Politesub53
Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Mass shootings are the rarity in gun crimes. I have also pointed out the various uses that people who live in the country have for the AR type rifle, and it is not to fucking kill people.
A rarity......How many a year before it becomes less rare ?
quote:
As far as generalizations about the British, you brits have been making general statements about gun owners in America, one is stating that American gun owners are paranoid or worse, And in one thread, we have been accused of being uncivilized and and suggested that all foreign born people causing problems in the UK should be deported to the US.
You Brits.......another generalisation
quote:
Let me point out that the bolt action rifle is the preferred sniper rifle in just about every military force on the planet. She would ban those for civilian use because there is the possibility that some deranged person might make the connection?
I mean that would follow with the logic being presented about AR style rifles. For that matter, just about any semi automatic weapon could have been used.
But since we are talking about the rare, less than on percent of gun related crimes, to ban those weapons is an extremist reaction to a small problem in the larger picture.
So wishing to stop mass murder is extremist......Fucking laughable
quote:
As I said, looking at a few comparative statistics between the US and UK, the UK has more suicides by hanging, and considerably more drunk driving convictions than the US.
Following the logic used by some of your fellow Brits, I would not be unjustified in suggesting that the UK ban the sell of alcohol completely, and restrict the sale of anything that could be used to hang oneself.
However, I would be more likely to suggest in the matter of suicides, the cuts by your government in the areas of health and mental health care should be reversed and (I am sure your government, like ours, spends money on really stupid programs that could be eliminated) and cuts made elsewhere in the national budget.
As for drinking and driving, the current tactic for combating that problem is to set up police check points to catch drunk drivers and stiffen the punishments for drunk driving convictions, up to and including putting court ordered devices in vehicles that disable the starter if the person blows more than the legal limit in a breathalyzer attached to the starter system, and putting very strict limits on the hours of the day that they can drive, if not a complete revocation of their license.
I dont like using wiki but cant find anything else. According to that your facts are, as expected, wrong.
In countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia drunk driving and deaths caused by drunk driving are considerably lower than the USA. Drunk driving deaths in the UK (population 61 million, 31 million cars) were 380 in 2010 (12% of all fatal accidents).[32][33] In California (population 36 million, 32 million cars) there were 1,489 deaths from traffic accidents related to "alcohol or other drugs" in 2007 (22% of all fatal accidents).[34][35] Alcohol consumption per capita in the UK and Australia is higher than the US and the legal age for drinking lower. <http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/alcoholdrugs/bac/index.html>
quote:
In the states, funding for state mental health agencies that would have dealt with the problems of these mass shooters have been cut, and the people that say it would be unconstitutional to force treatment on an individual against his will. We do have court ordered institutional treatment, but that occurs only after a violent attack.
Add to that a person with a documented history of mental illness is not reported to the agencies that control the back ground checks of potential gun owners.
Finally, the penalties for straw purchases are not as severe as they should be.
Now for a bit of trivia, Seung-Hui Cho, the shooter in the most deadly school shooting at Virginia Tech Massacre, did not use an AR type rifle, he used handguns. He killed 32and wounded 17. Yet those particular weapons are not included in the ban.
Another problem with this proposed action is that the weapons presently in civilian hands will have to be registered with the ATF, which includes a fee that has to be paid over the taxes already paid on the weapon, as if they were fully automatic under the NFA regulations.
While not the first mass shooting, the Columbine shooting occurred during the last Assault Weapon ban, the fact that these weapons were not legal to buy or sell, did not stop that incident, did it? No assault weapons were used.
As I have asked before, if it the same ban failed once, why would anyone think it is going to be different this time?
There is one and only one way to prevent mass shootings in the future, but that would violate the constitution, and even then it would not be 100% effective.
For comparisons, I will point to two all or nothing bans the US had tried in the past, one is prohibition, which did not stop the drinking of alcohol and I might add did make a few business minded people in Canada and the UK a bit of money.
The second ban is one both of our countries share, and in that respect, I will ask one simple question, has the fact that a number of controlled substances is illegal in both our countries, has the ban on illegal drugs worked very well in the UK, it sure as hell has not worked very well here. In point of fact, illegal drug use in the states seems to have gone up in recent years.
And as I said before, it is far easier to smuggle guns into a country than drugs, Intelligence agencies do it all the time.
American gun owners are not opposed to reasonable, effective regulations on gun ownership, we are opposed to sweeping extreme laws enacted to deal with the rarest of gun crimes.
Assault weapons are used in less than two percent of gun crimes, pistols and shotguns account for most of the gun related violence and murders.
The majority of gun owners actually secure their weapons in safes, and the same with ammo, however you have those bright (note sarcasm) that put their guns in wood and glass display cabinets, with standard thickness glass and a 5 dollar lock.
And to be honest, I the numbers of weapons I count toward this argument is not the actual total. So I own 15 "modern" guns. I also own a few antiques, including a trap door Springfield carbine that was used by the US Calvary circa 1873, two restored flintlock muskets from the revolutionary war era, a flintlock rifle made at Boring Creek NC that has been in my family since before the revolution and it still fires, a 1854 colt navy 44, an 1858 remington revolver (reproduction) two civil war reproduction rifles, one civil war reproduction carbine and a 1873 winchester that I am in the process of restoring.
and an 1873 winchester that I am in the process of restoring.
With the exception of the winchester, the other guns are in a display cabinet I had custom made, which uses 2x thick wood for the cabinet back sides and door frames, and shatter proof lexan for the front, and a heavy duty decorative lock. The flints, powder, percussion caps and balls or Minié balls are stored separately and the bullets for those guns that use a brass cartridge are bought only when I am going to take those weapons out to shoot.
In your view I may be considered an extremist gun owner, In my view I am a collector of antique or reproduction fire arms, used for demonstrations during the local frontier day celebrations, and a sportsman, with a side line of dealing with the local wild hog population for farmers and ranchers in the area.
As I said, the type of terrain I am hunting hogs in dictates the particular AR based rifle I use. For hunting deer and antelope I use a bolt action, the particular rifle is chosen by the type of hunting I am doing, either stalking or in a stand or blind, and those situations are dictated by the hunting lease that I am hunting on.
I have been thinking of various ways that would make an assault weapon ban more sensible, in my eyes at least, probably not for the majority of owners of such weapons, and if you wish, you can send me a cmail to discuss them. You might be surprised.
I have never suggested anyone here is an extremist gun owner. Mental health funding here has been cut, also resulting in the odd murder but thankfully not too many. As for drugs, its a fight thats lost as there is too much money to be made. Until punishment outwieghs the risks, that wong change. Educating kids would be far more cost effective in the long term. Usage among teenagers is lower than it was though, so maybe we are seeing a start.
|
RE: Guns - 
) 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread