western world and from comments when addressing our Parliament, your own President.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 02:59 PM

I just lost a long post. I shall compose in another program next time. I may try to re-do it later.

But..."your refusal to give up dangerous weapons in the hands of the public" is phrased as if "your" were a single entity... like the Supreme Court recently granted to corporations when giving money.

*WE* do not refuse anything! I wonder if the UK habit of using collective nouns...(Arsenal 'are' doing such & such) clouds minds about exactly who is being so intransigent about guns. Whatever the reason that many of you in the UK just don't 'get' the nature of the problem, the fact remains... you just don't.

'We' have not given up.... we struggle with it everyday. 'I' have not given up... I vote and debate and write my congressman. The only thing I will NOT do, is buy a gun myself and take 'em on. I'd last about 30 seconds, and then there'd be one fewer trying to make sense.

(Kinda like beating your head on the wall, isn't it, Ebbie? Trying to get the point across, I mean)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 03:51 PM

But why on earth would you want to carry a gun into a bank?

Jaysus, Musket, get with the program. How ya gonna rob a bank without a gun?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 04:03 PM

:) Greg F.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 04:27 PM

I don't carry a gun in a bank. I said the law allows it but not in a post office. That is the kind of stupid shit with the laws that I talked about

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 08:56 PM

It is a mere assertion that the vast bulk of the Us would rise up in rebellion if such a ban were proposed. I don't believe it. Why not try it?

On the other side of the story, it remains the case that all it needs for evil to triumph is for the peacable folk of the US to do nothing. And while you do, your children will continue to die at a far greater rate than here in the UK, and the parents will weep, but only have themselves to thank for their inaction. And we will continue to call your country as a whole barbaric, uncivilised and unfitted to lead the rest of the world, because you have barbaric and uncivilised laws applicable to all.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 09:23 PM

strangest thing: My main PC says Mudcat is offline..."service not available" but I have an older XP downstairs... and LO!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 09:24 PM

So after trying upstairs for an hour:
---------------------------------

Just had a thought. I was reading about the Scottish independence vote, and that Salmond has just said that 'the no voters were tricked' by false promises about 'devolution'.... and I realized I was not totally sure about what it meant in the context, so I looked it up...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution and saw this: "Devolution is the statutory granting of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to government at a subnational level, such as a regional, local, or state level. It is a form of decentralization. Devolved territories have the power to make legislation relevant to the area."

Fine, says I, the Scots were promised some more power over their own interests, and there is debate over whether they will get it as promised...

But then the next sentence said: "Devolution differs from federalism in that the devolved powers of the subnational authority may be temporary and ultimately reside in central government, thus the state remains, de jure unitary. Legislation creating devolved parliaments or assemblies can be repealed or amended by central government in the same way as any statute."

Hmmm...then: "Federal systems, or federations, differ in that state or provincial government is guaranteed in the constitution. Australia, Canada, India, and the United States have federal systems, ..."~

And that could be part of the problem in this discussion. I'm not claiming that educated folk in the UK are not aware of the basic definitions, but it may be that the 'idea' that the central government ultimately controls and grants those privileges is so ingrained there that it is hard to deal with what we in a Federal system contend with.

Scotland doesn't wholly trust Westminster to grant what they promise... we (or certain states) assume correctly that they HAVE various rights, and have for 250 years. Now that the interpretation of those rights has become an issue, we are literally at the mercy of the 'system' itself if we try to change it. Things have been changed.. witness Dred Scott and Brown vs. Board of Education...etc... but those things had widespread momentum and did not have an entire industry dependent on NOT changing anything. Add to that the way attempts to introduce changes are 'amended' to death and linked with ideas that will never be adopted, and we have gridlock.

Of course it is 'possible' for enough people to get angry and support a new Constitutional amendment... but it's hard to say what would do it. People of good will ARE working on it constantly, but the issue doesn't have the same .... emotional force?... cultural power?.. as voting rights or equal pay...etc. It is, sadly, just 'statistics' to many.

(I assert constantly that **climate change** and **over population** are far more pressing problems ultimately, but until food riots and rising sea level hit a large % of folks, there is just apathy. I don't know the answer.)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 03:02 AM

The Scottish Nationalist Party promised all sorts of things they couldn't deliver in order to get into power, but even they didn't promise firearms to the general public. Why? You might as well promise to decriminalise rape for what good it would do you.

Yes, federalism is about getting together for common purpose but our forefathers brought together an act of union. The EU is about federalism to a degree but in a union you can only devolve.

In any case, laws mirror for consistency hence we all banned smoking in public buildings but Scotland introduced it before England etc. Just... Don't get confused between aspiration and status quo though. Scotland has devolved powers and has its own parliament. When the independence brigade were moaning about Westminster rule, they were complaining about the failures of their own policies and finding a scape goat.

Bill. If you read what some of us are putting, we are saying we cannot understand the US gun situation on the basis that the vast majority would, according to polls, have them banned. Yet I doubt many would be comfortable with being seen as happy to roll over and be shafted whilst claiming to be, in the words of Lincoln, by the people, for the people.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Carl in VT
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 03:13 AM

Haven't killed myself in the interim, apologies to all, especially the truly civilized people of Britannia who I'm sure must feel it deeply. ;) In fact I shall turn 60 tomorrow and hope to avoid suicide for a few more years.

Don't see much here since last time that I feel calls for another full-scale rant, but I stand by what I wrote. Briefly, like a few others on this thread, I, and most of the NRA for that matter, do not object to reforming and then *enforcing* laws designed and actually calculated to keep guns out of the hands of demonstrated criminals, immature or mentally unstable persons. But when the talk is of getting rid of the 2nd amendment, we do indeed balk, because if that were gone, there would be nothing to stop the government from disarming the general population entirely. For them as thinks that's just fine, great - your country, your way, suit yourself. I do realize it's not 1776, or 1851, or whatever dates were mentioned, but I maintain that today an armed people is more, rather than less, appropriate and necessary.

I don't have Rahere's background in Con Law, but while I can't flatly call him wrong, I think his argument is pretty weak. But what I really can't grasp is Musket's idea that the 2' amendment is a guarantee of the right to be conscripted. I'd bet I can't find any con law authorities who can understand that interpretation either.

BTW Musket, your repeated allegations about dick size are giving the male member an inferiority complex. He's also taken to making snide remarks like "Going 'turkey hunting' with that blued-finish .410 again, huh? I'll just bet you are." You have however put me off burglary in Britain, had I ever contemplated the career. If you consider a firearm a substitute for an inadequate endowment, I shudder to imagine the weapon with which the irate Englishman confronts the housebreaker. :P

Please don't let me scare you away from Killington. I only go there during the 2' week of November for the gamers' convention (I'm not a skier) and it's been years since I shot anybody while I was there. But I'm flattered by your chilled bones, I don't achieve that often. I am a little hurt that you consider my guff to be "cut-&-paste" (hang onto those chilly bones, now), it actually is my own opinions, carefully distilled over the years whilst banging rocks together, and not lifted from any other source.

I'll check back at some point and am happy to carry on discussion with any who want to do so, as time permits (which it often doesn't), but if you're just into expressions of horrified disgust at my repulsiveness & insanity I won't be answering you. I expect it, ain't worried about it, but I ain't debatin' it. Unless irony is irresistable.

Fondly,
Bone-chillingly Brutal Carl

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 03:29 AM

Perhaps that's the answer. We don't need guns because we all have huge cocks hence no need for substitutes. Answers a lot really. I recall at school many years ago we were told even then that the constitutional right to require conscription (draft) was abused by many to allow them to pretend they are living in a Hollywood western. To be fair, our history teacher that year was rather anti USA. I got to know him in later life socially. Turns out an American ex wife and a first hand understanding of the word alimony.

You might come in handy if you get a good snow year though. Mrs Musket and I love late season skiing but most places your side of the pond, you share the off piste with hungry bears. Came face to face with one in Canada a few years ago (Whistler) but he just sat posing whilst we stood rigid with fear them he wandered off.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 06:56 AM

The thing about Law is that it does have its roots in the popular mores of what is right and what is wrong. The problem is that the mores change, sometimes rapidly, and Law has to forever adjust to Justice. I differentiate, to be slightly more specific, between mores as a long-term norm and mob rule driven by contemporary issues, such as we saw in McCarthyism in the 1950s, and the Homeland Security paranoid of the last 10 years. To a great extent, the 2nd Amendment was the fruit of something similar, distrust in the British Army 200+ years ago. But in those 200 years, you've grown from the insecure 13 Colonies faced with the then greatest military force in the world to the greatest force itself, and it's time you left such immaturity behind, or you'll become discredited and seen as a paranoid Country.

Although my demolition of the ammunition argument is not as strong, say, as a "This clause of this Act says it's illegal", none the less it does hold. You've fallen prey to the Larsen E Pettifoggers of the 19th Century, in the pay of those whose interest was violence. A mature society controls its violence, holds its power as a steel hand in a velvet glove. This is not the solution of the Wild West, the replacement of the John Waynes by the Milquetoast Wouldbedonebys of the Bible Belt, but the realisation of that the French call the "Bon Pere de Famille", the mature man of a State, confident in its authority and yet generous in its responsibility. The Honest Abe of the Nations. We've been teaching your military that these last 20 years, and that is why you shouldn't fear them. Has there been any indication of a military coup these last 50 years? No? Well, perhaps they are happy in their role, encourage it.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 08:27 AM

I'm hugely amused at the idea of the redneck, hill-billy 'well-organised militia', presumably led by Mudcat's very own pair of Audie Murphys, oldude and rapparee, using their supreme skills to subdue their government, and going into action with their hunting rifles and handguns against the most powerful Armed Forces in the world.

For all the John Wayne Big-Talk, I'd be amazed if they lasted five minutes.

What's the weather like in that la-la-land dream-world you guys inhabit?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 08:33 AM

The interesting thing about Dred Scott in this connection is that it was not a unanimous decision: the Court was divided 6-3.

The racism of the Court (which probably was unanimous) plus the political commitment of the majority of the justices to slavery unquestionably influenced the decision.

However: Justice Taney's reasoning from the U.S. Constitution, while self-serving, was also punctiliously correct: a case of the letter of the law trampling on its spirit.

How is this possible? Because the U.S. Constitution neither sanctioned nor forbade slavery, which was considered a social rather than a political institution. Since legally obtained slaves were commonly recognized as personal "property" like any other, the Constitution had no jurisdiction over how that personal "property" was to be "disposed of."

The point is that it took a Civil War, two Constitutional Amendments (each ratified by 2/3 of the states) and a century (and more) of changing attitudes to rectify the situation.

No quick fix, Brits.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 08:48 AM

Actually, Audie Murphy was exactly a case in point. On his discharge from the Army, he came within an inch of where Pistorius is now, sleeping with a gun under his pillow and suffering severe PTSD flashbacks, to the point where he once held his wife at gunpoint.

Hero and experienced weapon handler you may be, but it's no guarantee something won't take you where you'd not want to be, when armed with potentially deadly force.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 08:49 AM

At least as controversial at the time, and far exceeding the issue of Dred Scott's freedom, was the Court's additional finding that the Federal government had no authority to ban slavery from any Western territory.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 09:35 AM

Gee, Backwoodsman, I thought that my BA (English Literature) and MS (Library and Information Science) might possibly have educated me beyond "redneck." As for olddude, he can speak for himself. Of course, the quintessential rednecks, the Duck Dynasty, are quite wealthy and number at least one Master's degree and three baccalaureates in the family (from Wikipedia, I've never watched the show). As for some of the Catters whom you might consider "rednecks", gnu has a graduate degree in civil engineering and ol' Bobert holds two BAs.

Should olddude and I have to "lead" some sort of armed force I think that we'd be rather successful. He has military training in "special warfare" and I spent too many years in the PBI. I could ring in my brother (who also has more than a few firearms) to help -- he's a Vietnam vet. And my cousin Mark, who was in Gulf I. Tom, out here, would probably help -- he made a scenic tour of the South Pacific with the US Marines a few years back.

You assume too much about people you've never met save online.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 09:42 AM

Of course, the quintessential rednecks, the Duck Dynasty

Bad example - that bunch ignorant, racist, fundagelical, bigoted assholes give 'rednecks' a bad name.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 09:46 AM

"No quick fix, Brits. "
.,,.,.

We don't imagine there is, Lighter. But, consider,

no fix at all, at any speed,

if you never start.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 11:16 AM

You really don't have a clue, do you, Michael?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 12:03 PM

Unfortunately, Rap, you and your buddy post like uneducated redneck hillbillies, so don't be surprised that those of us who have never met you have underestimated you - if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.......! :-)

Come to think of it, you don't know what I've done either, and that's the way I like it. Some things are best kept private.

Now, you didn't say what kind of a chance you think your 'well organised militia' of keyboard-warriors would stand against the combined might of the US Army and Air Force (should it actually come to a real fight involving all those handguns and hunting rifles you guys are running around with).

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 12:20 PM

"...we are saying we cannot understand the US gun situation on the basis that the vast majority would, according to polls, have them banned..."

I am aware of the exact point you are making...(I'm not sure if it is a "vast" majority, but yes, the majority does favor severe restrictions on the sale, use and ownership of guns).

What *I* cannot understand is why YOU cannot understand that there is simply no way the majority can have a direct, national, binding vote on the issue.

I have gone over the Federal situation and the process for changing the situation several times, and rather than reply to the specific points, I get impassioned moral and psychological rejoinders, with sarcastic overtones, saying we are something like weak, lazy sheep for not just rising up and 'doing something'.

Even Rahere , : GUEST,Rahere - PM
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 06:56 AM.... who began with a very detailed point about constitutional law, has resorted to some sort of psycho-social exhortation, the exact point of which is lost on me.

------------------------------------------------------

I wonder if any Brits here have read "Opus 21" by Philip Wylie? It goes way back to 1949, but somewhere I have a copy. I wanted to quote one passage exactly, but can't find the book right now, so I will paraphrase:
The author/protagonist is having lunch with a friend in a restaurant, when there is a disturbance at the next table. The waiter is trying to mollify a ruddy-faced Englishman who has asked for a Baked Apple for dessert.
"But sir." says Fred, the waiter, "there are none... they are out of season."

"All I am asking for is a baked apple!," he replies, "I always have a baked apple when I come here... with cream! A baked apple with cream!"

"We really don't have any," replies Fred... trying to be diplomatic,"Perhaps one of the eating type apples could be found and baked..."

"Harrumph! So, I am not to have a baked apple!".....

at this point, the protagonist rises and goes over to the table, plants one shoe on the edge of the table, and spouts some sort of gruff nonsense syllables at the startled diner, then goes back his friend and remarks mildly about how he "has seen this sort of thing before", and how reason seems never to work....
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I sort of doubt that my metaphor will make any more inroads than Fred's explanation about baking apples being out of season... but a feller has to try....

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 12:24 PM

In reality, I would guess that those of us who envision the eventual need for firepower by homeowners are not visualizing a face-off with Federal troops so much as they fear- and prepare for- the chaos in the event of community breakdown. They fear neighbors rather than government.

What say you?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 12:34 PM

Well, Ebbie, I would have to query these "homeowners" about when and how they expect this Hobbesian dystopia will descened upon the U.S. and the statistical probability of it coming to pass.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 12:36 PM

What I say is...

1) that's not what those who raise the spectre of the 2nd Amendment claim it's for - they, almost to a man, and certainly the NRA would, say that the 2/A requires them to be armed in order to subdue any government that gets too big for its boots.

2) if there should be 'chaos in the event of a community breakdown', you have the police, the National Guard, the army and the airforce to take care of it.

You (that's the collective, not you personally) seem absolutely paranoid. That's what you get when any and every dickhead in the country has a stupid 'right' to own a gun.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 12:44 PM

There are numerous areas in the US that are scary beyond the norm. Idaho has got some, southern Oregon has some, lots of other places, some of them are even on television.

They call themselves 'survivalists'. Some of their most cherished beliefs address the potential neighbors/intruders knocking at one's door, trying too late to survive and bent on taking over one's own carefully supplied refuge.

You have to be prepared to shoot. It is a matter of survival...

Of course, if you're not home when all hell breaks loose, you will be the one pounding on others' doors. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 12:51 PM

"- they, almost to a man, and certainly the NRA would, say that the 2/A requires them to be armed in order to subdue any government that gets too big for its boots."

Yep... that is a common rationalization that many of them use. We can debate all day what goes on in their heads to bring them to such a stupid position... or why they employ the "slippery slope" fallacy to defend their position. ("If we allow 'X', why, 'Y' & 'Z' will surely follow!") But whatever their warped, emotional rationalization and how well we sane ones see thru the obfuscation, it still does nothing to alter the pragmatic, legal obstacles we have to actually making changes!
My mother made moderately horrible meatloaf, and we gradually saw WHY her meatloaf was flawed, but she had her notion of 'how one goes about doing it', and she was in charge. My brother & I could not figure out how to mount an insurrection against her... so we ate flawed meatloaf.

Inadequate metaphor? *shrug*

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 12:56 PM

I have millions of clues, Stim. I do at least three crosswords every day so count up the # of clues I have acquired over 80 years -- or say 65 of them doing the crosswords. What, precisely, do you think I haven't a clue about?...

Pray expound...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 01:02 PM

I wouldnt give any of the buggers better odds than ten mins down Doncaster on a Saturday night eh John?

Special forces.. We've got one this side of the pond keeps rattling on about the paras, but doesn't stop him talking bollocks... Come to think of it, the nearer to last orders you get, the more of 'em used to be in The SAS.. Didn't impress them in The Drum in Shirebrook, my old drinking pit. They all seemed to leave Shirebrook with hard luck stories and loose teeth.

I suppose its a good idea our lads don't have guns. Many a work issue was resolved the old fashioned way when I worked down the pit. A different world back then, but we grew up. That seems to be the difference with rednecks, especially the ones in Dumbfuckistan...

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 01:12 PM

Ebbie, I don't say that absolutely NOBODY should ever be permitted to own/possess a gun. What I do say is that, as in the UK, only those who can show GENUINE NEED should have one - people who live in wild areas and are threatened by wildlife, ranchers/farmers, sport-shooters. But 'self-defence' and 'to shoot home-invaders' are NOT examples of genuine need.

And nobody living in a city has a genuine need, other than sport-shooters.

I understand how different things are in some parts of the US - I've been there enough times - but saying "you don't understand" and 'it's difficult" isn't going to change anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 01:41 PM

Bill D 22 Sep 14 - 12:20 PM "there is simply no way the majority can have a direct, national, binding vote on the issue."

If so, then the US should not be imposing its kind of democracy anywhere, and why are you not using your weapons against the NRA to recover your democracy such as it is?

I fail to follow your analogy. If you cannot answer the legal position I made, then no analogy whatsoever serves. Or does neither your Constitution nor your Independence stand any longer?

At least here in the UK our politicians are in one hell of a tizzy trying to find an answer to the points I and others have made about equity in democracy in Scotland by comparison with England. I don't think they can answer, and that too will be to their cost.

So, we hold our politicians to account. Why don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 01:47 PM

This comment "if you never start" reflects a certain cluelessness to the fact that we that started legislating gun sales and such things a number of years ago, and that since this happened, shooting deaths have declined significantly. It also reflects a cluelessness the effort that those efforts required.

Oh, and you seem to be clueless about the fact that the folks that you (and others of your ilk) are attacking here are actually all pretty significant supporters of gun control. Even the one that have been characterized as "uneducated redneck hillbillies".

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 01:49 PM

"If so, then the US should not be imposing its kind of democracy anywhere, and why are you not using your weapons against the NRA .."
\
You're changing the point.... imposing? I don't see it.. against the NRA? You're kidding......

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 01:59 PM

They characterised themselves as uneducated redneck hillbillies by the language and content of their posts, Stim. If it walks like a duck.....etc., etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 03:30 PM

That's half the trouble, Bill, you don't see how the US behaves internationally. Self-righteous beyond belief, to the point where it drives anyone else who happens to believe in themselves, like most of the Arabic world, utterly potty. How can you be believed when the immediate consequence of this is that you're far more dangerous to yourselves than your worst enemies are?
Answer: you can't, which encourages the Islamic fundamentalists of every ilk no end. Which has much the same effect. Most of us know we can get it wrong and allow accordingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 04:35 PM

And what then are we to think of you, based on the language of your posts, Backwoodsman?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 04:42 PM

Think whatever you like, it's of absolutely no consequence to me what you, or anyone else, thinks of me on an Internet forum such as this. I don't know you,you don't know me, so what does it matter what we think of each other? Other people's' opinions of me matter not one jot.

And, of course,changing the subject is a clear indication that the subject-changer has lost the argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 05:33 PM

Rahere... " Self-righteous beyond belief, " That is a really broad brush you paint with, and is one of my peeves about how US policy is described in simple terms...

What we do is very much a "damned if you do and damned if you don't' situation. We get just as much criticism for not interfering more as we do for getting involved. "It all depends on whose ox is being gored".

I'd hate to be the one who decides whether to directly confront ISIS or to even arm & train rebels at all... anywhere.

I'll grant that some of our loudmouth hawks..(such as John McCain) have never seen an issue they couldn't 'solve' by throwing troops at it... and after the Iraq debacle, it took a lot of careful 'backing out'.

In the same way, there are many who feel that 'now that guns are everywhere, I'd better get MY share of them'.... making the stupid assumption like the %$#^*& NRA says, that "the best way to deal with a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". I can cite 27 examples that disprove that... but..........

(You know, it is pretty wearing arguing with those I basically agree with as well as countering those I firmly disagree with. 7 years of Philosophy in college have made me suspicious of all overly-generalized positions)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 05:47 PM

Self-righteous beyond belief, " That is a really broad brush you paint with, and is one of my peeves about how US policy is described

So how would YOU describe the imperialistic, self-righteous, gunboat diplomacy foreign policy of the U.S. down to the present day, Bill? Like below?

-----------------

COPS OF THE WORLD

by Phil Ochs, (c)1966, 1968 Barricade Music, Inc.

Come, get out of the way, boys, quick, get out of the way
You'd better watch what you say, boys, better watch what you say
We've rammed in your harbor and tied to your port
And our pistols are hungry and our tempers are short
So bring your daughters around to the fort
'Cause we're the cops of the world, boys, we're the cops of the world

We pick and choose as we please, boys
Pick and choose as we please
You'd better get down on your knees, boys
You'd best get down on your knees
We're hairy and horny and ready to shack
And we don't care if you're yellow or black
Just take off your clothes and lay down on your back
'Cause we're the cops of the world, boys, we're the cops of the world

Our boots are needing a shine, boy, boots are needing a shine
But our Coca-Cola is fine, boys, Coca-Cola is fine
We've got to protect all our citizens fair
So we'll send a battalion for everyone there
And maybe we'll leave in a couple of years
'Cause we're the cops of the world, boys, we're the cops of the world

And dump the REds in a pile, boys, dump the Reds in a pile
You'd better wipe off that smile, boys, better wipe off that smile
We'll spit through the streets of the cities we wreck
And we'll find you a leader that you can elect
Those treaties we signed were a pain in the neck
'Cause we're the cops of the world, boys, we're the cops of the world

And clean the johns with a rag, boys, clean the johns with a rag
If you like, you can use your flag, boys, if you like, you can use your flag
We've got too much money; we're looking for toys
Guns will be guns, and boys will be boys
But we'll gladly pay for all we've destroyed
'Cause we're the cops of the world, boys, we're the cops of the world

And please stay off of the grass, boys, please stay off of the grass
Here's a kick in the ass, boys, here's a kick in the ass
We'll smash down your doors; we don't bother to knock
We've done it before, so why all the shock
We're the biggest and toughest kids on the block
And we're the cops of the world, boys, we're the cops of the world

And when we've butchered your sons, boys, when we've butchered your sons
Have a stick of our gum, boys, have a stick of our bubblegum
We own half the world, oh say can you see
And the name for our profits is democracy
So like it or not you will have to be free
'Cause we're the cops of the world, boys, we're the cops of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 01:17 AM

The thing is, Backwoodsman, this is not exactly a group of strangers who pass in the night. A, lot of us have been here for a while, and know each other fairly well. And it's a small world.
Just sayin'.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 02:50 AM

And.........??

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 03:11 AM

Is this the bit where I say Backwoodsman is just a pussy cat and his bark is worse than his bite?

(Payback time yer bugger)



Mind you, some of us, in fact every single one of us has been here since, ooh let's see now, our last post. No such thing as long term medals and if somebody stumbled upon Mudcat for the very first time, their post would hold as much weight as anybody else's.

Don't forget. Those who think guns are cool are the ones having to defend stupidity here. Those who wash their hands of a situation they don't like are the roll over and get shafted and be grateful brigade.

The rest of us are just enjoying our trip to the zoo.

🙈🙉🙊

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 04:17 AM

LOL!
I knew I'd live to regret calling you a pussycat! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 06:50 AM

BUT, I do have to declare that I spent 9 years as a senior civilian officer of WEU, the European defence diplomatic clearing centre which also hosted the European defence HQ, as a sharp and permanent reminder of what happens if we got it wrong. We did a huge chunk of the work in creating the Paece Agenda, before anyone starts in, which won the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize for Europe. It means I far prefer jaw-jaw to the alternative. When that function disappeared off the the Council of the European Commission, I was kept on as part of the cadre guaranteeing the self-defence legal right of Europe.
That means I have a very clear and immediate view of the problems of US military policy, and the autonomous behaviour of that structure, for instance in the way Homeland Security has fulfilled the worst nightmares of those who warned of its omnipotence at the start, has more than worried the rest of the World: it raises exactly the question I put in microcosm, whether the US is fit to be a superpower.
Objectively, having taken you to a position which you find uncomfortable with, I must lead you on to the corollary, reminding you that in fact it is the presumption that you can do nothing which is wrong. One of the new dynamics in lobbying is the appearance of groups like change.org and the UK's 38 degrees, which are very good at bringing the disenfranchised back into the political system, very much from a socialist angle, giving the people a voice. Their UK membership, for instance, each far outweighs the total activist membership of the established political parties put together, and the political system is frightened: they can neither deny them nor ignore them. They would love to get them to sign up, but that's spurned.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 10:39 AM

Ain't nothing quite so peaceful as a dead man.
                        --Mad Magazine, about 1960, in a of
                         "The Rifleman" TV show.

God Save The King
    Henry Carey?
   First performed 1745         

1. God save our gracious King,
Long live our noble King,
God save the King!
Send him victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign o'er us;
God save the King!

2. O Lord our God arise,
Scatter his enemies
And make them fall;
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all!

3. Thy choicest gifts in store
On him be pleased to pour;
Long may he reign;
May he defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the King!

4. Not in this land alone,
But be God's mercies known,
From shore to shore!
Lord make the nations see,
That men should brothers be,
And form one family,
The wide world o'er.

5. From every latent foe,
From the assassins blow,
God save the King!
O'er his thine arm extend,
For Britain's sake defend,
Our father, prince, and friend,
God save the King!

6. Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush.
God save the King!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 11:08 AM

The king died 62 years ago Rap. Do try to keep up lad.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 12:31 PM

"So how would YOU describe the imperialistic, self-righteous, gunboat diplomacy foreign policy of the U.S. down to the present day, Bill? "

Well gee, Greg... short answer is, I don't.... because I don't accept your premise. (You didn't ask me if I've stopped beating my wife yet.)

------------------------------------

Rahere: "Objectively, having taken you to a position which you find uncomfortable with, I must lead you on to the corollary, reminding you that in fact it is the presumption that you can do nothing which is wrong. "

Far from ever even considering the idea that 'we can do nothing which is wrong', I am frustrated that it is hard to even define what would be involved in 'doing something everyone agrees is right'.


What I am really uncomfortable with is a situation in which there seems to be NO solution that addresses the root causes of the current chaos. But I disagree that you have accurately defined a corollary...especially to a situation that is not itself clearly defined.

I admire, respect and approve of the goals & policy of the WEU as you have described them, but setting out a political & moral agenda barely touches the pragmatic issues of how best to approach it.

I have never, as you have, been directly involved in negotiation about policy.... and I also " far prefer jaw-jaw to the alternative." I just am personally not privy to the information that a government or security agency needs to decide when "the alternative" is required. G.W Bush got it very wrong a few years ago... whether thru stupidity or being lied to by his sources (I suspect some of both.) Many of our Senators were told that we had convincing evidence of Saddam's weapons & intentions, and they gave those assessments the benefit of the doubt.... and were wrong! After such a blunder, there is no simple way to back out gracefully! And no matter what the next administration did, it got lumped in as "failed US policies". If the US had stayed out of WWII, that would have been "failed policy".

But the original topic here was US gun laws... and I submit that the basic problem internally is pragmatically similar to the international one: there is an untenable situation, and no one can define a solution that will both **work** and not cause as many problems as it cures.

After 600+ posts here, I still see remarks that are little more than finger pointing and suggesting that " we just straighten up & fly right!"


---------------------------------

""The objective of all dedicated employees is to thoroughly analyze all situations, anticipate all problems prior to their occurrence, have answers for these problems, and move swiftly to solve these problems when called upon. However, when you are up to your ass in alligators, it is difficult to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp."

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 12:56 PM

geeze shouldn't you guys be trying to knock each other off a horse with a big pole instead of picking fights. nobody will change the gun laws. no politican will support it even though all say they will. it is political sucide.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 01:04 PM

No politician, maybe, Dan.

But a statesman might.

And that's the difference. A statesman is one who can commit what looks like political suicide in the interests of principle and the commonweal; and then come back from the dead when the time is right.

Prime example: Churchill.

Trouble is, I daresay statesmen might be a but thin on the ground over there, just about now...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 01:10 PM

So you're up to your balls in alligators! The past is past, the question is, what are you going to do about it? Spout platitudes to justify continued inaction? Them thar gators are gonna have some mighty fine eatin', fer sure! Gun crime is just the tip of an iceberg of irresponsability, add to it the death penalty, Homeland Insecurity, the medical system, the list is long. And it's irresponsibility from your entire political system, both sides, and the presumption you only need two political parties.

Just don't expect the rest of the world to rush to your help once them gators stack snackin' on your knackers. If you could have helped yourselves - and you could, and can - but didn't, then it's your fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 01:19 PM

What's all that about, quoting the national anthem? It was written in another age and any bang bangs referred to would be soldiers not civilians with toys to make them look cool.

Mind you, we don't make children sing it. We don't stand to it before every sports game (apart from internationals where Johnny Foreigner likes the idea) and the vast majority of us don't even know the first verse, let alone the others, which don't form part of the official anthem anyway. Not even the spot on accurate impression of the Scots.

Michael. First they have to find a statesman.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 01:30 PM

Greg... short answer is, I don't.... because I don't accept your premise.

Guess you haven't read or studied much U.S. history, then, Bill.

But that's OK - you're certainly not alone. Right up there with the Tea Party folks & war hawks in Congress.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 01:37 PM

It is sad Mike we have no balls when it comes to politicans. They fear the nra and take political contributions from them it is all terribly sad because the only laws that get passed are meaningless ones. We have over 20000 laws on firearms and all negated by intentional loopholes. We have all screamed about them include our police but to no avail

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 01:40 PM

Another great example background checking isrrequired for the purchase of a firearm at all dealers. But private transfer from civilian to civilian nope nothing

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 01:42 PM

Don't think I don't sympathise. But this air of helpless resignation, now...

Well, let's hope that statesman might just happen along some day soon.

Betcha Abe Lincoln woulda fixed it if he'd still been around!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 01:54 PM

The supreme court made it worse when they just ruled corporations can make political contributions. All the firearms companies then funded their candates to obscene levels to make sure it doesn't change. I get crazy frustrated. I have a carry permit because I am ex government ex every thing. I have a just reason but many states let crazies conceal carry. More scary is assault weapons. Yes I enjoy shoot at a range with the swat teams
But I would not ever consider one. It is not a good hunting rifle it is all nuts. Some times I think we all lost our minds

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 02:23 PM

working backwards:

"Guess you haven't read or studied much U.S. history, then, Bill."
Oh, but I have... and still do... and I see as many interpretations of the nuances of history as there are interpretations of Genesis. Tell me, if you can, why yours is to be chiseled in stone?

"First they have to find a statesman."

I don't think that really deserves comment. It could be discussed only if you referred to individual cases. As is, it is merely sarcasm....

"..., the question is, what are you going to do about it? Spout platitudes to justify continued inaction? "

'Justify' is YOUR false take on my metaphorical description of a situation. Inaction is not the problem.... there are plenty of actions going on as we speak type. Some are kicking alligators in the snout; some are banding together to identify the weakest pile of alligators; some are yelling for the swamp to be refilled; some are running like hell; some are frozen in fear (is that an action?).... but the problem is still too many alligators, none of whom are inclined to lie there and allow 'solutions' that interfere with lunch.

"And it's irresponsibility from your entire political system, both sides, and the presumption you only need two political parties."

"Irresponsibility" happens in every system...even yours. You just don't care to even look for 'responsible' actions and individuals when you don't see your definition of progress & solutions! I could (given a few hours and better typing speed) show dozens of quite reasonable, sane and responsible examples of both.

As to political parties... we have many, but I DO agree that the system makes it difficult for a 3rd party to do much beyond splitting the vote and allowing insanity to prevail..(witness Ralph Nader in 2000 taking Florida away from Gore and giving us Bush).

We NEED to abolish the outmoded Electoral College and allow national majority vote, which would automatically help minor parties help each other rather than interfere with each other. Why don't we? You realize which current party the current system favors? You realize that they will truck in alligators from neighboring swamps if anyone tries to initiate the constitutional changes necessary? You have any idea who owns most of the trucks?... and do you see why I get livid at supercilious finger pointing when someone publishes data on alligator bites and says "you're just not trying!"?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 02:52 PM

Try thinking first Bill before criticising. Nobody is a prophet in his own land. Statesmen tend to be fawned abroad, but never at home. You dont need someone who has the statesman look about them. You need someone with domestic balls. Statesmen cut their teeth abroad.

A bit of a bugger when Bill Gates can prevent deaths measured in millions by privately funding health programmes in third world countries but a country stuffed with politicians can't even stop unhinged disturbed people from polishing their guns that politicians allow them to own.

Which USA are you most proud of?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 02:56 PM

"Inaction is not the problem.... there are plenty of actions going on as we speak type. Some are kicking alligators in the snout; some are banding together to identify the weakest pile of alligators; some are yelling for the swamp to be refilled; some are running like hell; some are frozen in fear (is that an action?)...." Bill D

Bill is right. It just occurred to me that we are already doing what you in the UK are saying that we should do. It just hasn't worked yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 03:07 PM

The only thing that is even remotely good is we put our sins in the windows for everyone to se. NNow if we could stop the talking heads on capital hill and get something done it may stop but in the 61 years I been alive nothing has changed except ineffective laws that only give the political guys some talking points on how they made the public safer and declare victory over the violence. They never at any time listened to law enforcement or sportsmen who know what they are talking about. For 40 year'sppeople have been screaming about gun shows nothing changed but the body count

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 03:11 PM

Even people I know like myself that support the 2nd admendment scream give us laws that make sense we will support you. But we only get smoke up our ass

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 03:16 PM

> some talking points on how they made the public safer

Both sides say this.

So they agree on something.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 03:20 PM

"Which USA are you most proud of?"

They're not separate. If I had Gates' billions, I'd divide my spending a bit differently. What he has done is commendable.... but that is his choice out of many needy projects.

"politicians can't even stop unhinged disturbed people from polishing their guns that politicians allow them to own."

Of course they can't stop them after the fact! *I* have said in many posts that there is and will be an endless supply of crazies, most of whom can't be identified until they "go off". *I* have said that laws need to reduce the 'opportunity' for crazies to get NEAR guns... which can ONLY be done is a significant way by limiting access to guns for everyone who cannot show...directly... that they need access.

So? I agree... now what? Once again, you describe the problem.. as if the very form should cause all voters and the politicians they vote for to "see the light". Too many do-not-care what shows up in the light. "No skin off MY nose, and besides, if I vote against guns, I don't get re-elected!"

Have I mentioned that none of this means that I, or many others, are giving up? ANY progress is better than NO progress..


and maybe the horse will learn to sing...

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 05:33 PM

Tell me, if you can, why yours is to be chiseled in stone?

It ain't MINE, Bill. You've just proved despite your protestations of erudition that you HAVEN'T studied or read widely in U.S. history.

Also, pick up your dictionary and look up "consensus". And RE: "interpretations", there's also such a thing as historical fact, which seems to have eluded you.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 07:05 PM

Your premise was "... imperialistic, self-righteous, gunboat diplomacy foreign policy of the U.S. down to the present day.."

That is an opinion about history, not a fact in and of itself. And 'consensus' needs to define its referents. And 'many' is not 'consensus'.

If it ain't yours, why state it as if it were?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 08:09 PM

If it ain't yours, why state it as if it were?

'Cause its the consensus, Bill.

Do go and read some more - this time for comprehension.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 09:06 PM

LOLOL.. and if we can find a consensus saying you are full of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 02:43 AM

Unhinged people can get guns here too if they are really driven to find them. It's just that they aren't sold in the aisle next to breakfast cereals.

Making them harder to own, restricting the types and uses.. We have guns. Quite legitimately. A friend has an impressive collection of small bore rifles and takes them to Bisley and other ranges, came close to getting in the Olympic team a few years ago. I have a man keep the rabbit population in check in some fields I have for that matter.

But a few lines in the sand seem to make our situation comfortable for me. They are not for self defence. No pistols or any other small arms that can be concealed. Evidence of one of three broad categories; hunting / land control, organised sport and collecting antiques. The latter still precludes working models of banned categories. Kept in certified locked containers, subject to police registration and inspection and applications to own include searches, character references and interview by police officers.

I genuinely think many US firearm owners would easily fit in that definition, or at the very least something just as sensible. I reckon the self defence idea is at best a statement of failure of community safety and at worst a dangerous illogical concept.

There are many things The USA do better than here, but guns don't fit in the list.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 09:16 AM

LOLOL.. and if we can find a consensus saying you are full of it?

Now, there ya go again, Bill - "I'M" not saying it.

What would you like to discuss? The Mexican-American "War"? Nicaragua? The Phillipines & Cuba? Santo Domingo? Vietnam & the Khmer Rouge? Salvador Allende & Chile? Grenada? El Salvador? The Shah of Iran? The Mujahideen? Or any of the other thousand examples?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 09:23 AM

A statesman is a dead politician, and God knows we need more statesmen.

As for Abe Lincoln, he was a pretty good shot. He tested fired several rifles right outside the White House during the Civil War. Nearly got himself arrested, too, for discharging firearms inside the city.

Today the name of the town [Dodge City] that flourished as a Texas cattle market from 1876 to 1885 is widely employed as a cultural metaphor for homicide, anarchy, and depravity. Yet only fifteen adults died violently in Dodge during its cowboy years. In two livestock seasons and probably a third, no adults died violently, and only once did the annual number reach as high as five.

But before becoming a cattle town Dodge had served as a center for the buffalo-hide trade. During its first year its governmental organization was tied up in court. Lacking formal law enforcement, Dodge suffered sixteen to nineteen violent deaths. By mid-1873, however, its county had been organized and a sheriff elected. Not until 1878 is another adult homicide known to have occurred. By then lawmen headquartered there consisted of a deputy U.S. marshal, a sheriff, an undersheriff, as many deputy sheriffs as needed, a city marshal, an assistant marshal, as many policemen as needed, and two town constables. This formidable deployment and the enforcement of gun control largely explain the low body count.

                   --Encyclopedia of the Great Plain (online)

Then there's this.

Like olddude, I fully support well-considered, equally applied, and well-enforced legal control of firearms ownership. Always have. It's safer for everyone. If half the money spent on scare tactics, not only in the US but around the world, were put into mental health we'd all be better off.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 09:40 AM

Now, I agree our politicians in the UK are a useless bunch of oojits, from the Leader of the Opposition who just forgot we've got the debt problem his mates bequeathed us last time round, to a PM who considers ostriches are a close-run thing. We can do something about them, and may well do so.
But htis ain't what the meme is about, it's about people who say they are doing something when nothing changes. In the UK, we got rid of the guns after Dunblane, simply by deciding to do so. That is all it needs, for a Nation to make up its mind, and to do that, it needs to be led by the influencers of the mores. Folk and country is at the cutting edge of that in the States, the talking heads on the box will follow if someone leads. If you got together with people like Bill Hare, in a Folk Against Dead Kids, then you could lead the way and force the Government to act. Now is the time to prepare, and the next massacre - and there will be one, sure as God made little children - the trigger for it. You have a week's window of opportunity after it, contact people like Dolly Parton and Oprah, they'd not dare to be seen not to help. And JFDI.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 11:46 AM

"What would you like to discuss?" Any of those are fair game individually, Greg, as possible candidates for stupidity, political expediency, or just bad guessing about whether an honest attempt at doing a good would go terribly wrong. (You left out the Bay of Pigs)
   But you miss the point.... making a list of bad choices, sometimes by flawed leaders, does not demonstrate a 'policy', and only a much longer list comprised of relevant people who agree with you, could define a 'consensus'. I could compile a list of those who heartily approved of some of our excursions..... but it proves nothing except that it ain't easy to know ahead of time what the best path is.

I repeat "... imperialistic, self-righteous, gunboat diplomacy foreign policy of the U.S. .." is an OPINION about events. Right now it is YOUR opinion. That it is a consensus is also only your opinion. You made the claim that it is a fact. Write a book...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rahere: " That is all it needs, for a Nation to make up its mind, and to do that, it needs to be led by the influencers of the mores. "

Sounds very high minded and inspirational.... and some well-known people are working at it. But what the UK did after Dunblane was possible because the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, (and others) could BE passed as a restriction on the country as a whole. Many people petitioned, the legislation was introduced, and a law was passed...voila! Lovely!
I do not understand why it is so hard to see that we do not have that luxury. I would LOVE to see a march..like the Civil Rights era... and resulting consensus in Congress followed by a similar wide ranging restriction on guns. I approve of the idea! I would march, I would vote, I would applaud when done. It-just-don't-work-that-way!
But you don't have a system where Sussex, Lincolnshire, Rutland, etc. can resist sweeping reform.... or where attempts at legislation can be amended, held in committee, debated into oblivion, and not even allowed to come to a vote by House or Senate leaders!

You make clear, sensible proposals.... for a different legislative system. Our system, which worked fine in 1795, or 1853, and pretty well in 1945, has awkward details which are studied and thoroughly exploited by the NRA and highly paid lawyers & lobbyists.

And the sad fact is.... all those millions (hundreds of millions some say) of guns are out there! The UK didn't have THAT problem when it passed those sane laws. We probably have only a small % of firearms registered and in any easily available database. Too many are sold 'privately' or are flatly bought illegally. And those who hold the most weapons...legal & illegal... USE the very idea to defend their own guns as a protective measure against OTHERS with guns...and against any attempt by the government to pass laws restricting them! And many of them vow to USE their guns to defend their supposed 'right' to keep them! (We have had census takers shot by rural folk who didn't even want to answer questions about who they are! Who would take the job of going about collecting recently banned weapons?)
Yes... it is an untenable situation. No, that doesn't mean I or millions of sane people have given up. There are small steps being made. Your country is a thousand or so years old, and relatively 'compact'. Ours is big, diverse and barely adolescent, and was created partly as a rejection of being ruled by yours. Our Constitution & law reflect that. It will take awhile to unravel the tangles.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 01:47 PM

> all those millions (hundreds of millions some say) of guns are out there! The UK didn't have THAT problem when it passed those sane laws

That's a key observation, since the UK didn't have to require the turning in of something like 300,000,000 guns that already in private hands. (In our politics, the phrase used would undoubtedly be "seize unconstitutionally and without due process.")

Since few Britons (presumably including criminals, though I wouldn't be too sure about that) had the guns, they didn't feel so great a need to protect themselves from all those others who also owned guns. Why should I turn in mine if I have no reason to expect "Knuckles" and "Beast" down the street to do the same?

And, of course, British criminals too are unlikely to have turned in their own firearms. Or do you have a better class of criminal as well in your more civilized and happier land?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 01:55 PM

You have a petitioning system, get using it. Change.org can show you how. Stop copping out, if the NRA can lobby, so can you. We did it. It's not just guns, we go after anything which kills. As I type, there's complaints into a cover-up of a midwife who didn't give a damn, it came out after two mothers and babies died. Another case, a police firearms officer with two minority elements to her background, won her case for discrimination against the Met, and is now back for more after they then released data of a case they were preparing against her in substantiation for the discrimination, which therefore collapsed. We've stopped taking it, the UK is changing, and the Machine has to too. The difference is we DO hold our representatives to account. Not just by petitions, but we actually vote some of the buggers out - and that has included Ministers, too.

And stop being so bloody negative about it, you've defeated yourselves before you start. The UK has had huge numbers of weapons after WW1, we handed them in after Dunkirk because they were needed for the wellbeing of the country.

And still you miss the other point, a gun without ammunition is just a lump of metal. Leave them their blasted dick compensation symbols, go for the ammo. No rounds, no problem.

You have a new Presidential Campaign starting soon, get onto the candidates who might and start asking for commitments. Get onto your Convention delegates and start telling them to. You have a voice, stop being mice and start kicking arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 03:52 PM

Britons? C'est ce c'est?

Somewhere to put the guns? Sell 'em to a right wing guerrilla militia in Latin America. That's what you usually do.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 05:09 PM

"And stop being so bloody negative about it.."

*sigh* What I do is positive... You are reading in 'negative' as a knee-jerk response to my explaining my pragmatic understanding of what we are facing. It is necessary to understand both history and culture in order to deal with it! I SAID I am working at it when I can... and I have lobbied every human I know when the topic comes up... including many on Mudcat.

My own state's legislators are already on the side of sanity, and I can't afford to go stumping in Texas and Montana. I watch & recommend to other the media that make the most sense. I read Change.org... and Huffington Post and Rachael Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell and keep up with what billionaire ex-NY mayor Bloomberg is doing (now THERE's a campaign!)

(and yes... making bullets harder to get would be a help in the long term, but the same basic legislative issues are involved. Didn't I recently post about the obvious constitutional question involved..IF our citizens are allowed guns, denying bullets would invalidate that right.)

Now... off on Friday to a music weekend. I may not have time to reiterate it till I get home... ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 05:21 PM

In semantic & conceptual fairness: it doesn't mention 'guns' -- it sez "keep & bear arms": "arms" must subsume the ammunition as well as the actual firearms.

Bugger it!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 06:18 PM

Ersatz buggering in process.... but we hafta get 'em to hold still.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 07:35 PM

Right now it is YOUR opinion.

No, Bill it is hardly MY opinion. It is the opinion of the vast majority of sentient beings that have been paying attention for the last century.

That, of course, leaves you out.

QUERY: do you also "believe" that there's no such thing as global warming/global climate change??

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 08:01 PM

",,the opinion of the vast majority of sentient beings that have been paying attention for the last century"

My ...you have access to databases I never imagined! Or did you conduct the polls?

Of course I am aware of global warming/global climate change. And the over-population issue... and the renewable energy issue... and the high price of tea in China.
Fortunately, those are about 63.982 times more quantifiable and scientifically verifiable than your sweeping generalization about global world opinion on already subjective concerns.

(look up 'subjective')

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 02:23 AM

How many times do I have to repeat it, MGM, the founding legislation the Amendment was based on excludes ammunition, and so you are word-twisting! A bullet on its own cannot hurt anyone. A bullet is NOT a firearm, you cannot kill someone just by carrying a bullet around. You need to have a gun, ammunition and an idiot to come together to make these things happen. Keep them apart and the problem disappears. I don't give a flying fuck what the idiots of the NRA, which evidently include you, surmise what your nonsense Law says, you have a biased agenda. Law has to deal with real people, and people change. What was suitable while there were Sioux taking scalps is no longer necessary once the problem's resolved.
But no, it doesn't suit you to speak plain English and to apply English to the Law, does it? Sure, you need ammunition to make your firearm fire, but the Amendment doesn't provide for firing it, all it provides for is the right to carry a weapon around like an umbrella. Why not extend the logic further and say the right logically allows you to shoot anyone you like? After all, if you can't shoot someone, there's no point in carying it around, is there? Oh yes, the little question of premeditation in murder conspiracy. Loading your weapon is usually considered sufficient proof of intent, as the most an unloaded weapon can be is a menace or club.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 02:51 AM

MGM is British and lives in England, AFAIK.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 03:00 AM

Last one in this whack-a-mole was me.

Oh, what the heck

Martha Washington's Recipe for Apple Pie
Ingredients
1 firearm
200 bullets
1 idiot
100 victims
Method
Mix and wait.

After all, what can be more American?

And yes, I am being rather offensive, because these defenders of the indefensible are indistinguishable from any other members of the candidates for the Den Haag Prize for Crimes Against Humanity, such as Islamic Fundamentalists, the Roman Catholic Church, the SchutzStaffel and America's own home-brewed Militias.
After all, you have an entire community in Pennsylvania under lock-down last week after some militia member turned Rambo using the weapons you defend, didn't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 03:27 AM

I get bollocked for being offensive with good cause Rahere...

It adds to the fun when those shouting at me are little boys with pea shooters.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 06:03 AM

No-one shouts at you silly.
They only have to disagree with your supposed wisdom on something to set you off.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 07:46 AM

No idea what you are on about Guest. How can I be a member of your NRA from here in Cambridgeshire? - which is in England in case you didn't know. Now just save your spleen for someone with the remotest idea of what you are on about, eh!

Please read my post, my first at the top of this thread, which reproduces some on a former post of the X to the power of n threads we have had on the topic to fond out where I stand on the whole issue of the dysfunctionality of US law on this entire topic.

And then leave me alone, please. I wasn't talking to you, so don't dare respond in that patronising fashion, you ashamed-to-identify-yourself nonentity.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 09:21 AM

1. There is no indication that the guy who ambushed the cops in PA was a member of anything other than his own delusions.

2. He was a historical re-enactor, a hobby found pretty much worldwide -- including the UK -- where they carry rifles and pistols and swords and lances and all sorts of things. Some of them work!

3. The town of Canadiensis is still in lockdown and shelter in place.

4. He's not a particularly good example of a woods-wise person...he's let himself be seen.

5. I predict he will kill himself rather than be taken by the police -- a final gesture of defiance and hate.

6. In any case I seriously doubt that he will be taken alive; if he is he will spend the rest of his life in hospital.

7. If you can find it, see the new FBI report on mass shootings -- it came out this very morning. Try to understand what it says.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 09:30 AM

He was a historical re-enactor,

He was a VIETNAM WAR re-enactor, Rap - which makes him a pretty sick puppy to begin with.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 09:33 AM

Actually he was a World War III in Europe "re-enactor."

He liked to play Soviet soldiers.

Means nothing. None of his pals are murderers.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 11:44 AM

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/accused-state-trooper-shooter-eric-frein-surfaces-vietnam-war-reenactment-video-article-1.1949607

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 02:03 PM

Dangerous shithead out there, with an AK-47 and a .308. Now on FBI Most Wanted List, and so far, $175,000 offered in reward money.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 03:19 PM

My youngest nephew is a Vietnam War re-enactor. He also re-enacts WW2. He's no more dangerous than anyone else.

Are you saying that those of us who served during the VN Era or in VN are "sick"? If so, drop around. I'll introduce you to some of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 03:56 PM

There is more than 400. Million people in the USA. Yes you will get killers but percent wise probably no more than other countries this size

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 04:02 PM

313.9 million (2012)

"percent wise probably no more than other countries"

It just makes some of them work harder with bigger guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 05:18 PM

My youngest nephew is a Vietnam War re-enactor...Are you saying that those of us who served during the VN Era or in VN are "sick"?

No, as one who served, I'm saying that anyone who wants to replay that fucking useless and idiotic sausage grinder is sick.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 06:54 PM

As someone whose mush appears in God only knows how many STASI border shots from the late 70s doing something real to persuade the bearers of real AK47s they didn't want to try it, I have a dim opinion of a Nation which allows people to fantasize like that, "WWIII reenactment" indeed. You actually managed to find a lower notch on my scale of contempt, I didn't think possible. And that he should be holding an entire town in fear and trepidation, Police and Troopers and National Guard, Oh My! You're off to see the Wizard, the Wonderful Wizard of Id...

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 07:34 PM

naw bill they didnt count the illegals   ...my bad

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 10:36 PM

I don't think I'll post here anymore. I find the responses insulting to US veterans and the National Guard -- of which I was a member in 1968, when the unit was activated and ended up in Vietnam.

Ya'll keep keep your heads down now.

(Bill D., you and a few others aren't included in the above. Rationality and reality isn't a strong point here.)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 10:44 AM

I find the responses insulting to US veterans and the National Guard

Well, that's on YOU then, Rap, since no one has insulted U.S. veterans or National Guard personnel except in your imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 12:07 PM

Own a piece of history. Remember Charles Whitman the Texas Tower shooter at the U of Texas in Austin back in 1966? Hard to believe but his actual rifle used in the shooting is up for sale.

Full story here

"Bids are starting at $25,000 for the sale of the rifle used by Charles Whitman during his deadly 1966 sniper rampage from atop the University of Texas clock tower that killed 16 people and wounded dozens more.

The bids are being accepted on the website of Texas Gun Trader. Donald Weiss of Dallas tells the Houston Chronicle he's helping the unidentified owner of the Remington 700 to sell the weapon. Weiss says there's a pending offer of more than $25,000 from a man in the Southeast Texas town of Orange.

Weiss says the owner obtained the rifle from Whitman's estate."

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 12:36 PM

Police department do not give back weapons they destroy them I guestion this. Rap is correct you insult all those who served I also won't post

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 04:14 PM

Some nice tours offered of the tunnels and fields of battle in Vietnam.

I take it Greg F has no interest in taking one.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 04:32 PM

So Q'zer- what the fuck is your problem? I should think that seeing them in 1968 would be more than enough for you.

You think that the ± 58,220 U.S service personnel killed, the ± 153,303 wounded and the the and the ± 430,000 South Vietnamese civilians killed in that U.S. clusterfuck are SOMETHING TO MAKE FUCKING JOKES ABOUT?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 04:41 PM

Man, it's gonna take a jackhammer to get some people's shorts outta their asses...

(That's a joke. There is just so long being offended/outraged is gonna be fun, then what are ya gonna do?)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 05:59 PM

So where's Rap & Dude complaining about Q-zer insulting those who served, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 06:35 PM

Of course the hero of the tale was a police deputy and not Joe Blow:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/26/us/oklahoma-beheading/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 07:53 PM

The only one defaming Veteran's memories is Greg F.

Vietnam Battlefield Tours was founded by Vietnam veterans, for veterans and their families, historians, and educators. See their website.

U. S. Army veteran, WW2.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 08:57 PM

It is just a mistake and poor choice of words lets all forget it
Today some guy went into work and cut the headoff of his female coworker wanted everyone to be Muslim
Fucking streets and even work is now more dangerous than covert intelligence
Wonder why I carry a fucking gun

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 01:48 AM

Out of interest, Dan: could you demonstrate in what way that 'fucking gun' in your pocket was in any way of aid or service to that unfortunate young woman beheaded by that nut in Oklahoma [I think it was]? I honestly do not see the mutual relevance or application of the two parts of your equation.

Regards
≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 02:26 AM

All this "I served" waffle.. What ideal do you think you were furthering? The right to carry guns?

Sick puppies.

Mohammed Ali summed it up perfectly for me when he was man enough to refuse and take the consequences. "No Vietnamese ever called me a nigger."

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 05:38 AM

Muhammed Ali just didn't know what "Mi deng" meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: pdq
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 08:21 AM

"Today some guy went into work and cut the head off of his female coworker (because he) wanted everyone to be Muslim...wonder why I carry a fucking gun." ~ oldude


The chief operations officer of the Vaughns took a gun from his desk and dispatched the Muslim jihadist. That is why we have guns. If the Brits do not like they can all (fill in blank yourselves).

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 09:52 AM

Defaming, Q? Please show where, exactly.

Vietnam Battlefield Tours was founded by Vietnam veterans,

Certain Vietnam veterans also 'swiftboated' John Kerry. Your point?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 10:23 AM

They didn't "defame" him.

They give their personal opinions that he was crummy officer nearly forty years earlier.

I haven't heard that they slandered him, as by lying - which is the essence of defamation.

Like so many here, people swayed by the ad couldn't tell the difference between fact and opinion, a straw man argument, cherry-picked testimony, and (perhaps) the relevance of behavior forty years ago, long before Kerry's more than competent career in the U.S. Senate.

Maybe Kerry was a bad choice. Maybe not. In either case, his failure to live up to the idealized movie image of a naval officer in his twenties shouldn't have carried any decisive weight.

Or should it have?

Opinions. Everyone's got plenty.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 11:23 AM

Battlefield tours were meant to be cathartic - and should not be uttered in the same breath as that handpicked veterans swift boat group dreamed up by Bush buddies to sneer at John Kerry. Swift Boat Veterans formed for the exclusive reason to smear a political candidate.

After the election, the group was credited by media and praised by conservatives as contributing to Kerry's defeat. The group's tactics are considered an example of a successful political smear campaign for its widely publicized then discredited claims. . . .

No members of SBVT were aboard Kerry's boat during any of the incidents for which he was decorated. The only member of SBVT who was present at the Silver Star incident, Rood's crew member Larry Clayton Lee, praised Kerry's tactics and stated that he earned his Silver Star.

People who weren't present with Kerry have been convinced that they should doubt Kerry's military record. But they were subjected to pressure by a powerful political machine. All of this Bush-era nonsense in the end was enough to inspire the creation of several political fact check groups in order to quickly examine and debunk or confirm the "facts" in the claims. And none of this modern-day activity should be used to judge or sort out the actual events of the Vietnam war.

Talk about taking events out of context . . .

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 11:24 AM

Maybe Kerry was a bad choice. Maybe not. In either case, his failure to live up to the idealized movie image of a naval officer in his twenties shouldn't have carried any decisive weight.

Exactly, lighter.

However, in addition it was proven that several of the "swiftboaters" DID lie oughtright.

The point is also that the military is like any other group of individuals: some extroadinary, most of the middling sort, and some really despicable.

Describing reality is hardly "defaming Veteran's memories".

Now Q, you never responded to the query about thinking that the Vietnam War and its casualties were things to make jokes about.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: gnu
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 02:51 PM

Every sentient being has the right to defend itself by any means necessary.

There are good gun laws and bad gun laws.

I offer this... get rid of bad gun laws and strictly enforce good gun laws.

It ain't rocket science. Unfortunately, most science and common sense are desperately lacking in the general populace, as has been witnessed in this here Mudcat Café for THOUSANDS of posts on many gun threads.

So. To answer the OP. No... not a fuckin hope... US gun laws, overall, are completely fucked up. Nearly the same thing in Canuckistan (my Great White Homeland) but for very different reasons.

If anyone would like to know of what I speak, read my MANY posts on ALL of the past gun threads. If you accept researching just the info contained on past Mudcat gun threads, see you in 2015.

BTW... a buddy of mine knocked a bull yesterday at dawn... 1055 dressed. He lives in Three Miles In Back of Beyond, Kent County, NB.ca and he is gonna feed his extended family for over a year with moozzze meat. Don't fuck him up with bad gun laws. Fuck over criminals with good guns laws instead... or shut the fuck up*.

* That's a recurring theme in my past posts.

PS... address issues and don't address me personally on this thread in future unless you PM me because I really don't give two fucks from Tuesday about what you don't understand about what I have just posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 05:04 PM

I can't get my head around Gnu shooting a Moose.
or is it t'other way around?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 06:05 PM

I wonder if this works? Flanders and Swann.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 07:36 PM

Some time I will tell you about the creep who decided to come after two girls with a knife. He found himself staring down the barrel of my. 45 I never needed to fire that ended it quickly

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 08:17 PM

Gnu I like elk man an elk roast is amazing

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 02:51 AM

Some day I will tell you about the man threatening a criminal with a '45. Being a civilised country, they ended up in adjoining cells. The judge saying that taking the law into your own hands is barbaric and not acceptable in a free country.

Just thought I'd rewrite it for progressive people who learn about such things in history and geography about the dangers of some foreign countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 07:29 AM

It's not that they are in a hole. It's that they want to stay in the hole and expect everyone else to join them in it which angers me.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 07:49 AM

Musket, in that story, had the criminal broken in to someone's home?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 01:21 PM

KeithofH, I believe that the Musket is telling us that his story is apocryphal. But I too am curious. What extenuating circumstances apply?

An American, I have no answers for our plague of guns and our gun culture, and the older I get the less sure I am of anything.

However, I do know my views on capital punishment. I'm a'gin it.

I do know my views on war. I'm a'gin it.

The law of tooth and claw should be abandoned in babyhood.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 03:08 PM

I believe Musket's story was a jokey re-write of oldude's boast a couple of posts before, to demonstrate what would likely have happened to our very own Audie Murphy wannabe if he'd started waving his .45 around here in the U.K. - even if it was a criminal he waved it at, he'd be nicked just the same because he too would be a criminal by virtue of carrying an offensive weapon in public.

And quite right too - nobody, licensed or not, should be walking around with an offensive weapon in a civilised country. It's unnecessary and....errrmmm.....uncivilised.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 03:09 PM

Apologies, Musket, if I misread your meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 06:48 PM

""The chief operations officer of the Vaughns took a gun from his desk and dispatched the Muslim jihadist. That is why we have guns. If the Brits do not like they can all (fill in blank yourselves).""

I'm sure the victim's family will be MOST impressed that some gung ho, trigger man shot the perp, who didn't know about not bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Over here that would be called "excessive force", unless he fired in time to save that poor woman.

Us Brits have people whose job it is to bring murderers to justice, not summarily execute them.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 07:42 PM

I agree to disagree. You have the right to meet deadly force with deadly force here in the US. I guess you guys don't and that makes me wonder. The guy that stopped the criminal who killed that lady, if he had not by the time the police came there would have been a lot more bodies.

but hey if it works for you great, it works for me fine .. I don't ask permission to defend myself . Maybe your cops are next door I don't know. Mine take a while and by then someone is dead. Rather it not be me or an innocent

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 08:35 PM

maybe your system works because of your health care programs. Over here if you are as crazy as a loon and tend to be violent, no mental health provider can report you unless threats are made. Even then it would not be taken serious. Our privacy laws really make reporting difficult. So until a nut case kills a whole bunch of people then others ask why wasn't someone aware. Maybe you folks head it off.

And no one was bragging about pulling a weapon, that is nothing to be proud of .. I pulled mine to save lives I was stating a fact .. I would use mine to save lives nothing more.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 06:00 AM

Musket, I only asked, "Musket, in that story, had the criminal broken in to someone's home?"

That was my whole post!
There is no plot against you.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 08:01 AM

I know. You couldn't dig a 'tater plot without letting one variety seed itself where another variety has been sown.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 09:17 AM

Now see here- this is why everyone is gonna need a gun in a couple of years.

September 28, 2014

Top Republican Presidential Candidate Says Anarchy May Force Cancellation Of 2016 Election

Dr. Ben Carson, a popular Tea Party activist and Fox News contributor who says he will likely seek the Republican nomination for president in 2016, said on Sunday that he is seriously concerned that there will not be 2016 elections in the United States because the country could be in anarchy by that point.

Carson finished a close second Saturday in a straw poll at the 2014 Values Voters Summit for 2016 presidential preferences.

With assholes like this running around- and idiots actually beieving him - its no wonder sensible legislation is doomed.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 06:52 PM

The reason the US risks descent into anarchy is because of the NRA argument that weapons are needed to defend the civilian populace against the forces of order.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 04:42 AM

Some gun ownership is allowed here, for sport or pest control.
Not for self defence.
Guns can not be carried in public but can be kept at home with mandatory security of them.

The law here has changed in recent years to give home owners more rights to use force to defend their home and family.
We previously had cases like the man arrested for fighting against an intruder armed with a knife because the intruder died, stabbed with his own knife.
Inevitably someone will shoot an intruder and we will see how it is dealt with.

Musket mentioned the Martin case.(deleted)
He lived on a remote farm where police response would be too late, and had suffered numerous break ins.

He shot the boy, but outside in his grounds and in the back.
He left him to die and did not call for an ambulance.
He was convicted of murder, not manslaughter.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 08:27 AM

The facts:

'Martin was convicted of murder, later reduced to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility, and served three years in prison, having been denied parole'   Wikipedia

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 08:35 AM

You did not say he was convicted of anything Musket.
I was just emphasising that he was not just convicted of manslaughter.
It is not all about you Musket, and no-one is plotting against you.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 09:30 AM

Didn't you guys have some wacko who killed women with a crossbow. Griffen or something like that. Every country has its share of nuts

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 11:20 AM

"Didn't you guys have some wacko who killed women with a crossbow. Griffen or something like that."

Never heard that one Dude. Evidence?

"Every country has its share of nuts"

They do, Dude. But the evidence suggests that yours has considerably more than its share:-

Top 5 Guns For The College-Bound

Options For Your Child's First Gun

Top 5 Guns To Scare Your Daughter's Boyfriend

What a bunch of absolute loonies.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 11:47 AM

Another post deleted. Its when Keith posts that mine get deleted..

Be buggered if I know what the link is...

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 12:07 PM

Not comparing nut jobs.. Mine would win hands down for sure. There was a tv show on yesterday about the guy who used the crossbow in england. He wanted his 15min of fame.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 12:09 PM

You forgot Smith and Wesson. They make a pretty pink gun for the fashionable ladies

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 12:13 PM

His name is stephan Griffiths
The crossbow cannibal from Bradford. Key in cross bow cannibal in Google and read

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 12:20 PM

Don't forget your Harold Shipman
. Wasn't it 215 people murdered. I am beginning to think you guys a sitting ducks. At least we can fight back

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 12:39 PM

When I look at your list of killers I think per population you are as bad or worse than the US. I agree we need laws that make sense but I will keep my 2nd admendment thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 01:14 PM

The fact that you guys didn't know about your own serial killer that murdered women with a crossbow and ATE them makes me ponder the question. Does you goverment hide it in the closet? In America that would have run for a month on national news. We tend to put such things in a window to tell people there are crazies be careful. You seem to put them in the closet .. I also supect it is just our news media wanting the highest TV placement . However things may not be as you say in your country as I see it from what it reported. Sadly you cannot defend yourselves ... not good

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 01:27 PM

Yes, only bad people can go armed here.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 01:31 PM

But supposing I had been walking about with a gun in my pocket, just like you, Dan: what good, precisely, do you think that would have done the poor women that the crossbowman ate?

& why is it that your murder rates, esp those committed by shooting, are so much in excess of anyone else's [see posts passim, or google the statistics], if your sacred 2nd Amendment makes you all so safe?

Just asking.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 01:52 PM

Mike I agree with you. Our states are really so messed up. Some states carry permits are way too easy and it alarms me also my friend. The only good about being able to carry is maybe you could stop a problem before it becomes one. I don't have all the answers for all the violence in the world. It is all insane I wish no one ever needed the things myself but I have t. Be real and know its not that way. Any way it is a good discussion. And the nra is nuts and the gun companies get richer. Nothing is good about any of it. Proper laws would help a lot if we had them

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 02:36 PM

I viewed the links that Backwoodsman posted. Or at least, as much of them as I could stomach. Their lighthearted approach to deadly weapons is a tad offputting. Or course, they are gun dealers.

The part that absolutely boggles my mind is that when they are talking about guns, how to shoot, how to conceal (they even have guns that fold in half in order to easily fit in a backpack), what you can do on a campus where gun carry is not allowed- don't they realize that all of their 'tips' are real handy for the criminal?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 02:40 PM

Heck, I may as well say it: It is like a rape manual for the good guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 03:31 PM

Dude, what does Harold Shipman have to do with this discussion? He wasn't a shooter, he was a doctor who murdered his geriatric, and often terminally ill, patients by injecting them with a lethal dose of medication which he had prescribed, and he then faked their death certificates. They trusted him, and they never knew what he did to them.

How, precisely, would those bang-bangs you get such a hard-on talking about have helped his victims?

And it really is false equivalence to try to use the fact that I forgot about one murderer as some ridiculous justification for your proposal that UK gun-death rates are greater than those of the U.S.

UK population - approx. 60 million
UK average gun-deaths - 50 per annum

US population - approx. 360 million
US average gun-deaths - approx. 11,000 per annum

Do the maths and report back with the result.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 05:30 PM

Yours are being reported Dude that's my point yo . Got more than your share of murders and you have no rights none but to take it in the ass at least here we can defend

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 05:33 PM

Not being reported. Shoot in a mall in my homestate and 40 ppeople will shoot back you will wait for the police and maybe 100 more will die

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 05:40 PM

If they are trained pass all the Fbi tests I would arm everyone that wants
That's thousands of more defacto cops out there then before. And no taxpayer dollars. Cause you see a cop is not magical wood elf
It's your neighbors who decided to do law enforcement. Same handgun training and license requirement in my state anyway. Now ifevery sstate had it great.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 05:48 PM

I don't fear honest and decent people with firearms. I fear for the honest decent people without them. Now you want to talk to me about real meaningful gun laws to keep them out of criminal hands you will have my full support

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 05:58 PM

Your stats are flawed yes you have less gun violence big deal. You have equal or more violent crime per population. Dead is dead from a gun or crossbow or anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 06:58 PM

"40 ppeople will shoot back"

Kind of like a circular firing squad?

When that congresswoman was shot, a 'good guy' with a gun came very close to firing at the wrong person.

I personally do not like the idea of 40.. or even 20... or even 5.. well-meaning bystanders trying to be heroes. Those bullets don't swerve when they approach the innocent.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 09:05 PM

"Shoot in a mall in my homestate and 40 ppeople will shoot back"- Whoa. Has that ever happened, olddude? And heaven forfend that I'm ever present at such a scene.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 10:28 PM

""When I look at your list of killers I think per population you are as bad or worse than the US. I agree we need laws that make sense but I will keep my 2nd admendment thanks""

Sorry to piss on your picnic Dan, but the real facts are as follows:

-snip- "In England and Wales, the murder rate has dropped by eight per cent to 1.04 per 100,000 population since 1995.
In Scotland, the rate has dropped by 19 per cent to 1.8 per 100,000 population and in Northern Ireland it has fallen by 61 per cent to 1.4, according to the data.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2760631/Murder-rate-global-violence-hotspots-plunges-40-15-years-policing-improves.html#ixzz3Er0pBrHZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

USA 2012
All homicides
·        Number of deaths: 16,238
·        Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.2
Firearm homicides
·        Number of deaths: 11,068
·        Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6 " -snip-

From which, you will note that our total murders are two and a half times fewer than your gun murders, and nearly four times fewer than YOUR total.

By April 2013 the homicides in the US outnumbered the dead of 9/11, a rate of about 30 per day.

WE put that difference down to the fact that only trained firearms officers are allowed to use hand guns in the UK.

Watching US cop documentaries and seeing officers emptying their weapons with rapid fire and failing to score a hit on their target (not by any means a rare occurrence), we get some sense of the likely effect of John Doe being allowed to carry.

I wouldn't feel safe anywhere within range, even behind him, and if I were black, I wouldn't want to be in the same County.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 11:00 PM

Troubadour you I believe and I am wrong on my stats. I am happy to be wrong also. I think if loopholes in our laws were closed good people would not be so armed. Last week an 80 year old held two punks at gunpoint that were trying to Rob his house. They were armed. He held them till police came. They had a string of violence against the elderly. They picked the wrong guy

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 12:06 AM

I would add to valuable point in post just above, "WE put that difference down to the fact that only trained firearms officers are allowed to use hand guns in the UK", that these officers do not carry firearms all the time, but are only issued with them ad hoc to enable a specific situation to be dealt with where the senior officer in charge has determined that the use of firearms is the appropriate action to be taken. That senior officer will almost certainly be required to justify that decision to a subsequent committee of enquiry.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 03:54 AM

Dan wonders about unreported gun crime?

Oh yes. Forgot to mention. When our police get it wrong there are usually high level resignations and fallout, rather than another day at the doughnut stand.

Our citizens are indeed armed. Armed with a single police protocol and coordination to try to keep us safe. It seems to work too, given the statistics Backwoodsman offered.

The idea of a national guard would be abhorrent. We only see military dudes when rivers break their banks or laying poppy wreaths.

There's a reassuring reason for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 04:23 AM

Does anyone else find it grimly amusingly ironic that this thread should be continuously running more or less adjacently to another one called "Another Black Man Shot By Cop"?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 11:39 AM

It is grim....and a bit ironic... and not at all amusing.

At least camera technology caused the last stupid officer to be summarily fired for using his gun hastily and lying about what had happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 12:09 PM

What's even grimmer and more ironic is that the same keyboard warriors here are still defending the indefensible. And resorting to distortions with regard to the UK, perhaps even to the point of telling barefaced lies, in an attempt to deflect from the truth of the situation in the US. And that's not the least bit amusing.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 12:39 PM

Well, in summary, there's no doubt the US is in a mess. The gun lobby continues to demonstrate its unreliability as a source of authority by twisting and distorting every fact it can get its paws on, by bringing in every red herring it can, and by using every dirty tactic in the book. Which tells a tale in itself, I guess: their spokesmen here don't want to change, they don't feel the burn. Which is sad for those who are getting burned by their refusal to act. Not just them, of course, but their like: responsibility doesn't divide, though, it multiplies, because each and every one of them could be the one who turns the vote. It's not enough to say you're against something, you've got to act on that, and they're not: otherwise you're not being adult. America's a young country, and it's youth shows: but given a call to grow up, it's not got the commitment to do so. Sorry, but that's the way it is: they risk going down in history with other young nations as a cause of bigger problems, as a result. I don't know what it'll be, but the US is big trouble in the making.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 01:39 PM

I have wracked my brain trying to come up with an analogy that would help UKers understand the situation in which we in the US find ourselves.

How about tobacco? What if the reigning powers dictated that tobacco in all its uses will be as of a certain date banned forthwith, that tobacco in the fields will be razed to the ground, that there will be no legal sales, that anyone caught smoking or chewing or snuffing will be prosecuted, and that anyone caught importing tobacco in any form will be haled into court, the rationale being that there is no earthly use for tobacco but ample evidence of its harmful properties?

It will, of course, require investigators, snoops if you will, who will be mandated by law to report any infringement of the new policy, i.e. if the snoop smells burning tobacco or has other reason to deduce that someone is breaking the law to immediately report the facts to the Enforcement Council, under penalty of their own arrest.

Keep in mind that there are many nooks and crannies and remote areas that would be hard to police, that some people would consider it an issue of freedom, an infringement of individual rights. A person who had smoked for 40 or 25 or 10 years might well expostulate that s/he is not about to stop smoking just because somebody in some office dictated they must.

What about tobacco?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 01:51 PM

Tobacco is a very good analogy indeed, Ebbie. What has been amazing is the success that antismoking legislation, legal restrictions of rights to smoke in workplaces, restaurants, pubs, shops, &c, has had on the public perceptions as to what is acceptable. So that, just a personal example, I have had guests who, despite my saying, as I felt hospitality demanded, that they could smoke in my home while my guests, they have nevertheless insisted on going out into the garden to do so.

So -- in that instance, the legislation came first, and the public acceptance of its pejorative implications for the activity under consideration followed.

Could not some similar effect perhaps result if your government were to LEAD with some sort of meaningful legislation, which public opinion might then follow?

As has happened with smoking -- over here, at least.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 02:25 PM

Mikes right, we do understand, Ebbie, and we understand it won't - can't - happen overnight. But change has to start somewhere, and a good start would be simply to outlaw automatics and other high-power weapons. Give those who have them an amnesty in which to surrender them, pay them compo for the monetary value of the weapons they've surrendered, then throw the book at the ones who don't comply with the ban. Once that's in place, and given time for the dust to settle, other measures could be put in place to further tighten up on who can possess guns and who can't.

Currently, all your governments are doing is weeping crocodile tears and wringing their hands every time something bad happens.

We had a school shooting-spree here - remember Dunblane where the guy used legally-owned firearms to shoot a large number of children and teachers in their local school. Within a very short time, and despite the protestations of the gun-loonies, the government banned the types of weapons used in that shooting. Anyone caught with those types of weapons now will get jail-time, and they've disappeared almost completely.

It's called 'Growing Some Balls'. Maybe its what your leaders need to do? They have to start somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 02:55 PM

I agree with Backwoodsman that the heavy automatic weapons should be banned, but the problem is complicated by the States' different regulations.

There would seem to be a Constitutional conflict, and the Supreme Court could uphold the States rights to decide, if the Federal Congress ever passes a bill outlawing them.

Would the change make any difference? Gun-involved homicides are not carried out with heavy weapons; only the so-called "militia" types would be affected. Members of these groups are a threat, at least in my mind, but gun-related homicide statistics would be little affected.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 03:14 PM

OK, start with handguns, but FOR FUCK'S SAKE, START SOME-FUCKING-WHERE!!!!

If there's a constitutional problem which the Supreme Court can solve, do what the gun-crackpots at the NRA do - ORGANISE AND LOBBY, drive it home, make the buggers take notice. If all you ever do is whine about how difficult it all is, nothing will change.

I'm constantly amazed that the minority bullshit brigade are allowed by the majority normal people to have it all their own way.

NOTHING is impossible. It just takes the will and the organisation.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 03:17 PM

And I originally said start with autos etc. because I thought that would be less sensational, and less difficult, than starting with handguns. But in truth, handguns are where you need to start.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 04:16 PM

Quinnipiac University poll, June, 2014

Do you support or oppose stricter gun control laws in the United States? (1446 queried)
Support 50%
Oppose 47%

New York Times poll, 2014
Support-
More strict- 54&
Keep as they are- 36%
Less strict- 9%
A sharp division between Republican and Democrat voters. Independents close to overall average.

Gallup poll
More strict- 43%
Keep as they are- 43%
Less strict- 11%

28% of Americans favor a handgun ban.
The South and West are split from the North and East; much less support for change.

Not promising for a start.

General agreement that the 2nd Amendment would have to be repealed, which seems unlikely.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 04:56 PM

Looks like the US is fucked, if those numbers are to be believed.
Goodnight.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 09:41 PM

http://www.sassnet.com/clubs/Clubs_list.php?state=European

https://www.ipsc.org/ipsc/regions.php

http://www.issf-sports.org/

http://www.paralympic.org/shooting

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/sports/2014-09/25/c_133672153.htm

http://www.britishshooting.org.uk/

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 05:56 AM

OK. Banning guns doesn't stop crime.

Looking at the statistics it stops many deaths though.

You can have federal laws dictating green credentials of new car designs in order to make The USA as a whole safer yet...

Look on the bright side. You get less vigilante crime too. The thought of someone over here admitting they once threatened someone with a gun... Yet we read on this thread of people proud of the fucking fact!

‼️‼️‼️

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 11:37 AM

If you, with your fists, stopped someone who was threatening someone else with a knife, would you be pleased with yourself? That is probably a fairer assessment.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 11:52 AM

Fists were made for kneading bread, winning arguments and in Germany, bedroom games.

Guns were made to kill.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 12:09 PM

Ebbie, over here it's a crime to threaten anyone with a gun, no matter what the circumstances. A gun is an offensive weapon, and can not be used to threaten anyone. In such circumstances both the knife-weirder and the gun-waver would be committing the same offence, and receive the same sentence.That's the point.

FWIW, I have disarmed someone making threats with a knife, also young men with baseball bats on more than one occasion. On each occasion I didn't feel at all pleased with myself, I was disappointed that I'd allowed the situation to escalate to such a point.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 12:12 PM

Knife-weirder?? WTF??
I hate bloody iPad predictive text! Knife-weilder!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 12:22 PM

It really is very frustrating and difficult in discussions like this, where those with the paranoid, fearful mindset of the Americans are completely incapable of understanding, as we do, that it's perfectly possible to live safe, peaceful lives in a society where guns have no place. We live that life, and it really does exist.

The only reason you believe you **need** guns is because you've got the bloody things coming out of your ears. Trust me, you'd be amazed if you spent time here, that criminals don't carry weapons, there aren't 'mad-dog killers' around every corner, and 'the bad guys' are mostly on TV.

It's not a good idea to believe everything you read in the newspapers, or hear on Fox News.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 12:24 PM

And just to catch that one before the gun fetishists try using it against us, we ALSO treat knives the same way these days in the UK, and there's the legal trend that any dispute may head in the same direction. Once discussion turns negative to the point where there is no common ground to agree on, the most logical conclusion is to recognise the fact and walk away. There is never any justification for violence between adults, and it always takes two to make an argument. Remove one - yourself - and the causus belli disappears. The other side has as much a right to an opinion as you do, and you as much right to yours as they do to theirs: live and let live.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 12:36 PM

Just curious - no hidden agenda - request for info only: what ARE the regulations concerning knives - pocket, pen & otherwise- in the UK these days?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 12:44 PM

The law isn't going to change in the foreseeable future AND IT DOESN'T MATTER.

In much of the US, bestiality is legal. That doesn't mean you see people shagging dogs in every Walmart carpark. Law follows changes in social attitudes, it doesn't lead them. The US just needs to get in line with the rest of the world culturally and lump the gun-owning weirdos along with the puppy-fuckers: we may not want you in jail but you certainly aren't getting left alone with our kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 12:57 PM

Yes but does your criminals follow your restrictive laws
I think most criminals here love laws that good people follow on guns. It gives them piece of mind when they want to rob or kill. The laws protect the criminals as I see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 01:19 PM

I can kind of understand handguns. They require an extensive amount of training but why would it bother you folks if your neighbor owned a shotgun and was a kind decent person. I don't get it , what threat to others is that except for the criminal who wants to rob and kill him. I don't get it. Good people owning guns ... I feel a lot safer. Your laws apply only to the good people as the bad people don't give a crap

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 01:22 PM

And what do you do with a Martial Arts Master. If he or she is attacked and severly damages someone of kills them defending themselves, are they wrong.   I am not being a prick I am asking the question because I do want to know. How do you handle them, must they register themselves as a weapon ... don't get it

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 01:35 PM

For fuck's sake Dude, how many times do we need to tell you - the fucking criminals DON'T go around armed because (1) they don't need a gun because they know they won't be faced by a cop with a gun or an angry house-owner with a gun, and (2) carrying an offensive weapon (gun, knife, crossbow, sword, screwdriver, baseball bat, etc. etc.) in the commission of a crime puts that crime into the category of 'aggravated' and if they get caught, they will get a double-sentence! I've said all this at least twice - Don't you read anything we tell you?

You don't get it because you've got a brainwashed, paranoid, fucked-up mindset - exactly what you get when society treats owning a gun as 'normal'.

We have laws here that ACTUALLY WORK, not just for guns, but for any kind of offensive weapons - strict control on the sale of, strict and regular checks on gun-owners, very severe punishments for those who break the law with regard to the carrying of offensive weapons.

I set you a simple maths exercise earlier, which I noticed you didn't respond to - maybe you did it and didn't like what it told you, or maybe your gun-addled brain just couldn't do it. Either way, the proof is incontestable, except by an idiot.

I think this thread's gone as far as it can. As ol' Musket says, "You can't educate pork".

Time to go.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 01:57 PM

See Jack Camppin post-
Bestiality (zoophilia) is not illegal in UK, but images cannot be transmitted. It is illegal in Netherlands, France, Switzerland.

Fourteen U. S. states have no specific laws against bestiality, 36 do either felony, or misdemeanor).
(Wikipedia and BBC News)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 02:23 PM

What I like here is that Q's internet provider now has a record of Q searching to see where you can get away with bestiality...

"Take the ribbon from your fur" 🎵🎶

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 02:26 PM

yes backwoodsman I am, don't forget that either.
so then why worry if your neighbor owns a shotgun ... silly I think

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 04:01 PM

What I always wanted was one of those double barrel rifles your african explorers used. They were amazing. Last one I saw was 21k

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 04:34 PM

"knife-weirder?? WTF??
I hate bloody iPad predictive text! Knife-weilder!" Backwoodsman

lol Reminds me of one time when a friend and I were assuring each other that we were excellent proof readers and very observant when an error popped up. We wrote back and forth three times and each time, both of us made errors or typos. We finally gave up. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 04:35 PM

As I recall, Teddy Roosevelt was given a Holland and Holland double rifle in .500-450 calibre by British admirers for his 1909 African safari. Also, if I recall correctly from "African Game Trails" - it gave him a nosebleed every time he fired it.

Now, that's dedication.....

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 05:20 PM

. "Law follows changes in social attitudes, it doesn't lead them".
.,,.,.

Profoundly disagree, Jack. In a law-abiding society, that's exactly what it does. See my post 0151 pm yesterday on the effects of our non-smoking laws on public acceptance of the necessity for restriction on tobacco use, and its social effects. The law has changed smoking from something that everybody did [in my youth it was not exactly rude not to smoke, but certainly regarded as a little bit eccentric] to something for which those who can't kick it are perpetually a bit defiantly apologetic.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 05:40 PM

I hate bloody iPad predictive text!

When communication is all thumbs, what can you expect? Another triumph of technology in the digital age.

Not.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 06:53 PM

I shot one Greg, it will pull the filling out of your teeth damn it kicked. If you hold it wrong you can fracture a collar bone. It's like the old 10 gage goose guns old timers had.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 07:06 PM

Too much monkey business for me to be involved in, Dan. I'd just as soon beat myself over the head with a three-pound hammer.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 08:45 PM

from yesterday, about Dunblane:

" Within a very short time, and despite the protestations of the gun-loonies, the government banned the types of weapons used in that shooting. "

I answered a post about Dunblane earlier.... but one-more-time.
It IS a fine idea to ban such weapons here... and ammunition and more.
The issue is you in the UK have a very different way to DO banning!!!! You can have a simple national referendum and vote in Parliament and it's done! We don't. There are various reasons for this, some of which were not a serious problem until gradually, in the 1960s thru now, they suddenly were.
It's like a lobster in a pot of water with the temp slowly rising... it becomes evident that there is a problem, but even if he realizes he is in water that is too hot, he can't reach the rim to get out! There are people with big sticks pushing him back. THEY are in control. THEY are the NRA, the local legislators, and those who are damned well gonna have lobster for supper.

Laws about tobacco are only tangentially relevant. We have severely limited many tobacco issues, but that took ages because of lobbyists and addictions. There is nothing that is quite like firearms, as it 'seems' to be protected by the Constitution.

Getting around this means fighting political, economic, psychological, cultural, emotional and judicial issues... all at the same time.

We are not just sitting on our hands and acting like wimps, as some would like to suggest. We are in a pot of hot water, trying to dodge sticks and reach the edge. Can't even bite the fingers holding the sticks very often.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 09:59 PM

Yeah Greg but the H+H the British had with the double barrel was amazing. My doc buddy does own one they are really expensive if you find one in any condition. I want one to restore

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 10:02 PM

Wish rap was still on I am sure he probably shot one. But heavy don't know how they carried it in Africa or india big game hunting

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 03:28 AM

But Bill. The federal government can ban new car sales on the basis of not hitting safety and emission standards, using public health as the impetus.

Anyway, when the rest of the world finds the interpretation of right to bear arms hilarious, it just shows how facile politics can become.

From the country with the reputation for preaching to others of the joys of democracy and holding to account.

Guns are the main barrier to credibility methinks.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 04:48 AM

Bill -- Notoriously the US claims to be the "can-do" country.

But, because of its Constitution and its fractured government -- split between the Constitution and States' rights -- it would seem according to you to be the "can't-do" country after all.

What a pity. Really nothing you can do about it. No way of going back to ▢·1, and trying redrafting the whole shebang from top to bottom so that the will of what you claim to be the majority might at last prevail over that of the NRA?

Like, maybe, a committee of both Houses appointed to redraft the Constitution to reflect the will of the people: or is the thing so set in stone that one Amendment -- to start all over again, could never happen?

No way? None at all?

Well, then, I say again --

WHAT A PITY!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 06:54 AM

First gun I fired was a Lee Enfield #4, and I was just 14. After that, nothing fazes me - including being taught shotgun handling at Holland and Holland, who put me straight onto snipe. But that is in the past.

Dunblane was NOT simply a referendum, Bill, simply communal expression led by the Press that enough was enough, forcing MPs to act. You can do it, you must do it, JFDI.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 09:59 AM

But heavy don't know how they carried it in Africa or india big game hunting...

Ah, but they didn't carry it - them days they had a "native gun bearer" to lug it around for 'em until time to take the shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 10:56 AM

Ru kidding me. I hunted with a .308 and an ott six since I was 12. That is nothing. I hunted before I could ride a bike. Compared to a .454
you don't what you are talking about for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 11:04 AM

That double magnum my doc buddie has will kick like a mule and I fire damn near every rife in the US arsenal including a host of .50 cal's. If you ever fired one of those heavy SOB you would know what I mean. Not a fun gun by any standard. It was for elephants. Now a modern .454 Socom .. no problem

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 11:23 AM

sniper training ok, lets talk ballistics , grain, charge, and doping the scope I am your huckleberry. The british snipers are trained on a host of weapons what are they and what caliber and bullet grain do they use. What is the powder that is used. What is the drop at 250 yards, 10 mph cross wind, humidity at 95% outside temp 102 degrees. on a .308 caliber which is the most common sniper weapon for the brits

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 12:00 PM

Musket & MGM & Rahere... you do fine at **describing** a situation, but remarks about a "can do country" and "new car sales" are rhetorical evasions which do nothing to address pragmatic solutions.

"No way of going back to ▢·1, and trying redrafting the whole shebang from top to bottom ...?"

Of course there is. And that 'way' is up a steep mountain road with land mines and snipers who have papers allowing them to be there!

All we have to do is go through this process. Very clear & *cough-cough* simple.


"Dunblane was NOT simply a referendum, Bill, simply communal expression led by the Press that enough was enough, forcing MPs to act"

But the MPs' action, once done was binding upon the country at large! We do not have a way for "communal expression" to be directly leveraged on the Congress as a whole! Why? Read the link above. We have a huge amount of communal expression happening, but it is like... ummmm... people sitting on a series of islands with sharks between them, yelling about better swimming rules. (best metaphor I could do with this damn cold I have.)

**IF** we had a Supreme Court with a good, Liberal majority, we could possibly challenge various state & local interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.

One more metaphor... the UK is like a moderate sized sailboat which can tack with the winds. The US is a 2000 ft long ocean liner going at 25 knots with a stubborn crew... sticking long oars out the portholes is not exactly gonna change its course easily. Muddy? Read again the link above.........

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 12:17 PM

you in the UK have a very different way to DO banning!!!! You can have a simple national referendum and vote in Parliament and it's done!

Referendums in the UK are rare, not simple, and confined to constitutional issues, which guns are not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom

Bestiality isn't a constitutional issue either. Anybody who wanted to amend UK law to reflect the US and allow them to wave pistols and shag sheep would have to go through a different procedure.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 12:43 PM

Until and unless the United States Supreme Court changes its ruling on the Second Amendment, there is no hope that the situation will change. And they have shown no willingness to revisit the issue.

To me- and many others - the language of the 2nd Amendment is clear: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

But the latest ruling (2008) of the US Supreme Court says otherwise. They, in a 5-4 vote, basically said that there can be few or no lawful restrictions.

In earlier rulings (respectively 1876 and 1936)the SCOTUS said ""The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government." and "In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

(Gleaned from several sites in Wikipedia.)

You UKers have only yourselves to blame. Did you know that:

"The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state."

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 01:48 PM

Easy for a trained sniper I did that in my head in four secs. Try eight inches approx with a quarter to half inch drift at 250 yards with nato 155gr grain

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,UK Survivor
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 07:12 PM

I've followed this with amusement.

In the UK you can own any weapon, from a semiautomatic rifle to a Swiss Army knife. In general, rifles and shotguns must be registered with the police. However, an air rifle with a muzzle energy of no more than 12 ft. lbs. is completely legal. So is a paintball gun, and these can do some damage. The air rifle could be used for shooting rabbits and hares and would certainly harm someone.

A catapult can kill small game, and they are legal in the UK. The best ammunition would be steel ball bearings, but pebbles could also be used.

And don't fool yourself. Should a disaster of any sort happen, the UK would be WROL.

I have made arrangements for myself and my family. For reasons that should be obvious I have made myself anonymous. I will say that I have served in the paras and the SAS, and that I am not sending this from my own computer.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 07:54 PM

"They were armed. He held them till police came. They had a string of violence against the elderly. They picked the wrong guy"

Coincidentally, in the last fortnight, a UK octogenarian drove off two would be robbers with a golf club.

And?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 07:59 PM

"Referendums in the UK are rare, not simple,..."

It seems I mis-stated what I wanted to say and did not accurately refer to the UK process.

I meant referendum in a general way as a public process of discussing and voting on an issue.

I heartily approve of the ability to get a new, relevant law through in the UK... would that it were that simple here. We have made progress on limiting tobacco, but that took awhile, even with medical support. Weapons are an entirely different matter, as they 'seem' to be protected by the Constitution. (see Ebbie's remark) *I* don't agree that's what the Constitution says, but I don't have a seat on the court. I have said a dozen times that the 2nd amendment needs to be re-written to avoid ANY ambiguity left over from 1789 and to reflect life as it is now......and the process for doing that? Yes... that's right. Uphill all the way...with snipers & potholes.

Hey... you guys over there want to re-claim this errant colony long enough to straighten out some awkward details? (Don't wear bright red coats this time.)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 08:11 PM

"And what do you do with a Martial Arts Master. If he or she is attacked and severly damages someone of kills them defending themselves, are they wrong."

Somebody I know, who was a member of UK Special Boat Service, used that ability to clobber two burglars he found rifling his home, in spite of being disabled and needing two canes to walk.

He went to jail for using excessive force.

I think that answers your question.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 09:07 PM

My son took Kung-Fu lessons for awhile. The instructor (a 6th or 7th degree black belt) told them of being accosted by 2 guys on a dark street near the school. They grabbed him and demanded his money. He (about 60 years old) left them sprawled on the pavement, wondering what happened. He did NOT report it or bother to hang around... perhaps to avoid the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 10:21 PM

Been there myself more than once

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 03:11 AM

There you go. Another good reason guns for self defence aren't needed in a society that looks after its people.

Granted that UK survivor is possibly a pisstake so best ignored, let's work on the idea he exists, (apart from the 'paras, SAS, Jedi knight etc).

A country where such disturbed individuals could legally obtain guns?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 09:38 AM

It may need someone with pull getting mixed up in a massacre. That, of course, was why you are changing the Head of the Secret Service: it's the last thing they want, it happening to them - they don't give a shit about anyone else, which is about the first level of compromise in politics. But until it does, just keep reminding them who exactly is responsible the next time a massacre happens: the shooter for doing it and the politicians for allowing him to have the means to do so. The shooter's likely to end up shot, fried or jabbed, but you let the politicos walk away. They take the money, they must deliver the goods, and if they don't, skewer them.

This last week, we saw our UK politicians try to weasel their way out of responsibility for their expenses claims - again. It's being nailed by the population immediately. You have to start doing it in the US too, if you can't trust them in small things, you can't trust them in big ones, like your liberty and welfare. The Republicans are obviously utterly out of control, so the starting point must be to get sufficient voters together to hold a sword of Damocles over the heads of the Democrats. If you want our votes, you commit to a control mechanism. It didn't work four years back in the UK, quite, but we did get the principle of referenda happening. The next thing will be to usse it to force them to actually be accountable to their constituency, by "recall"/"denunciation"/"firing" - it's being jargonised, but the principle is that if you don't do what you said, we won't have to wait five years to get rid of you.

It comes down to Tony Benn's test for a democracy:

"In the course of my life I have developed five little democratic questions. If one meets a powerful person - Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates - ask them five questions:
    What power have you got?
    Where did you get it from?
    In whose interests do you exercise it?
    To whom are you accountable?
    And how can we get rid of you?
If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system."

That, my friends, is how you sort out your political system. In the UK, they fought back by giving themselves a fixed mandate of five years, no way to go earlier - usually if they screw up badly. They may claim that they have the Law on their side if they do so, but they will discover that they who make the Law cannot shelter behind it. We saw that 350 years ago, when the Long Parliament had to be overthrown because they tried to - they lasted just three years beyond the term the current batch have.

Never forget why we have a political system - they do the bits we don't want to haave to muss with. Belgium lasted without a government for a year in 2010 and bid fair to take even longer this year - they had an election in May and have barely got to grips with the question so far. The King appointed nine lead negociators then, doing different jobs in fact-finding and reconciliation, and has only appointed three so far. If a country can survive without politicians interfering for one year in four, and again, then one must ask whether they have the importance they claim?

And if they do not, why the fuck are you so worried about what they and their Supreme Court cronies think? You've been cowed, just tell them they're wrong, they too crap most mornings. The reason for this is that because of the Great Lie, 30 000 Americans die every year. They are a bigger danger to you than all your enemies put together, and yet you allow it. What's the National Security Advisor doing? Focus on her, keep pushing her, get the bugger to do her job. "If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November election?" That is how she thinks, so use it, you have an election coming up.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 10:11 AM

Heh heh.. Tony Benn posed those at me when I chaired a health authority (PCT) where he was an MP... Possibly the best questions in politics and they cut it regardless of political flavour.

The fixed mandate isn't worth the Hansard it is printed on. Clegg could have pulled the plug if he wished and forced a confidence vote that just needs an amendment to suspend the fixed term arrangement in the interim, should it be clear that a minority government could not see a legislative agenda through.

Sorry, getting off track.

If the democratic will of the majority of people is to take gun ownership for self defence out of existence, and you say it can't be done, it isn't us who don't understand your system, it's your system that doesn't understand you.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 01:43 PM

"If the democratic will of the people...."

There seems to be an assumption that the will of the people is to "take gun ownership for self defense out of existence." This is untrue.

If the polls I posted on 01 Oct 14 are an indication of the will of the people, there is no real support for such a move. The polls indicate the will is to keep the basic laws pretty much as they are.

Room for tinkering, but that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 11:52 AM

If Q is right, then the US has no right to call itself a civilised society.

In the mean time, this is how to deal with intractible politicians such as the current crop of Republicans. Whether you fill the dumpsters with tar and feathers is entirely up to you.

It's the only cure for a society where the politicians forget who serves who.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 12:02 PM

It would also have no right to host the United Nations, which is supposed to set the norms for the world. The generation of responsible and mature politicians documented by Alistair Cook in the 1950s has, it seems, been supplanted by scoundrels. At any rate, the evidence of social progression expected in any nation the size of the US has evidently been stalled by a set of do-nothings who history will almost certainly blame for the rise of IS. If you do not lead, then you will be led to places you may not like to go to.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 12:32 PM

"...this is how to deal with intractible politicians such as the current crop of Republicans."

Gosh... what a good idea! I'll be heading right down to Georgia, Alabama, Texas and get started... then on to Kansas, Oklahoma and..... oh, wait, you didn't mention what to do when they climb back out, or where to get 500 tons of feathers and how to deal with their gun toting supporters.... ah well.... I suppose my looking here for that 'pragmatic solution' to our legal/political situation was silly to begin with. I'll just go back to voting, writing letters and supporting the many efforts already underway.... (I'd pray....but...)

The United Nations? In 1945, it seemed like a good idea. Ask Canada if they'd like it... or maybe London.

I don't think "the norms for the world" are easily set, no matter where the building is located.

___________________________________

In a semi-serious mode, it does amaze me how easy it is to be supercilious from a distance.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 12:48 PM

We're not being supercilious, we're thinking about the next dozen kids shot by a nutter authorised by Wal. (That's what you get when you turn Law backwards. Whether you pile it high and sell it cheap is entirely up to you).

The reason we're not being supercilious is because we did something about it, we didn't blether like a bunch of silly sheep. The Ukraine's doing something about their bunch of failures, too. This is what I mean when I say they have you cowed: you say you need arms to defend yourselves against the State, but what happens when you have something to defend? Thankfully you won't use them, which means you don't need arms to defend yourselves after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 01:27 PM

It bemuses me when the current crop of take credit for what came before. It is common- and probably invariably so- to take credit for what we did when we weren't even there.

Bitter? Me? Nah.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 01:56 PM

Just ask thomas Jefferson what he meant you will have your answer

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:16 PM

Supercilious IS saying "we did it, why can't you?" when the situations cannot be fairly compared. I and others have explained why they are not.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 16 Oct 14 - 07:03 PM

I guess oldude thinks gun nuts silencing feminists and driving them out of their homes with legalized death threats is just the defence of American freedoms:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/15/gamergate-feminist-video-game-critic-anita-sarkeesian-cancels-utah-lecture-after-threat-citing-police-inability-to-prevent-concealed-weapons-at-event/

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/10/15/3579863/utahs-concealed-carry-laws-force-feminist-speaker-to-cancel-event-after-death-threats/

Utah really is a sick shithole.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 16 Oct 14 - 09:46 PM

I don't live in Utah, and I don't read far left or far right propaganda shit.


God, Guns, and Geetars

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 02:09 AM

Senior moment. Trying to think what the U stands for in USA

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 04:53 AM

Unbelievable?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 09:39 AM

For the record Thomas Jefferson did not author the 2nd amendment. He advocated for a bill of rights but was not present at the Constitutional Convention as he was out of the country as the U.S. Minister to France. James Madison and possibly George Mason are thought to be the main writers of the 2nd.

Jefferson did argue that constitutions and laws should expire after 19 years and that each succeeding generation should write their own according to their own circumstances:

" Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396

If Jefferson were around today he certainly would have seen our "enslavement to previous generations" in the 2nd amendment.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,SOL
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 01:57 PM

Am I correct in saying the margin of votes in a presidential election is held by the gun lobby and also the religious belt?
If so, it seems evidently clear why these two factions are woo-ed (and never challenged) by the candidates of all parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 02:43 PM

Read Jefferson quote on guns you can Google it then say that again about what he would do

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: pdq
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 02:54 PM

Thomas Jefferson's quotes on gun ownership:


Jefferson QUOTE-1

"In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary."



Jefferson QUOTE-2

"This right is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution."

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Civil Rights



Jefferson QUOTE-3

A gun was an everyday implement in early American society, and Jefferson recommended its use.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Civil Rights



Jefferson QUOTE-4

"I advise the gun"

--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407



Jefferson QUOTE-5

"I advise the gun. . . . it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind."

--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407



Jefferson QUOTE-6

" . . . all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right . . . to be at all times armed."

--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45



Jefferson QUOTE-7

" . . . all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their . . . duty to be at all times armed."

--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45



Jefferson QUOTE-8

"One loves [includes himself] to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."

--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341



Jefferson QUOTE-9

"Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks."

--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407



Jefferson QUOTE-10

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45



Jefferson QUOTE-11

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks."

--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 02:56 PM

Reminds me any got a rear sight for an s+with. 44mag. Took the scope off and lost the sights dang

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 02:59 PM

Uh Hunh, PeeDee. Now can we talk about the 21st Century & situations that never would have occurred to the ol' red-headed bastard?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 03:05 PM

It will probably never sink in to you guys that Jefferson lived in a frontier nation where guns were quite necessary to existence. As exemplified in the passage I quoted below he was not so obtuse as to believe that an anachronistic law would be still be relevant 225 years later.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 03:47 PM

You can't educate pork.
Or dinosaurs.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 06:35 PM

Frontier days less than 7 people a year shot today more than that a week in one city

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 07:22 PM

Jefferson lived in a frontier nation where guns were quite necessary to existence

You didn't have any more need for a gun in New York or Philadelphia in 1790 than you do now.

Of course Jefferson's generation only had to deal with bears, wolves, escaping slaves, Canadians and pro-British traitors. Obviously if he'd known about the risk posed to America by feminist media theorists he'd have written pipe bombs into the Constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 12:50 PM

What is beyond sad is that because of the open carry laws and refusal by the authorities to provide security, 'they' were able to stop her from speaking with only a threat.

Thomas Jefferson and, I'd bet, all of the Founders, would have been appalled at this use of the 2nd Amendment. That idea of revisiting all the relevant laws every 19 years is sounding better & better.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 01:59 PM

Keep banging the rocks together guys..

🔫💵

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 06:51 PM

Musket Lol yes an endless circle jerk

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 06:53 PM

We go round and round my friend no one will budge an endless circle jerk

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 09:31 PM

Me too, but you gotta see the watch Mahlon made for me. It is awesome Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 09:58 AM

Gee, Musket... that's really helpful. Thank you so much for your deep insight.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 11:21 AM

Any time Bill. Any time.

😸

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 20 Oct 14 - 04:36 AM

You're getting the point, Olddude: the NRA is by far a bigger threat in quantifiable terms to the US than al-Qaida and IS combined.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 14 - 11:07 AM

Musket...the rocks I've been banging are disturbing my neighbor, and he's threatening to shoot me. May I throw them at him? I do want to follow the right procedures.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 20 Oct 14 - 11:53 AM

You guys are making progress on me. Yesterday I was carrying a colt. 380 instead of a glock. It is much smaller caliber so little steps at a time and some day I may be down to a ball bat

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 20 Oct 14 - 12:11 PM

The snag is Bill, throwing rocks evolves into designing guns.

Basically, you're all fucked.

The trick is to evolve to the stage where throwing rocks or playing with bang bangs isn't your initial solution to the neighbour's reaction.

Not hard. Even the Germans got there eventually...

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 14 - 12:35 PM

I once suggested tongue-in-cheek to a self-described mercenary that we settle wars by issuing bags of marshmallows and you were 'out' after so many white spots on your uniform. He replied: "Yeah.... that might work for awhile. Then some bastard like me would come along and put a rock in each one... and off we'd go again!"