Guns

[...]

You got your answer.

The question was you to you.

You’re just afraid to answer.

 

[Woodznutz]

The question was you to you.

You’re just afraid to answer.

Repeat the question please.

 

[...]

If you are a liberal your attitudes and political actions are the problem, not guns.

I’m not a liberal, I’m an historian who knows what he’s talking about.

The general public has proven that military grade weaponry is not healthy for society.

They are all going to be banned as in 1994, only this time there will be no sunset. Biden’s second term will be the time.

 

[...]

Repeat the question please.

Post # 183

 

[Meister]

Early American militiamen were the only ones who were allowed to have rifles with bayonet lugs… Gun control measures are very very old in this country.

American history and active gun control says that you and your buddies are dead wrong.

Again, thank you for YOUR opinion.
Your deflection is duly noted

 

[westwall]

Oh they’ll leave you alone alright, until you break the law, then a SWAT team will take care of you and your guns.

Maybe. For one, I am very law abiding, and 2nd we are all friends.

So your point is pointless.

 

[2aguy]

The vetting procedure is quite thorough. Your certificate will have your photo and you supply two referees for a firearms certificate and one referee for a shotgun certificate. Your guns are listed on certificate, it I think it costs £5 or £10 to add and remove a gun on a firearms certificate. If you buy a gun online, it is posted to a local gun dealer that you nominate. If periodically you're asked by the police to show your certificate, it must be available. You need a certificate to buy ammo.

What this does is, it reduces those who are not suitable to own a gun to easily obtain a gun. It provides a framework where, deviating from it can land you a large fine, and/or jail time, and confiscated guns. So this VASTLY reduces gun incidents and deaths. But those deemed sensible can enjoy guns. Go to shoots or clay shoots etc.. If you own a field or two, go shooting at vermin and clay pigeons.

If you break a law where the breach is a criminal offence, then you are a criminal. If it's reported to the police, it's a crime statistic. So if you broke a window, and ran away, the crime is reported and the stat created. Did it involve a gun? Nope. A very small percentage of recorded crime involve firearms (UK), something like 0.1%. despite regulation, there are still some 50 to 60 gun deaths on the UK, you will still get incidents. But to scrap gun regulations because 0.1% of criminals don't comply?? Absurd.

But what if you get attacked? ONS figures showed that 0.3% of adults were victims of robbery in the year ending March 2016, but 9% of those surveyed were very worried they would experience it in the forthcoming year – 30 times higher than the rate of victimisation. But to scrap gun regulation because you have a 0.3% chance of being robbed?? Absurd.

But there's no harm in glorifying these tiny percentages, to make them sound massive and rife. But a quick research merely gets people shaking their heads at your regurgitated gun shit. But no doubt, we will still witness this crime stat washed, rinsed, repeated a billion times to come.

Yes...we get it....Britain has created so much red tape that normal people can't own guns...that, on top of the fact that self defense is not a Right of British people means this...

A rich member of the House of Lords will easily get through the paperwork and legal red tape to get guns.....all the guns they want....of the tiny selection of hunting pieces allowed......so that they and their rich buddies can go to one of their several private estates to hunt quail....

Meanwhile....

the woman in London who is violently gang raped will never be able to own or carry a gun to prevent the gang rape.....

This situation makes total sense to you.....

You are an idiot...

 

[2aguy]

The facts are that the vast majority of legal gun owners and by vast I mean 99.999% will never murder anyone, never shoot anyone, and never accidentally shoot someone.

You people love to hyperinflate the instances of murders committed with guns without accounting for the fact that most murders tale place in poverty stricken, inner city areas where de-facto segregation still exists, schools are below par, employment opportunities are near zero and drugs are crime are allowed to run rampant by the powers that be.

You ignore the fact that an area of just a few square blocks can have a murder rate that is 10 times higher than the national average (and that these small areas actually skew the gun murder rate for the entire country) but a same sized area just a couple miles away will have a murder rate of just a fraction of the national average and many of those areas will have a murder rate that is ZERO.

You ignore that there are complex historical, socioeconomic, cultural and political causes of generational poverty and that the government knows where the murder hot spots are but choose to do nothing about it.

So you foreigners that think your opinion about the US and the ability of law abiding citizens to own guns matter should actually educate yourselves on the real causes of violence in society and try to wrap your head around the idea that in this country we don't curb one man's rights simply because another man may abuse those freedoms.

And they ignore the fact that 70-80% of gun murder victims are not normal citizens...the victims are criminals engaged in crime.....and of the rest of the victims, the vast majority are the friends and family of criminals, who are hit in the process of their criminal relation being targeted by other criminals....taking place in democrat party, gun controlled cities....

 

[2aguy]

The AR15 has more velocity and effective range than an AK47.
It’s the gun: they don’t belong on the streets; the AR15 was designed as a combat weapon.

No...it wasn't......

Read more: Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

The FOIA request itself was prompted from a Nov. 2017 article in The Atlantic in which the magazine, unsurprisingly to anyone familiar with its anti-gun bent, attempted to bolster a claim that “these rifles were meant for the military, not civilians.”

“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,” one critic of the article contended. “The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn’t standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn’t officially replace the M14 until 1969.”

 

[2aguy]

The AR15 etc do not belong in the hands of the general public because crazy people get them and shoot people; Las Vegas was almost 500 casualties.
Please be careful, I can back up anything I say on the subject…

Moron.....more people are killed by knives and clubs than by any rifles of any kind....you idiot.

And, you have to hide the truth about Las Vegas.......

The number actually killed in Las Vegas was 61...........

The number of people killed by a rental Truck in Nice, France, using a rental Truck?

86..... 435 wounded...

More people were killed in that one driving attack with the Rental truck than in any mass public shooting in the U.S....

You are an idiot.....according to your logic, we need to ban cars and trucks..

 

[Woodznutz]

I’m not a liberal, I’m an historian who knows what he’s talking about.

The general public has proven that military grade weaponry is not healthy for society.

They are all going to be banned as in 1994, only this time there will be no sunset. Biden’s second term will be the time.

So you are also a prophet?

The predominant murder weapon is the semi-auto handgun, not "military grade weaponry". As horrible as mass shootings are they pale in comparison to the general bloodbath that happens all over the place, albeit with usually just a single victim per incident. The irony is that while a mass shooting of multiple people involves only one murderer, the killing of a dozen or so others involves not one but a dozen or so murderers.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Yes...we get it....Britain has created so much red tape that normal people can't own guns...that, on top of the fact that self defense is not a Right of British people means this...

A rich member of the House of Lords will easily get through the paperwork and legal red tape to get guns.....all the guns they want....of the tiny selection of hunting pieces allowed......so that they and their rich buddies can go to one of their several private estates to hunt quail....

Meanwhile....

the woman in London who is violently gang raped will never be able to own or carry a gun to prevent the gang rape.....

This situation makes total sense to you.....

You are an idiot...

Wheyy hayyy, it's happened again. Rinse, wash, repeat. People can't get guns, only the rich, and Rights, 3 in 1, wheyy heyy. Classic.

And repeat, and repeat, and repeat, wheyy heyy, lmfao.

 

[2aguy]

Wheyy hayyy, it's happened again. Rinse, wash, repeat. People can't get guns, only the rich, and Rights, 3 in 1, wheyy heyy. Classic.

And repeat, and repeat, and repeat, wheyy heyy, lmfao.

So...you have no response...

A rich member of the House of Lords easily gets guns....to go quail hunting on one of their private estates with their other rich buddies.....but the woman in London can't get a gun to prevent herself from being gang raped in a london park.....or her apartment, or an alley.....

Again, you have no response.....

 

[Woodznutz]

Post # 183

That was a sarcastic rhetorical question that doesn't deserve an answer (although I did answer it).

 

[westwall]

The AR15 has more velocity and effective range than an AK47.
It’s the gun: they don’t belong on the streets; the AR15 was designed as a combat weapon.

So what. The Founders wanted the government to be afraid of the people. They wanted us to be as well armed as the government.

 

[...]

That was a sarcastic rhetorical question that doesn't deserve an answer (although I did answer it).

It was neither and you failed to answer it.

 

[...]

So what. The Founders wanted the government to be afraid of the people. They wanted us to be as well armed as the government.

Vietnam taught you nothing.

 

[Woodznutz]

It was neither and you failed to answer it.

You failed to accept the answer.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They are all going to be banned as in 1994, only this time there will be no sunset. Biden’s second term will be the time.

Actually not.

There’s no political will in Congress for another AWB.

And presidents alone can’t enact firearm regulatory laws – that’s what makes the right’s lie about Biden ‘banning’ and ‘confiscating’ guns so ignorant and idiotic, nothing but baseless conservative demagoguery.

Last, even if a new AWB were passed by Congress and signed into law, it would be struck down by the Supreme Court.

All of the above proves just how wrong and dishonest conservatives are – propagating their moronic lies and fearmongering about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’

 

[Woodznutz]

Actually not.

There’s no political will in Congress for another AWB.

And presidents alone can’t enact firearm regulatory laws – that’s what makes the right’s lie about Biden ‘banning’ and ‘confiscating’ guns so ignorant and idiotic, nothing but baseless conservative demagoguery.

Last, even if a new AWB were passed by Congress and signed into law, it would be struck down by the Supreme Court.

All of the above proves just how wrong and dishonest conservatives are – propagating their moronic lies and fearmongering about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’

That is the stated goal of the libs, therefore we take it seriously.

Of course they're 'shooting themselves in the foot' every time they propose more restrictive gun laws as millions rush (are driven) to buy yet more guns.

I recently purchased a gun for home defense, as crime continues to rise in my city, especially burglaries and even home invasions. This because of lax liberal law enforcement. Car theft, formerly "grand theft auto", a felony, has been downgraded to "operating a motor vehicle without the owner's permission", with virtually no consequences. As a result this crime is now rampant.