Guns may be a traditioinal part of American history ( and most other cou ntries too), but the muskets handguns of old are now replaced by powerful killing machines. You can't keep escalating the firepower and pretend you are just continuing an accepted tradition. What if they come up with a pistol that fires little nuclear misslies? Will you say that's fine and good? Or is there a point at which we need to say, "This is too much killing power". I think any reasonable person has to admit that there is a point to draw a line....and the status quo clearly sucks. The NRA and the gun manufacturers lobby have worked hard to prevent that line being drawn with their use of emotional message campaigns championing rights, freedom and patriotism, and they have plenty of politicians in their back pocket..... so the bullshit continues.....
And today's mass shooting 11 dead in Virginia Beach Municipal Complex
- Thread starter rafterman
- Start date
Hey Darts.
Still looking for a response as to what you meant by consolation and white nationalists. Or maybe you admit that your post was in extremely poor taste.
I could believe armed insurrection by some few hundreds or even thousands of gun-nuts, ignorant their own history and too in love with their toys to follow any history that's longer, or broader, but all out civil war against missiles, helicopters and fighter-bombers?
What would winning would look like?
Its a favourite whine of the right wing and gun nuts it seems.
They like to threaten that they'll start a civil war if you'll take their guns away, really makes you want to let them keep them and let them get more, doesn't it?
At least the NRA seems to be toast now.
I kinda feel like at this point we should just let them try it. Nothing of value is lost, and now we can make sensible gun control laws.
The insurrectionists would probably mostly be wiped out is the likely scenario, but then there's the problem of the government using force against it's own people. I don't think the U.S. is willing to go through that type of destabilization.
You know the U.S. military has had large scale exercises to practice dealing with massive civil disobedience scenarios, don't you?
It's not like they don't have enough happening sticking their nose in other nation's matters.
In case you didn't know, there's not much holding some states together.
Don't forget to cue the NRA activists about guns had nothing to do with this shooting
Most Euro countries they are severely regulated so not "legal" (certainly not as easy to get as in USA) and most of the major countries ban them outright (Italy, Russia, Czech etc) France i only country where they are not special laws for
Also they are illegal in Canada
Even in the gun loving USA a criminal action using a weapon with reduced sound carries a much harsher penalty
Weird random quotes between the 2 extremes from you both
UK allows silencers
Aus totally bans silencers (incl suppressors)
You guys just pulling random countries out of the air with no consideration of their laws?
I was commenting on UK having the political will to pretty much ban all guns after the Dunblane massacre and same in Australia after the Tasmania massacre. Don't know about silencers. Agree with most other posters US simply doesn't have the political will to do anything and the scenario will repeat into the future.
A major problem in the U.S. are liberal lefty lawyers who are hell bent on "defending" the Constitution regardless of the consequences. Technically, gun sellers have the right to refuse service to anyone they consider "high risk" but when they try to exercise that right the liberal lefty lawyers come knocking on their door.
That's like asking Muslims what they intend to do about terrorism.
Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
That's like saying, you could just jerk off, rather than being a participant in the sex trade.
Double standards, much?
False equivalency and deflection. I’m assuming you just don’t have a solution and likely don’t really care all that much.
Why should a responsible gun owner feel any guilt over the matter or sacrifice their freedoms when they're not part of the problem? Again, do you expect peaceful Muslims to share any guilt for terrorism? Do you expect them to present any solutions? If not, why do you expect it of responsible gun owners?
How about a less incidiary comparison, do you think responsible drivers should feel guilty about car accidents?
Your premise; that the overwhelming good majority of one sub group, is somehow responsible for the misdeeds of the few, is absurd.
Wow, so much happening here. Full disclosure, I am a responsible fire arm owner, so I am more on the pro gun side. I am not good at picking out multiple quotes so please bare with me.
As for the earlier arguments regarding tightening up gun laws having an effect on the up rise of gun ownership, this is true. It was mentioned earlier that doing nothing as an immediate reaction to gun violence would prevent the increase of gun ownership. You only need to look at what is going on here to see that this comment is correct. When government says something (gun related) will be taken off the shelves, a spike of purchases happens in fear of the product not being available in the near future. This is not THE answer, but a start for those who want less guns sold.
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/n...els-of-assault-style-rifles-in-canada-317428/
Silencers (suppressors)
Silencers / suppressors were invented over 100 years ago. I don't know what it was officially called then but suppression is the functioning act. I'm not sure if anyone here has fired a weapon with one of these on, but trust me when I tell you, it is not silent. The majority of the noise comes from the ignition of the gun powder and all of the energy forcing the projectile out one way. Not recommended, but if you were to have a bullet (9mm or 45) discharge when not in a chamber, you would hear more of a snap. Think of the old caps on red paper when your were a kid but a little louder of course. I've seen (and heard) it happen.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/crime-and-law-enforcement/silencers
I don't claim to know the albeit answer in regards of gun violence. I do think that our current laws regarding ownership in Ontario are reasonable. I would like to see some things change in favor of gun ownership. I would also like to see MANY things change in regards of criminal prosecution when convicted of gun violence. Correction; in any violence. Also in illegal ownership. The punishments IMO should be more hard than they are now. We do not need access to automatic firearms as there is minimal control, so the argument for sport shooting or hunting can not be made. Semi-auto guns fire one projectile per pull of the trigger. There is control involved.
A gun is just a tool. Yes a tool that can be used for hurting and killing. But so was / is slings, sling shots, spears, knives, swords, bow and arrows, cross bows etc. None of which is banned or illegal. I agree with @wigglee that at some point we need to decide when does a "tool" have too much destructive power and should not be accessible for public use. Or a "civilian" version made for use. If guns are the threshold, then lets destroy all of them and remove their existence from this world. If it meant that now one would die of violence, I would gladly just stick to archery or cross bow for sport....until that becomes the next tool to attack as an evil item.
Its unfortunate but there will always be violence from whack jobs and those suffering from mental illness. There is a lot of public attacks in other countries such as Japan and England as an example where fire arms are not as easily accessible. The "Tool" of choice there now a days seems to be long knives (such as machete) and vehicles. No one is calling for a ban on these items.
Sorry for the long read, but that's just my two cents.
As for the earlier arguments regarding tightening up gun laws having an effect on the up rise of gun ownership, this is true. It was mentioned earlier that doing nothing as an immediate reaction to gun violence would prevent the increase of gun ownership. You only need to look at what is going on here to see that this comment is correct. When government says something (gun related) will be taken off the shelves, a spike of purchases happens in fear of the product not being available in the near future. This is not THE answer, but a start for those who want less guns sold.
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/n...els-of-assault-style-rifles-in-canada-317428/
Silencers (suppressors)
Silencers / suppressors were invented over 100 years ago. I don't know what it was officially called then but suppression is the functioning act. I'm not sure if anyone here has fired a weapon with one of these on, but trust me when I tell you, it is not silent. The majority of the noise comes from the ignition of the gun powder and all of the energy forcing the projectile out one way. Not recommended, but if you were to have a bullet (9mm or 45) discharge when not in a chamber, you would hear more of a snap. Think of the old caps on red paper when your were a kid but a little louder of course. I've seen (and heard) it happen.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/crime-and-law-enforcement/silencers
I don't claim to know the albeit answer in regards of gun violence. I do think that our current laws regarding ownership in Ontario are reasonable. I would like to see some things change in favor of gun ownership. I would also like to see MANY things change in regards of criminal prosecution when convicted of gun violence. Correction; in any violence. Also in illegal ownership. The punishments IMO should be more hard than they are now. We do not need access to automatic firearms as there is minimal control, so the argument for sport shooting or hunting can not be made. Semi-auto guns fire one projectile per pull of the trigger. There is control involved.
A gun is just a tool. Yes a tool that can be used for hurting and killing. But so was / is slings, sling shots, spears, knives, swords, bow and arrows, cross bows etc. None of which is banned or illegal. I agree with @wigglee that at some point we need to decide when does a "tool" have too much destructive power and should not be accessible for public use. Or a "civilian" version made for use. If guns are the threshold, then lets destroy all of them and remove their existence from this world. If it meant that now one would die of violence, I would gladly just stick to archery or cross bow for sport....until that becomes the next tool to attack as an evil item.
Its unfortunate but there will always be violence from whack jobs and those suffering from mental illness. There is a lot of public attacks in other countries such as Japan and England as an example where fire arms are not as easily accessible. The "Tool" of choice there now a days seems to be long knives (such as machete) and vehicles. No one is calling for a ban on these items.
Sorry for the long read, but that's just my two cents.
No, not feel guilty but should offer suggestions/ideas on how to make our roads safer for everybody. Also, report unsafe drivers to the authorities.
Exactly this. Also, that’s still a false equivalency because we need cars. We rely on vehicles for transportation, to transport goods, etc., they’re essentially to our lives. Guns are not. Your average person does not need a gun, and not having one wouldn’t really affect their lives in any noticeable way. I’m not saying people shouldn’t be able to have guns, I’m saying the fact that gun nuts and lobby groups prevent regulation and offer no other solutions, thus enabling and in fact tacitly accepting murders, is completely egregious. I would think that as a responsible gun owner, you would want regulation, and as a reasonable human being, you would want steps to be taken to prevent these sorts of attacks. But no, all we ever seem to get from gun people is deflection and stonewalling.
