BS: Guns in America

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:18 PM

Best varmit gun made 22/250 bolt action my choice

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:19 PM

If you can do even 300 yds with a .223 (even bolt action), my hat is off to you. My preference is 22LR, Win 52B with Redfield Olympic iron sights. But I know many who use AR derivatives, and they are happy with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:24 PM

I do a lot of long range shooting and reload my own special rounds
You are right I have a lot of friends who love them and that’s ok with me

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 03:37 PM

I just don’t have any use for one or really see a use

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 10:18 AM

Yeah, a lot of people miss the fact that guns only have one purpose, while most other things that can kill you are being used INcorrectly.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 11:06 AM

Going to try for a moose again this year. Last year only one I saw but was not sure it was a legal size so just let him pass. Moose meat is the best ever

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 11:09 AM

Bruce no don’t own a 223. I shoot a 243 it’s not as fast but bigger and a good deer gun

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 11:10 AM

Sorry, Mrrzy,

The ONLY purpose of a gun is to propel a bullet into a target. OR intimidate someone FROM action - which is what the police do all the time. They have lethal force available IN ORDER to STOP CRIMINALS. The THREAT presented by a firearm will often PREVENT the use of one.


"* Firearms save lives as well take lives.

If one imagines that guns in civilian hands are used solely as murder weapons, it makes sense to ban or strictly regulate them.

But millions of Americans legally carry a firearm every day, and most cite self-defense as their primary reason. The overwhelming majority of the time, those guns are never drawn in anger. But innocent civilians can and do sometimes use their guns in self-defense. Any discussion of firearms policy must acknowledge the lives saved by legal use of guns as well as the lives lost by criminal use."


The CHOICE of target is the operator's- So perhaps you will offer laws that KEEP CRIMINALS from getting guns, instead of keeping ONLY law-abiding citizens seeking self defense from doing so. What has been offered up does NOT keep criminals from getting firearms, but DOES prevent law-abiding citizens from having self-defense available.


Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/#7e20c50e5edc


https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/29/gun-control-isnt-the-answer-we-already-know-how-to-stop-the-violence-commentary.html?__source=ya

http://observer.com/2016/03/must-pack-heat-the-case-for-mandating-gun-ownership/






A lot of people miss the fact that ALL drugs are poisons. Just have to give a high enough dose. Look at the number of fatal overdoses each year: Can we remove them from our society? Just because there are benefits from their use is obviously NOT good enough to justify the danger presented by them, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 01:17 PM

Bruce
The continual deflection of the dangers of guns in our country onto other issues such as cars or drugs is simply an avoidance tactic. We have a genuine problem with the numbers and types of guns with in our culture and smoke-screening behind other issues does not change that.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 01:47 PM

"We have a genuine problem with the numbers and types of guns with in our culture"

I do NOT see that the case has been made to support this. THAT is a fundamental difference that you do not address.

Were I to say that" We have a genuine problem with the Liberal tolerance of crime in our culture and smoke-screening behind other issues does not change that." and THEREFORE we should make being Liberal illegal, you MIGHT not agree with it. But I do not insist that YOU HAVE to agree with such a conclusion, as YOU just have of me

But it seems you are stating that you wish to prevent law-abiding citizens form getting weapons, NOT that you want to reduce the numbers of people killed.



Ain't gonna happen. How do you keep people WHO ARE PRESENTLY PROHIBITED from possessing firearms form getting them? Much less the ones who legally CAN own them?


https://www.americanweaponscomponents.com/build-a-glock/

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 01:49 PM

We have a genuine problem with the numbers and types of killings in our culture and smoke-screening behind other issues such as gun control, and making laws that do not address the problem, and have been proven not to work does not change that.

THAT I can agree with.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 02:43 PM

" IF criminals were effectively deprived access to highly dangerous firearms that can kill large numbers of people in short periods of time, would you still want to own such a weapon? "


Tell me how you would do that- they are ALREADY prohibited from access to firearms OF ANY KIND. Yet they seem to have all that they want.

So what dream world would you have, where the criminals obey your laws?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 03:03 PM

People who commit the awful acts we have been discussing can and regularly do get highly dangerous weapons from people who have obtained them legally. I live in Virginia and can purchase with ease any number of weapons capable of mass killing. Virginia is a steady pipeline to the illegal trade of guns in NYC. Also remember, most weapons used in mass shootings in the USA have been obtained legally. Because these weapons are so readily available it makes it easy for the bad guys you worry about to get them.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 03:18 PM

" can and regularly do get highly dangerous weapons from people who have obtained them legally"

AND THAT IS ALREADY A CRIME.


"Because these weapons are so readily available it makes it easy for the bad guys you worry about to get them."

NOT LEGALLY.

So, you state that the criminals get the weapons by violating the law. HOW DO ADDITIONAL LAWS stop them?


If we confiscate 250,000,000 there will still be 50,000,000 to 100,000,000 of them out there.

https://www.americanweaponscomponents.com/product-category/build-a-glock/complete-80-glock-kits/

And this is NOT controlled by ANY laws- it is not even a "firearm" by the BATF definition. (neither was the bump-stock, according to the Obama administration)



It looks to me like you want to pass new laws. LAWS only control those who obey them. YOU are saying that law-abiding citizens should not have them- AND NOT KEEPING THE CRIMINALS from getting them.



We have a genuine problem with the numbers and types of killings in our culture and smoke-screening behind other issues such as gun control, and making laws that do not address the problem, and have been proven not to work does not change that.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 03:26 PM

" I live in Virginia and can purchase with ease any number of weapons capable of mass killing."

Yes, and if YOU do kill anyone, YOU are committing a CRIME.
If you sell or give them to someone else , YOU are committing a CRIME.

You are saying that you as an individual have no responsibility for your actions, so you would prohibit those who legally can have and use those forearms from having them.

Why not pass a law making it illegal to KILL PEOPLE?


Same effect.


Of course, it ALREADY IS. How well does the law work when you don't bother to enforce it?

Show me the enforcement OF EXISTING LAWS before you demand additional one.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 03:45 PM

Your logic appears to be that

"Some people violate the law and use illegal X to commit terrible crimes.
If we get rid of the legal X, there will be less crime:
Nobody should have X."


I disagree with the logic you offer- Consider- If we castrate all the non-sex offenders, will that have any effect on the rate of sex crimes?
And is the cost worth it?

As I have said, several times,

Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

I have pointed out info that supports the fact that citizens legally HAVING guns can serve to reduce the killings. IMO, prohibiting legal gun ownership will result in a LARGER NUMBER of killings by illegal guns. Nothing you have presented has addressed this. Nor have you addressed how you can SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the number of guns available. I am sure the people of Fergusson will be thrilled to turn over all their weapons to the police. That was what the Jim Crow laws tried to do, and they did not succeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 04:48 PM

Bruce
Your responses are so filled with anger and fear and you over-respond to hide certain basic facts.
The weapons we are discussing kill many people quickly
They are easy to get
They are usually obtained legally before they commit the illegal killings.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 05:04 PM

truth is alive but on life support.

One of the few truths bruce alludes to is that this year did see for the first time more people dying from opioids than from the bullets from guns.
but as Sean says, that is still deadly apples and oranges.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 02:09 AM

"Your responses are so filled with anger and fear that you over-respond to hide certain basic facts."

People like B.B. are called 'Gun-Nuts' for a good reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 08:08 AM

BW if by Gun-Nut you mean overly enthusiastic like sports-nut or foodie-nut you are probably right. If you mean crazy or dangerous you are probably wrong. While Bruce and I clearly see the issue of guns in America very differently neither of us has written disparagingly or disrespectfully towards each other.
In the past 20-25 years we have been culturally desensitized to behaving and speaking poor;y towards each other ("Reality" TV. political campaigns, Fox News, just to name a few). We have got to find ways to air and hopefully resolve our differences thoughtfully and respectfully. Otherwise we will remain entrenched in camps and divided by fear and anger.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 08:21 AM

Sean Fear,

YOU seem to want to avoid my question:

Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

Until you address that, I fail to see that you are interested in discussion. You seem to insist that others agree with your points, without making a case that others accept. And you do not seem to address any points that do not support your view, even when provided supporting material.

I did answer YOUR question: 18 Apr 18 - 10:32 AM

I am waiting to hear an example of what law YOU think would effectively accomplish your intent- and how it would be enforced.

You want me to agree to what you have not put forward in a clear manner. I understand there is a problem-

We have a genuine problem with the numbers and types of killings in our culture and smoke-screening behind other issues such as gun control, and making laws that do not address the problem, and have been proven not to work does not change that.


"They are usually obtained legally before they commit the illegal killings. "

I do not agree that you have proven this. It may be true- but you ignore all the cases where guns legally obtained save lives.

Drugs kill thousands. So, since they are legally obtained, and used illegally, they should be removed from our society.
After all, "Drugs are usually obtained legally before they kill people by illegal use. "





Backwoodsman,

Perhaps we can discuss the topic, and not make personal attacks on those you disagree with. Is your reason for supporting gun control so shallow, and based on unmentionable reasons?



Donual,

" few truths"

Please let me know what I have stated that is NOT truth. We can argue about it, but at least you should let me know what you disagree with, so I can present support- even if you do not for your opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 08:30 AM

Sean Fear,

Thank you ( re 20 Apr 18 - 08:08 AM)

The gulf between the gun control view and the gun qua tool of independence view is wide and deep—perhaps even unbridgeable—and only when we recognize this will we realize why calls for “commonsense” gun reform yield only acrimony.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 09:42 AM

Please address:

What gun controllers want is safety. What gun owners and gun-rights advocates want is to be at the mercy of no one else. To not be mistaken as a proponent of anarchy, I must stress that I consider the state a vital institution for employing retaliatory force. But the state is not omnipresent. A personal weapon fills the void in emergency situations of defense until the arrival of authorized state force, thus preserving independence while respecting that of others.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:12 AM

The purpose of a gun is not to prevent others from using one, it is to propel bullets into targets, but not the paper ones. There is no need for bullets to be propelled unless it is to penetrate flesh. That is, to kill or maim or mangle or hurt or damage or yes kill. You could shoot feathers if the point was to hit paper targets, so nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:35 AM

Mrrzy,


You make a statement of your opinion. I disagree with your statement.

And no, you cannot shoot feathers.

And you do not address the purpose of deterrence.


"The purpose of a gun is not to prevent others from using one, it is to propel bullets into targets, but not the paper ones."

So you would convict all police of murder?


And you do not address my question:
Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:39 AM

While other elements in our culture do take lives (cars, drugs,etc)their primary purpose is other than taking lives and they are proportionally more beneficial than destructive. Cars and drugs are much more regulated and monitored than are guns. The primary purpose of the guns I am concerned about is to shoot a high number of rounds in a short period of time. This is not for hunting or target practice. It is for killing and theses weapons do kill men, women and children over and over again.

I would like to remove these weapons from our society. I would like to see clear and strictly enforced legislation that prevents the buying selling and owning of these weapons by private citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:46 AM

Here are the PRESENT laws on firearms in my state. Please tell me what you would add to them, and what you think it would accomplish, and WHY you think it would be effective.


https://www.atf.gov/docs/undefined/firearmsstatutesandcodes-marylandpdf/download

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:52 AM

I would like to see all murders prevented, and there be no accidental deaths. OK? But I ask,

Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

WHAT would you propose AS A NEW LAW?

"The primary purpose of the guns I am concerned about is to shoot a high number of rounds in a short period of time. This is not for hunting or target practice. It is for killing and theses weapons do kill men, women and children over and over again."

You make a statement without any justification. YOUR opinion that that is the primary purpose, ignoring the known deterrence effect of such a weapon BY IT'S PRESENCE , is IMO a biased viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:56 AM

"I would like to remove these weapons from our society."

I would like to remove these criminals ( the ones who USE weapons of any sort to kill) from our society.

Does that give me the right to take away the rights of ALL citizens?

What gun controllers want is safety. What gun owners and gun-rights advocates want is to be at the mercy of no one else. To not be mistaken as a proponent of anarchy, I must stress that I consider the state a vital institution for employing retaliatory force. But the state is not omnipresent. A personal weapon fills the void in emergency situations of defense until the arrival of authorized state force, thus preserving independence while respecting that of others.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:58 AM

Sean Fear,

LOOK at the present laws, and tell me what you would want added. And why you think it would help reduce killings.


https://www.atf.gov/docs/undefined/firearmsstatutesandcodes-marylandpdf/download

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:01 AM

My goal is to reduce senseless deaths like the killing of our children in their schools BY limiting the ownership of some types of fire arms. The two are directly connected

Owning such a weapon as a deterrent would only deter someone from attacking the owner IF the owner had sufficiently publicized his/her ownership so that all would be attackers knew about it and were sufficiently intimidated.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:13 AM

"My goal is to reduce senseless deaths like the killing of our children in their schools BY limiting the ownership of some types of fire arms. The two are directly connected"


I do not agree.
1. MY ownership of firearms does not cause senseless deaths: In fact, deaths may be prevent by legal ownership of them.
2. Limiting the ownership of those firearms ( as is already the case) WOULD NOT reduce the deaths.

The reduction of deaths would be FAR greater by addressing those factors you want to ignore, such as underage drinking, illegal drug use, and teen driving. Lightning, too.

The POSSIBILITY that there would be a firearm present serves as a deterrent. The KNOWN FACT that law abiding citizens DO NOT have firearms serves to encourage crime.

Have you read the CURRENT MD LAWS yet? WHAT would you add?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:23 AM

Bruce
lets take the case of your ownership of one of these weapons we have been discussing and use your analogy of a car or drug comparison. If you own a car you must notify your DMV when you sell it or ever give it to someone else. If you have a prescription drug you can not sell it or give it away at all.
You can, however, sell or give your gun to anyone you like, who can do the same, on down the line. "Bad guys" can and easily do obtain guns this way. So using your analogy are you comfortable with legislation that registers and licenses all gun owners (ala cars) and strictly monitors or prevents private sale of guns (ala drugs)?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:33 AM

"You can, however, sell or give your gun to anyone you like, who can do the same, on down the line."

NO, you cannot. IT IS NOT LEGAL.

I CAN sell my car to anyone I like, and it is the BUYER'S responsibility to register it. If they scrap it for parts, there is NO requirement for any notice to anyone.

On the other hand, I have been hit by someone who was not licensed to drive in the US, had no insurance, and totaled my car. So what did the law do for me?

READ THE DAMN LAWS!!!!


YOU CANNOT LEGALLY make, transfer, buy, or purchase large capacity magazines, or the weapons YOU are talking about in MD.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:41 AM

"strictly monitors or prevents private sale of guns (ala drugs)?"

And how effective will that be?

"Her two oldest sons, Nick and Jack, were celebrating at high school graduation parties the night before. The boys came home about 12:30 a.m. and checked in with their mom, who had been waiting up.

The next morning, as Savage was picking up laundry in Jack's room, she noticed that he wasn't stirring as she tried to wake him.
"He was unresponsive. I called 911, and I remember hollering for Nick, for him to come up, and how he never came."
Nick, her eldest son, was downstairs sleeping in the basement with friends.
The first responders arrived and tried to resuscitate Jack, and then Savage noticed one of them going downstairs to the basement.
"I had no idea at that point what they were doing in our basement. And then I remember one of them coming up and asking for a coroner. That's the last thing that I remember that day." "


DEAD kids- and the law you say will help with guns IS ALREADY in place with drugs, right?

WHY do you think the laws you propose ( which I am waiting to hear about) will do any better?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:42 AM

Ah but that's Maryland not every where.

and your car and mine does have to be registered by someone. and you had to register your car when you bought it, and you must have a license to drive your car and you must pass regular safety inspections for your car ... shall I go one?
So,are you comfortable with national legislation that registers and licenses all gun owners and strictly monitors or prevents private sale of guns?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:58 AM

"and your car and mine does have to be registered by someone"

NO, ONLY if it is LEGALLY being titled. Farms and such can have all they want with no registration AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT GO ON THE ROAD.

" and you had to register your car when you bought it,"

NO, again

" and you must have a license to drive your car "

As the person who hit me did NOT? LAWS again- lack of enforcement is the problem NOT a lack of laws.

"and you must pass regular safety inspections for your car ... "

Again, only to keep LEGAL registration.

shall I go on?


YOU have not answered MY question, so YOU owe me one first.

Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

WHAT would you propose AS A NEW LAW?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 12:11 PM

yes we are talking about what is currently legal - all the registration and monitoring as described about cars is required by law. There is no such comparable legislation re guns.

I did answer your question re new legislation (see above)
" I would like to see clear and strictly enforced legislation that prevents the buying selling and owning of these weapons by private citizens."

failing that I would like to take your car based suggestion and register, license and regularly monitor private ownership of these weapons.

Also Bruce, you have not acknowledged or addressed my contention that deterrence only works if your widely advertise your gun ownership and the potential home invader see that weapon as a deterrent.

Unfortunately I am off to lunch now but will check back later

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 12:26 PM

"Also Bruce, you have not acknowledged or addressed my contention that deterrence only works..."


But I did:
"The POSSIBILITY that there would be a firearm present serves as a deterrent. The KNOWN FACT that law abiding citizens DO NOT have firearms serves to encourage crime."


https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/georgia-town-mandating-gun-ownership-has-had-only-one-murder-past-six-years


" I would like to see clear and strictly enforced legislation that prevents the buying selling and owning of these weapons by private citizens."

So, it would appear ( correct me if I am wrong) that your goal is to limit the ownership of firearms, rather than to reduce deaths.

You have not, to my satisfaction, tied one to the other save by unsupported statement, where I have presented support of my opinion that limiting firearm ownership would increase illegal killing.


I think that lives are more important than political correctness .

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 12:29 PM

"yes we are talking about what is currently legal - all the registration and monitoring as described about cars is required by law"

It is currently illegal to KILL people with guns, too. SO, the point that YOU must make is that your proposed laws would have a net positive effect on the murder rate- and you have not yet done so.

Your wishes ( and mine) do NOT translate into enough to change the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 12:31 PM

There is a anti-gun sickness here in America. Like so many others, I have written letters, signed petitions and contributed money but the people, in our country, who make the laws are owned by the people who refuse to hold criminals responsible for their actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 12:38 PM

BB - to attempt discussion with a paranoid, terrified, gun-obsessed individual is pointless. But here's my position - I certainly don't expect you, paranoid and terrified as you clearly are, to understand or accept it - but when I see statistics indicating <100 shooting deaths per annum in my country vs. 13,000 per annum in the US, and when I read, for instance, your fear-driven rhetoric, I'm very strongly persuaded that we have got it right, and the US has it very badly wrong indeed.

I live in a country with very strong gun-ownership regulations. In order to own a gun, you have to show a genuine need for a gun, and giving 'self-defence', or 'protection of my property', or 'to challenge the government if it gets a bit uppity' as reasons will ensure that you will not Be granted a firearms licence.

If you satisfy the authorities that (a) you have a genuine need for a gun, and (b) that you are a suitable person to be granted a permit to possess a gun, you are subject to regulations regarding storage of the weapon and ammunition, and these are inspected periodically by the police. A licence also has to be renewed periodically, and the checks and balances must also be complied with at renewal-time.

Many types of gun are banned here. Certainly, automatic and semi-automatic 'military-style' are illegal, as are hand-guns, ownership of which was banned when our government took strong and immediate action after our one and only school-massacre over twenty years ago.

It is illegal to carry a firearm in public, except in certain instances, and carrying one in public, whether loaded or not, is likely to result in the person carrying it being subject to prosecution.

Our police are unarmed, except for an expanding baton and a CS Spray. A small number of police officers carry Taser devices, and a smaller number still are trained and armed as members of specialist Armed Response Units.

Because it is so difficult to obtain a gun in the UK, and because it's very unlikely that a criminal would be confronted by a police officer armed with a gun, and because the penalty for carrying an offensive weapon (including not only guns, but knives, box-cutters, etc.) in the commission of any crime is an automatic doubling of the sentence for that crime, individuals involved in criminal activities very seldom carry those weapons. By 'very seldom', I mean 'hardly ever'.

So, we in the UK have a relaxed attitude - we don't feel the 'need' for guns because so few people actually possess guns, and those that do possess them are subject to strong regulation and control. Criminals seldom carry guns because they don't feel the need to, our police being unarmed, our populace being generally unarmed, and the law stacked against them should they be apprehended.

Yes, we have crime just as you do in the US, but we don't have the death penalty - either as applied by the courts nor by, for instance, a guy who shits his boxers and decides to blow away the young punk he finds in his living room stealing the TV. Our laws regarding 'self-defence' or 'protection of property' as a defence are based on 'proportionate force' - it's not considered 'proportionate' to kill someone for stealing your possessions.

The average Joe here neither 'needs' nor wants a gun. I'm 71 years old, and I've never seen a gun except in the hands of a farmer, a gun-club member, members of the armed forces, or members of the police Armed Response Units. People here don't have guns to wave around, and people who are shot by 'The Bad Guys' are usually also 'The Bad Guys' - drug-gang-members settling scores.

And before you drag up the issue of knives, yes we have had a comparatively small number of stabbings - maybe 100 since New Year. It won't reach the number of shootings in the US. Our government will take action on this short-term problem. And it's very difficult, probably impossible, to go on a rampage and kill 30 or 40 people at close range with a knife.

UK Firearms Regulations

Carrying a Firearm in Public

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 01:01 PM

BW,

I am glad you like the laws that you are living under.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/13/britains-knife-control-bad-parody-gun-control/


http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/03/gun-control-reduce-murder-lets-run-numbers-across-world/

IMO, additional laws will not reduce the illegal killings. ACTUAL ENFORCEMENT of existing laws would be a good step in the right direction, BEFORE passing additional laws.

Did YOU look at the present MD laws? It would be easier for me to get a semi-automatic rifle in England than it would be here.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 01:08 PM

" None of the gun control discussion takes into account the countless alternative ways someone like Roof, a killer who clearly does not care about legal consequences, could have gotten his hands on a gun if he was motivated.

If your contention is that we have to do something, and that the something you propose does nothing to actually prevent mass shootings, then you’re just using a tragedy for a broader political agenda. "

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/19/so-what-do-liberals-want-to-do-about-guns/

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 01:17 PM

"To those on the gun control view, this sounds like utter paranoia. Violent crime is committed at lower rates than it was during the latter half of the twentieth century and our government, although imperfect, is not authoritarian. “Why is a gun necessary?” we frequently hear.

A reasonable answer is that a reliable, effective gun is akin to an insurance policy. Am I going to be the beneficiary of my monthly renter’s insurance premiums? I hope not. But I rest easily knowing that I can draw upon my policy if disaster strikes. In this sense, gun ownership can be viewed as an expression of personal risk philosophy. Just as we needn’t all buy insurance in a uniform way, we can each evaluate whether a gun can serve as a personal safety policy.

Interestingly, the statistics often don’t tell the story the gun controllers think they do. As mentioned earlier, advocates for tighter laws frequently highlight the murder rate discrepancy between the United States and our international counterparts, as if to show that our cultural fixation only harms us.

But in doing so, they ignore that within America there is neither a correlation between gun ownership and gun murders across varying state laws, nor between the strictness of gun laws and gun murders. Might it be that the statistics suggest it isn’t gun advocates who have an irrational fear, but the gun controllers themselves?"

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 01:30 PM

So, explain please...

1) shooting deaths per annum - UK <100, US 13,000

2) school shootings since 1970 - UK = 1, US = 450

You really are so much safer with all those guns aren't you? Yeah, right!!

You 'need' guns because you have them, and because you're brainwashed by a powerful firearms industry and the NRA. We, on the other hand, know bullshit when we hear it.

And then perhaps you'd be good enough to answer the points I made in my previous post. Why do you gun-nuts refuse to acknowledge the experience of, for instance, Australia, Germany, the UK, etc, all of whom have numbers of shootings which are minuscule in comparison to the Rootin'-Tootin' Gun-Mad US.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 01:37 PM

You didn't bother to read my posts- from one of the articles:

The countries that have been most successful at limiting private, legal gun ownership are 1. Ethiopia, 2. Eritrea, 3. Haiti, 4. North Korea, and 5. Rwanda. Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Haiti all have higher murder rates than that of the United States. North Korea and Rwanda have slightly lower murder rates (4.4 and 4.5 per 100,000 respectively versus the United States at 4.88).

Let’s look at the countries with the highest concentrations of gun ownership (excluding Yemen and Iraq as active war zones). Guns per murder in those countries are,

    United States at 20,967,
    Uruguay at 3,777,
    Norway at 55,893,
    France at 19,747,
    Austria at 59,608,
    Germany at 35,647,
    Switzerland at 35,435,
    New Zealand at 24,835, and
    Greece at 26,471.

Norway is a particularly interesting example. It has 10 times the gun ownership rate of the United Kingdom, but only half the murder rate.

When one excludes Iraq and Yemen, not one of the countries on the list of the 10 highest rates of gun ownership also appears on the list of the top ten highest murder rates. In fact, the countries with the highest murder rates have markedly low gun ownership rates.

    El Savador (108.64 murders per 100,000/5800 guns per 100,000)
    Honduras (63.75/6200)
    Venezuela (57.15/10,700)
    Jamaica (43.21/8,100)
    Lesotho (38/2,700)
    Belize (34.4/10,000)
    South Africa (34.27/12,700)
    Guatemala (31.21/13,100)
    Trinidad (30.88/1,600)
    Bahamas (29.81/5,300)

It really doesn’t matter how you slice this data. The conclusion is inescapable: High concentrations of private, legal gun ownership do not correlate positively to increased murders. Indeed, you can look at almost any slice of data and conclude the opposite: Higher private ownership of guns can be strongly correlated to lower murder rates.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 02:11 PM

Before U.S. governments makes anything illegal, it should be demonstrated that gun restrictions will have the desired effect. The perverse effect of increasing murder rates by reducing private gun ownership has been demonstrated in numerous studies. Places like Chicago, Washington DC, and New York have repeatedly experienced unintended consequences of aggressive gun control laws.

When marchers scream to ban guns, they’re pushing to make America more like El Salvador (1 murder for every 52 guns), Ethiopia (1 per 53), Honduras (1 per 88). All of these countries have succeeded in limiting gun ownership even if they can’t keep their citizens safe. The numbers are clear: murders are less common when the victim might be armed.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 03:02 PM

Ah Bruce
We would all be much safer if these terrible weapons were not so readily available in our society. All of us, including those who think they need these weapons to make them safe.

I have said all I can on this matter. As I have started this discussion i leave to you the last word between us.

I wish you well and hope you will never feel the need to use your weapon

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 03:19 PM

"We would all be much safer if these terrible weapons were not so readily available in our society."

I disagree, but wish you well.


" hope you will never feel the need to use your weapon "

I have no such weapon- they are illegal in MD.

" a reliable, effective gun is akin to an insurance policy. Am I going to be the beneficiary of my monthly renter’s insurance premiums? I hope not. But I rest easily knowing that I can draw upon my policy if disaster strikes."

When the woman down the street was being beaten outside, naked, on the street, by her boyfriend, all we could do was call the police and wait 10 minutes- by which time he had finished and dragged her back inside. Police knocked, and were told everything was ok.


Perhaps you will offer laws that KEEP CRIMINALS from getting guns, instead of keeping ONLY law-abiding citizens seeking self defense from doing so. What has been offered up does NOT keep criminals from getting firearms, but DOES prevent law-abiding citizens from having self-defense available.


Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]




I will end this with the following: When you are in a situation where the mere fact of YOU being armed might have saved someone, I hope you remember supporting being disarmed, and disarming those who might have helped you.