If gun control isn't the answer, what is?

[eflatminor]

Okay; fuck it.

Belgium. What do they do that enables you to reject them as a comparison? Is it the great pralines? (chocolates) Maybe too many ingredients in their beer, and too damn many fruity beers?

Whadaya think?

It was the UK and Australia that recently banned civilian firearm ownership, not Belgium. You can either accept that this did not curb crime but in fact increased it, or you can pretend facts don't matter. Your choice.

Gotcha. It's the fucking Flemish Stew. Too much gravy and gets onto some of the fries, which, holy fucking shit, are damn good fries. (fritches)

Scratch Belgium. Choose between UK and Oz, except UK rejected on a technical item.

Seems I can choose from Australia and ... Australia. Bear with me ...

....

....

I think I'll go with Australia for 100, Bob.

About 1/3rd as many as us (US) per 100,000 living / breathing targets. (2.94 per 100,000; smidge under 1/3rd).

Is it the large cans of beer, or shrimps on the barbie, ya thinkin?

Do tell. I'm on fucking pins and needles.

Again, you can either accept that gun grabs in the UK and Australia did not curb crime but in fact increased it, or you can pretend facts don't matter. Your choice.

 

[Koios]

No, realistic.



Tougher laws for harming another with a firearm...or a stick for that matter...I'm all for. There you go, agreement!

Oops. Contradicts the first item. Damn it. Just when I was starting to believe you.

I think everyone is overlooking on very important point. No matter how many laws you create, lunatics will still get guns. No matter how much training and preaching you do, people who are willing to kill themselves (crazy people) to accomplish their evil deeds are not able to be convinced. The crazy person in Norway should tell you that.

There is no deterrent to crazy people who want to kill themselves.

So you've said. In fact, it seems we're getting circular here. Have a nice Xmas. Fingers cross the stocking is filled with ammo.

 

[freedombecki]

What is the answer?

Something, or nothing? If something, what?

Returning to the honor system. You honor others, they honor you.

You can't do that without a reasonably common faith in God and a life built on following principles of respect and courtesy.

 

[Koios]

It was the UK and Australia that recently banned civilian firearm ownership, not Belgium. You can either accept that this did not curb crime but in fact increased it, or you can pretend facts don't matter. Your choice.

Gotcha. It's the fucking Flemish Stew. Too much gravy and gets onto some of the fries, which, holy fucking shit, are damn good fries. (fritches)

Scratch Belgium. Choose between UK and Oz, except UK rejected on a technical item.

Seems I can choose from Australia and ... Australia. Bear with me ...

....

....

I think I'll go with Australia for 100, Bob.

About 1/3rd as many as us (US) per 100,000 living / breathing targets. (2.94 per 100,000; smidge under 1/3rd).

Is it the large cans of beer, or shrimps on the barbie, ya thinkin?

Do tell. I'm on fucking pins and needles.

Again, you can either accept that gun grabs in the UK and Australia did not curb crime but in fact increased it, or you can pretend facts don't matter. Your choice.

Stay with me. No one is coming to take your gun, nor am I advocating that. I merely wish to limit access from here out, and make future guns sold less lethal (3 bullets, ample for self-defense of civilians, with no quick reloading.)

It can reduce our remarkably high rate of gun death, limit sprees by crazies, and the 2A is still happily living and breathing in the BoR. Mitigate the really nasty aspects, or at least try to, since we've had success via sentencing guidlelines and are now faced with more crazies than drive-bys. Allow guns, but not let it get out of control.

Or let it get to the point, which I'm okay with, where we heed the bumper-sticker wisdom of ya'll and pry them from your cold dead fingers. That's a fall-back, should the 2A outlive its usefulness.

But perhaps we can do something short of that.

 

[KudoZ]

You have a good heart. Your proposal is at least a step forward.

 

[eflatminor]

Gotcha. It's the fucking Flemish Stew. Too much gravy and gets onto some of the fries, which, holy fucking shit, are damn good fries. (fritches)

Scratch Belgium. Choose between UK and Oz, except UK rejected on a technical item.

Seems I can choose from Australia and ... Australia. Bear with me ...

....

....

I think I'll go with Australia for 100, Bob.

About 1/3rd as many as us (US) per 100,000 living / breathing targets. (2.94 per 100,000; smidge under 1/3rd).

Is it the large cans of beer, or shrimps on the barbie, ya thinkin?

Do tell. I'm on fucking pins and needles.

Again, you can either accept that gun grabs in the UK and Australia did not curb crime but in fact increased it, or you can pretend facts don't matter. Your choice.

Stay with me. No one is coming to take your gun, nor am I advocating that.

Tell that to these people:

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,’ I would have done it.”

“The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”

JOSEPH BIDEN, VP and U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE
“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”

CHARLES PASHAYAN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
“All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty that will give an international body power over our domestic laws.”

WILLIAM CLAY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI
“We need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns.”

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS
“I believe.....this is my final word......I believe that I'm supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun....”

BOBBY RUSH, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS
“I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use."

I merely wish to limit access from here out, and make future guns sold less lethal (3 bullets, ample for self-defense of civilians, with no quick reloading.)

The problem is you'll only limit access to law abiding citizens. The bad guy will have all the lethality he needs. That's the point.

It can reduce our remarkably high rate of gun death, limit sprees by crazies,

I disagree. If history is any judge, such actions would embolden criminals resulting in more deaths and gun crimes.

Or let it get to the point, which I'm okay with, where we heed the bumper-sticker wisdom of ya'll and pry them from your cold dead fingers. That's a fall-back, should the 2A outlive its usefulness.

Good luck with that.

But perhaps we can do something short of that.

Yes we can. Prepare to defend yourself and your family. Or not. Your choice.

 

[Koios]

Again, you can either accept that gun grabs in the UK and Australia did not curb crime but in fact increased it, or you can pretend facts don't matter. Your choice.

Stay with me. No one is coming to take your gun, nor am I advocating that.

Tell that to these people:

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,’ I would have done it.”

“The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”

JOSEPH BIDEN, VP and U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE
“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”

CHARLES PASHAYAN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
“All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty that will give an international body power over our domestic laws.”

WILLIAM CLAY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI
“We need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns.”

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS
“I believe.....this is my final word......I believe that I'm supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun....”

BOBBY RUSH, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS
“I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use."



The problem is you'll only limit access to law abiding citizens. The bad guy will have all the lethality he needs. That's the point.



I disagree. If history is any judge, such actions would embolden criminals resulting in more deaths and gun crimes.

Or let it get to the point, which I'm okay with, where we heed the bumper-sticker wisdom of ya'll and pry them from your cold dead fingers. That's a fall-back, should the 2A outlive its usefulness.

Good luck with that.

But perhaps we can do something short of that.

Yes we can. Prepare to defend yourself and your family. Or not. Your choice.

Last time I checked, the Amendment Process did not include asking what Dianne Feinstein thinks. Noodle on that; it'll come to you. Ditto on the others you fear are coming to get you (tip: they aren't)

And yes; limiting what types of HANDguns (the concealable ones) that are made and sold, will in time, create a new dynamic in what's widely available and used. The objective is to mitigate problems, before they become such a political and public health nightmare that the Amendment Process becomes more likely. Noodle on that; and it'll come to you, too.

PS: I have a couple Sigs, myself.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is fundamentally flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism.



Yet, in countries that have enacted an outright ban on civilian gun ownership, gun crime increased and they still have mass killings. The Clinton era "assault weapon" ban also had no positive effect on gun crime. The National Institute of Justice stated “The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”

Your proposed solution overlooks the fact that bad guys will always get a firearm. You cannot stop that. You can only prevent law abiding citizens the means to protect themselves, and that is a non starter.

So you're thinkin them Brits is having 10,000s of gun deaths going unreported, are ya?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Where do you folks think this shit up?

No, I'm saying the UK figures around gun crime are highly misleading.

I'm also pointing out that after the UK banned civilian ownership of firearms, gun crime skyrocketed there.

Sorry if the true doesn't fit your agenda.

The UK hasn't banned civilian ownership of firearms. Stop making shit up.

 

[Koios]

So you're thinkin them Brits is having 10,000s of gun deaths going unreported, are ya?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Where do you folks think this shit up?

No, I'm saying the UK figures around gun crime are highly misleading.

I'm also pointing out that after the UK banned civilian ownership of firearms, gun crime skyrocketed there.

Sorry if the true doesn't fit your agenda.

The UK hasn't banned civilian ownership of firearms. Stop making shit up.

It is comparatively very restrictive in the UK, however, requiring certificates for handguns, or shotguns, the handling of which is tightly regulated.

 

[eflatminor]

Stay with me. No one is coming to take your gun, nor am I advocating that.

Tell that to these people:

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,’ I would have done it.”

“The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”

JOSEPH BIDEN, VP and U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE
“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”

CHARLES PASHAYAN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
“All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty that will give an international body power over our domestic laws.”

WILLIAM CLAY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI
“We need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns.”

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS
“I believe.....this is my final word......I believe that I'm supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun....”

BOBBY RUSH, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS
“I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use."



The problem is you'll only limit access to law abiding citizens. The bad guy will have all the lethality he needs. That's the point.



I disagree. If history is any judge, such actions would embolden criminals resulting in more deaths and gun crimes.



Good luck with that.

But perhaps we can do something short of that.

Yes we can. Prepare to defend yourself and your family. Or not. Your choice.

Last time I checked, the Amendment Process did not include asking what Dianne Feinstein thinks. Noodle on that; it'll come to you. Ditto on the others you fear are coming to get you (tip: they aren't)

Cuz as we all know, the federal government always remains within the confines of the enumerated powers of the Constitution. I'm sure they'd NEVER make a move on firearms without a Constitutional amendment...

And yes; limiting what types of HANDguns (the concealable ones) that are made and sold, will in time, create a new dynamic in what's widely available and used.

Correct. The bad guys will have handguns, law abiding citizens won't. Pass.

PS: I have a couple Sigs, myself.

I have no idea that this means.

 

[eflatminor]

So you're thinkin them Brits is having 10,000s of gun deaths going unreported, are ya?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Where do you folks think this shit up?

No, I'm saying the UK figures around gun crime are highly misleading.

I'm also pointing out that after the UK banned civilian ownership of firearms, gun crime skyrocketed there.

Sorry if the true doesn't fit your agenda.

The UK hasn't banned civilian ownership of firearms. Stop making shit up.

That's why their Olympic shooting teams were not able to practice on UK soil...

 

[RandallFlagg]

Again, you can either accept that gun grabs in the UK and Australia did not curb crime but in fact increased it, or you can pretend facts don't matter. Your choice.

Stay with me. No one is coming to take your gun, nor am I advocating that.

Tell that to these people:

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,’ I would have done it.”

“The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”

JOSEPH BIDEN, VP and U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE
“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”

CHARLES PASHAYAN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
“All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty that will give an international body power over our domestic laws.”

WILLIAM CLAY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI
“We need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns.”

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS
“I believe.....this is my final word......I believe that I'm supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun....”

BOBBY RUSH, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS
“I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use."



The problem is you'll only limit access to law abiding citizens. The bad guy will have all the lethality he needs. That's the point.



I disagree. If history is any judge, such actions would embolden criminals resulting in more deaths and gun crimes.

Or let it get to the point, which I'm okay with, where we heed the bumper-sticker wisdom of ya'll and pry them from your cold dead fingers. That's a fall-back, should the 2A outlive its usefulness.

Good luck with that.

But perhaps we can do something short of that.

Yes we can. Prepare to defend yourself and your family. Or not. Your choice.

Someone help me out here. I distinctly recall a female Senator several years ago getting into a little hot water for parading around with a concealed weapon. If I recall correctly, all charges were dropped because of her "status". I "believe" that it was Feinstein, but for the life of me, I don't recall.

One of my first assignments after Vietnam was to investigate the nearly wholesale disappearance of M16s from units at Fort Hood Texas back in the early 70s. Units would go to the field and would "lose" several weapons as a course of operations.

I investigated and finally determined that a Motorcycle club was following units to the field and, while young Privates slept, these guys, most Vietnam veterans, would sneak in and "relieve" them of their weapons and sell them wherever. I turned my findings over to CID and left.

Point being, bad guys will ALWAYS be heavily armed. Congressman and Senators and Presidents and diplomats will ALWAYS have heavily armed security details. That only leaves us, the law abiding citizens, to serve as pickings for the "bad guys" once Feinstein and Biden get their way.

Think about it.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Yes. Flash suppressors don't do what you think they do. They are intended to reduce recoil by letting gases escape efficiently. There remains plenty of "flash" coming out of the muzzle. You imply they render a shot invisible. That is not true, not even close.

Wrong moron. They were designed to disperse the gases as they exit the muzzle, and rapidly cool them. They were designed to reduce the visible flash to preserve the shooters night vision, and have the added benefit of hiding where the muzzle flash came from.

So let's say you're right. You're not, but let us assume. Tell us how outlawing these would prevent gun crime.

I never made the stupid claim that it would prevent gun crime. I said it was a feature of "assault weapons".

 

[Koios]

Tell that to these people:

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,’ I would have done it.”

“The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”

JOSEPH BIDEN, VP and U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE
“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”

CHARLES PASHAYAN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
“All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty that will give an international body power over our domestic laws.”

WILLIAM CLAY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI
“We need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns.”

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS
“I believe.....this is my final word......I believe that I'm supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun....”

BOBBY RUSH, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS
“I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use."



The problem is you'll only limit access to law abiding citizens. The bad guy will have all the lethality he needs. That's the point.



I disagree. If history is any judge, such actions would embolden criminals resulting in more deaths and gun crimes.



Good luck with that.



Yes we can. Prepare to defend yourself and your family. Or not. Your choice.

Last time I checked, the Amendment Process did not include asking what Dianne Feinstein thinks. Noodle on that; it'll come to you. Ditto on the others you fear are coming to get you (tip: they aren't)

Cuz as we all know, the federal government always remains within the confines of the enumerated powers of the Constitution. I'm sure they'd NEVER make a move on firearms without a Constitutional amendment...

And yes; limiting what types of HANDguns (the concealable ones) that are made and sold, will in time, create a new dynamic in what's widely available and used.

Correct. The bad guys will have handguns, law abiding citizens won't. Pass.

The objective is to mitigate problems, before they become such a political and public health nightmare that the Amendment Process becomes more likely. Noodle on that; and it'll come to you, too.

PS: I have a couple Sigs, myself.

I have no idea that this means.

Sig Sauer, essentially German firearms made in Switzerland, since the Germans limit production and sale abroad.

 

[Oldguy]

Actually reports are that what happened are actually on the decline not increasing. One thing we know, if you think there is a problem, what we are doing is not the right thing. So to answer your question, for yourself, think about the way society has been moving and what we need do to reverse that trend.

Assuming society is heading in a wrong direction (we can argue that later), how DO you reverse course?

 

[eflatminor]

Last time I checked, the Amendment Process did not include asking what Dianne Feinstein thinks. Noodle on that; it'll come to you. Ditto on the others you fear are coming to get you (tip: they aren't)

Cuz as we all know, the federal government always remains within the confines of the enumerated powers of the Constitution. I'm sure they'd NEVER make a move on firearms without a Constitutional amendment...



Correct. The bad guys will have handguns, law abiding citizens won't. Pass.

The objective is to mitigate problems, before they become such a political and public health nightmare that the Amendment Process becomes more likely. Noodle on that; and it'll come to you, too.

PS: I have a couple Sigs, myself.

I have no idea that this means.

Sig Sauer, essentially German firearms made in Switzerland, since the Germans limit production and sale abroad.

Ah, I see. Okay.

 

[Oldguy]

The re-opening of mental assylums. The ones that never should have closed in the first place. Guns, videogames, music, tv, and all the other BS don't kill people...Fucking mental patients kill people. Lock them up. Proof of needed medication is enough.

So, everyone who kills someone is a mental patient?

 

[Dick Tuck]

No, I'm saying the UK figures around gun crime are highly misleading.

I'm also pointing out that after the UK banned civilian ownership of firearms, gun crime skyrocketed there.

Sorry if the true doesn't fit your agenda.

The UK hasn't banned civilian ownership of firearms. Stop making shit up.

It is comparatively very restrictive in the UK, however, requiring certificates for handguns, or shotguns, the handling of which is tightly regulated.

That is a true statement. eflatminor's was false.

 

[Oldguy]

Get back to having the lord in our lives, and a return to two parent families would be a GREAT place to start.

Ok, how do you do that?

And, I would remind you that not ALL mass murderer's come from broken families. Even more significant is that MOST children of broken or single parent homes do not become monsters.

 

[Oldguy]

You are asking the wrong question.
The right question is what has changed in out society that produces this result?
So what is making this happen?
Have availability of guns changed?...no.
So what has changed?
The answer to that - is the solution.

To my mind, nothing has changed in our society. People are still just people.

So...the answer is...nothing?