• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Another shooting in Murica

scaramanga said:
I don't have an issue with those policies and I don't believe (based on polls posted above) they're all that far from reality under a strong Democratic government.

But there's still an issue for the next few decades of the existing ones, stolen ones, traded ones, etc. All the time criminals are willing to pay good money for guns, people will find a way around the rules in order to sell them.
Click to expand...
to put it glibly -best time to enact the laws was decades ago, second best time is now.
 
scaramanga said:
I don't have an issue with those policies and I don't believe (based on polls posted above) they're all that far from reality under a strong Democratic government.

But there's still an issue for the next few decades of the existing ones, stolen ones, traded ones, etc. All the time criminals are willing to pay good money for guns, people will find a way around the rules in order to sell them.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And even with good gun control in place the need for solid mental health work will be just as important. But it's not an argument against gun control.
 
braineclipse said:
Agreed. And even with good gun control in place the need for solid mental health work will be just as important. But it's not an argument against gun control.
Click to expand...
I think what tends to happen outside the US (and in this thread) is that gun control gets conflated with gun removal. This topic appears to have steered well off course because people outside the US assume that good control of guns will mean that there are far fewer guns in public hands.

In reality, I suspect the vast majority of US gun owners would pass most reasonable ownership tests and I don't see the desire for ownership petering out any time soon. Of course, the Cobra Effect here is that the more you restrict guns, the more valuable they become to criminals. The higher the price, the more tempting it is to import and/or manufacture them.
 
scaramanga said:
I think what tends to happen outside the US (and in this thread) is that gun control gets conflated with gun removal. This topic appears to have steered well off course because people outside the US assume that good control of guns will mean that there are far fewer guns in public hands.

In reality, I suspect the vast majority of US gun owners would pass most reasonable ownership tests and I don't see the desire for ownership petering out any time soon. Of course, the Cobra Effect here is that the more you restrict guns, the more valuable they become to criminals. The higher the price, the more tempting it is to import and/or manufacture them.
Click to expand...

improved gun control will help change the mindset, albeit very slowly, owning a gun is "normal" in large parts of America, thats the problem
 
galeforce said:
improved gun control will help change the mindset, albeit very slowly, owning a gun is "normal" in large parts of America, thats the problem
Click to expand...
I think that analysis fails to properly understand the way people in the US think about guns.

Many, many people will tell you that the 2nd Amendment is absolutely required to protect against, and keep in check, any nefarious government/military actions. There's even some wording about it being required to be a free state. The vast majority of these people are also safe, law-abiding gun owners - the only threat they pose is in the general increase in gun numbers.

These people absolutely will not be giving up their guns within the planning horizon of any government action. They won't be convinced by events like the ones in this thread, because they are the responsible owners. They won't be convinced by the fact that other countries don't need them because we simply don't understand their concept of freedom and haven't had to fight for independence as recently as them.

It's not an opinion I agree with, but it's one I understand.
 
scaramanga said:
I think that analysis fails to properly understand the way people in the US think about guns.

Many, many people will tell you that the 2nd Amendment is absolutely required to protect against, and keep in check, any nefarious government/military actions. There's even some wording about it being required to be a free state. The vast majority of these people are also safe, law-abiding gun owners - the only threat they pose is in the general increase in gun numbers.

These people absolutely will not be giving up their guns within the planning horizon of any government action. They won't be convinced by events like the ones in this thread, because they are the responsible owners. They won't be convinced by the fact that other countries don't need them because we simply don't understand their concept of freedom and haven't had to fight for independence as recently as them.

It's not an opinion I agree with, but it's one I understand.
Click to expand...
Again you answer an argument for improved gun control as if someone had argued for taking away all guns.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/928887211369496576

Despite all the weapons and warnings, Bernstein says no one has ever been killed or even injured on his property. With one profound exception.

In 2012, his wife, Terry Flanell, 51, was accidentally killed by a smoke bomb on the property while filming a reality-TV pilot for the Discovery Channel.

“One of the smoke containers turned into a rocket and went right past me and through her and killed her,” Bernstein said

DOIFjU-VAAAw50F.jpg
 
scaramanga said:
I think that analysis fails to properly understand the way people in the US think about guns.

Many, many people will tell you that the 2nd Amendment is absolutely required to protect against, and keep in check, any nefarious government/military actions. There's even some wording about it being required to be a free state. The vast majority of these people are also safe, law-abiding gun owners - the only threat they pose is in the general increase in gun numbers.

These people absolutely will not be giving up their guns within the planning horizon of any government action. They won't be convinced by events like the ones in this thread, because they are the responsible owners. They won't be convinced by the fact that other countries don't need them because we simply don't understand their concept of freedom and haven't had to fight for independence as recently as them.

It's not an opinion I agree with, but it's one I understand.
Click to expand...

That’s very true. Safe responsible Americans are wedded to their guns. In rural areas they hunt and I can see the point. But a Australian setup where guns have to be put in a locked store and limits on ownership could make a massive difference while allowing law abiding people to own non automated guns.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
braineclipse said:
Again you answer an argument for improved gun control as if someone had argued for taking away all guns.
Click to expand...
My understanding of the comment was that @galeforce was suggesting controlled ownership would lead to a changed mindset, which would lead to banning guns. After all, it was in response to a post of mine pointing out how difficult banning would be.
 
SpurMeUp said:
That’s very true. Safe responsible Americans are wedded to their guns. In rural areas they hunt and I can see the point. But a Australian setup where guns have to be put in a locked store and limits on ownership could make a massive difference while allowing law abiding people to own non automated guns.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...
I read an article recently, I'll try and find it later, by a journalist in Australia who managed to buy a black market gun in 30 minutes. That was after the new regulations.
 
scaramanga said:
My understanding of the comment was that @galeforce was suggesting controlled ownership would lead to a changed mindset, which would lead to banning guns. After all, it was in response to a post of mine pointing out how difficult banning would be.
Click to expand...
He talked about improved gun control. Nothing radical.

Attitudes changing over time and laws being a part of that is hardly controversial. Not in any way a quick fix, but this isn't a situation where quick fixes are available.
 
scaramanga said:
I read an article recently, I'll try and find it later, by a journalist in Australia who managed to buy a black market gun in 30 minutes. That was after the new regulations.
Click to expand...
Making guns completely impossible to get hold of is a red herring in this conversation. Whatever Australia has done seems to be working.

I don't think the political climate in the US would allow a similar move there, I'm sure you agree. But some steps could still be taken that could have a positive effect. Doing something with a positive effect beats doing nothing.
 
Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm-related deaths in Australia declined 47%. In 2014, 35 people were victims of firearms homicide, compared to 98 people in 1996. Suicide deaths using firearms more than halved over the ten years, from 389 deaths in 1995, to 147 deaths in 2005.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
SpurMeUp said:
Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm-related deaths in Australia declined 47%. In 2014, 35 people were victims of firearms homicide, compared to 98 people in 1996. Suicide deaths using firearms more than halved over the ten years, from 389 deaths in 1995, to 147 deaths in 2005.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a given that those reductions would or could scale up to a country that has firearm deaths in the tens of thousands.
 
scaramanga said:
I read an article recently, I'll try and find it later, by a journalist in Australia who managed to buy a black market gun in 30 minutes. That was after the new regulations.
Click to expand...
Of course it's possible to get a gun, even with strict gun control, but that is not a step "ordinary" people are likely to take.
 
scaramanga said:
It's not ordinary people that are shooting other people.
Click to expand...
I know it's difficult calling any american normal, but...Anywhere else in the world, it's not normal people that shoot each other. But in america it is. Or do they also have 10 times as many mentally ill and psychiatric patients as anywhere else?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back