Another US shooting..

[FourAceDeal]

...and I note that you have had to change the frame of your argument to people trying to ban guns.  No one arguing against you has said this.  I have been careful to use the phrase "gun control".  That is what is being discussed here.

The UK has never banned gun ownership.  It limits the type and supply of guns. 

There...  I have explained my argument in detail.  Now do the same.

Okay/ Gun control, being that Americans have banned automatic weapons and will NOT agree to semi-automatic weapon banning and will push back hard enough on any major gun limitations or restrictions AND as seen in Chicago, that gun control is not entirely effective. What PRACTICAL solutions would you suggest?

You're just one cliche after another.

Try and think real hard about this....

Chicago brought in tough controls.  But the Republican states around it didn't.  So people get guns from the nearby uncontrolled states and they end up in Chicago.

See?  That's how logic works. Cause and effect.

[Al Swearegen]

...and I note that you have had to change the frame of your argument to people trying to ban guns.  No one arguing against you has said this.  I have been careful to use the phrase "gun control".  That is what is being discussed here.

The UK has never banned gun ownership.  It limits the type and supply of guns. 

There...  I have explained my argument in detail.  Now do the same.

Okay/ Gun control, being that Americans have banned automatic weapons and will NOT agree to semi-automatic weapon banning and will push back hard enough on any major gun limitations or restrictions AND as seen in Chicago, that gun control is not entirely effective. What PRACTICAL solutions would you suggest?

You're just one cliche after another.

Try and think real hard about this....

Chicago brought in tough controls.  But the Republican states around it didn't.  So people get guns from the nearby uncontrolled states and they end up in Chicago.

See?  That's how logic works. Cause and effect.

No think about this real hard. Many of the Liberal population in these areas are gun owners. When work is scarce they hunt to supplement bought food.



So this is not simply Republican issue/very Democrat AND even were it, such gun controls would NOT work because about half of America is NOT going to allow gun control.

So again, taking into account reality NOT what you would like. What PRACTICAL solutions are you offering or are you just virtue signalling?

[FourAceDeal]

...and I note that you have had to change the frame of your argument to people trying to ban guns.  No one arguing against you has said this.  I have been careful to use the phrase "gun control".  That is what is being discussed here.

The UK has never banned gun ownership.  It limits the type and supply of guns. 

There...  I have explained my argument in detail.  Now do the same.

Okay/ Gun control, being that Americans have banned automatic weapons and will NOT agree to semi-automatic weapon banning and will push back hard enough on any major gun limitations or restrictions AND as seen in Chicago, that gun control is not entirely effective. What PRACTICAL solutions would you suggest?

You're just one cliche after another.

Try and think real hard about this....

Chicago brought in tough controls.  But the Republican states around it didn't.  So people get guns from the nearby uncontrolled states and they end up in Chicago.

See?  That's how logic works. Cause and effect.

No think about this real hard. Many of the Liberal population in these areas are gun owners. When work is scarce they hunt to supplement bought food.



So this is not simply Republican issue/very Democrat AND even were it, such gun controls would NOT work because about half of America is NOT going to allow gun control.

So again, taking into account reality NOT what you would like. What PRACTICAL solutions are you offering or are you just virtue signalling?

Gun control isn't about taking hunting guns away from anyone.  Gun control is about regulating the sale and resale of guns.   For some reason every time you hear the words "gun control" your brain is translating to "gun ban".   


Now stop changing the subject.  Let's get back to your supposition that laws against bomb making in the UK demonstrate that gun controls shouldn't be effective in the USA. 

I just wondered.... Instead of comparing bomb laws in the UK with gun laws in the US, why didn't you compare GUN laws in the UK with gun laws in the US? That would be a direct comparison.

Shall we run through the numbers about gun violence once the UK had a national gun control policy banning assault weapons?   Do you want to guess what the numbers show?  I think you already know, Al.

That's what's so funny about you.  You know you are supporting bullshit, but you keep going.  And it is so much fun to watch you change the subject from one logical dead end to the next.

So what NRA meme are you bringing up next?

[Al Swearegen]

...and I note that you have had to change the frame of your argument to people trying to ban guns.  No one arguing against you has said this.  I have been careful to use the phrase "gun control".  That is what is being discussed here.

The UK has never banned gun ownership.  It limits the type and supply of guns. 

There...  I have explained my argument in detail.  Now do the same.

Okay/ Gun control, being that Americans have banned automatic weapons and will NOT agree to semi-automatic weapon banning and will push back hard enough on any major gun limitations or restrictions AND as seen in Chicago, that gun control is not entirely effective. What PRACTICAL solutions would you suggest?

You're just one cliche after another.

Try and think real hard about this....

Chicago brought in tough controls.  But the Republican states around it didn't.  So people get guns from the nearby uncontrolled states and they end up in Chicago.

See?  That's how logic works. Cause and effect.

No think about this real hard. Many of the Liberal population in these areas are gun owners. When work is scarce they hunt to supplement bought food.



So this is not simply Republican issue/very Democrat AND even were it, such gun controls would NOT work because about half of America is NOT going to allow gun control.

So again, taking into account reality NOT what you would like. What PRACTICAL solutions are you offering or are you just virtue signalling?

Gun control isn't about taking hunting guns away from anyone.  Gun control is about regulating the sale and resale of guns.   For some reason every time you hear the words "gun control" your brain is translating to "gun ban".   


Now stop changing the subject.  Let's get back to your supposition that laws against bomb making in the UK demonstrate that gun controls shouldn't be effective in the USA. 

I just wondered.... Instead of comparing bomb laws in the UK with gun laws in the US, why didn't you compare GUN laws in the UK with gun laws in the US? That would be a direct comparison.

Shall we run through the numbers about gun violence once the UK had a national gun control policy banning assault weapons?   Do you want to guess what the numbers show?  I think you already know, Al.

That's what's so funny about you.  You know you are supporting bullshit, but you keep going.  And it is so much fun to watch you change the subject from one logical dead end to the next.

So what NRA meme are you bringing up next?

OKay so they are directly comparable are they?:

How many millions of people in UK currently have guns, compared to the US?
What is the corresponding Constititional Amendment in UK stating that all men have a right to bear arms?
What percentage of UK are Conservatives and with Conservative values?
How many in UK would consider removal or limitation on guns as a direct path to Governmental Tyrany of which the US has ingrained into their Constitution?
What is the gun culture like in both?

Are they directly comparable?

[Walkie]

Sorry, Al,   but just couldn't resist  answering the no-brainer

 

How many millions of people in UK currently have guns, compared to the UK?

  about the same, I'd say

Are they directly comparable?

    Yep! Absolutely. x=x  (though not at all sure I could offer a formal proof of that statement)

[Fun With Matches]

 

[Al Swearegen]

Sorry, Al,   but just couldn't resist  answering the no-brainer

 

How many millions of people in UK currently have guns, compared to the UK?

  about the same, I'd say

Are they directly comparable?

    Yep! Absolutely. x=x  (though not at all sure I could offer a formal proof of that statement)

Jesus! That was not well done was it. Fixed now.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Only a good man with a bomb can stop a bad man with a bomb. It's a known fact.

Actually the illegal manufacture of explosives requires ingredients. By tracking unusual patterns in the sale of those ingredients it is often possible to catch would-be bombers before an attack. Devastating as they can be, deaths caused by illegal bombs in civilian hands are a tiny number compared to deaths caused by legal guns.

[Al Swearegen]

Only a good man with a bomb can stop a bad man with a bomb. It's a known fact.

Actually the illegal manufacture of explosives requires ingredients. By tracking unusual patterns in the sale of those ingredients it is often possible to catch would-be bombers before an attack. Devastating as they can be, deaths caused by illegal bombs in civilian hands are a tiny number compared to deaths caused by legal guns.

....Preventative measures and working with what you have to work with is better. Vetting of immigrants for possible terrorist links, education of citizens about unattended bags or packages being potentially dangerous, tracking of potential bomb-making parts and ingredients being bought in UK or imported in the UK and removing bins from heavily frequented public spaces are all practical and constructive moves.

Similarly when it comes to guns in US. Better background checks and compliance auditing, gun education, better mental health services, actively seeking to remove guns out of the guns of criminals and having a means to cross-reference when a gun owner has started to suffer from a hazardous mental health issue to remove guns, are all practical and would reduce gun death

These things are NOT perfect and will not stop gun death BUT will substantially reduce it whereby "Americans should ban guns, will not"

Are you sure you are arguing against me?

[FourAceDeal]

Despite having laws against drink driving, sometimes people still drink drive and cause accidents.

By "Al logic" that means it's better to not have drink driving controls at all.  You should introduce kids to drink driving at a young age.  People still dying in accidents?  That's because they're not drinking enough.  If someones coming the other way drunk on the wrong side of the road then you're safer if you're drunk too and you're weaving all over the road.  It makes you harder to hit.

It's entirely logic-Al.

[FourAceDeal]

OKay so they are directly comparable are they?:

How many millions of people in UK currently have guns, compared to the US?

Over 700,000 registered gun owners in the UK.  About 1% of the population.  You need a gun, you get a licence, the police check you out.  You get a gun.  The issue being no one is judged to need a military style assault weapon with a high capacity magazine.  Deer in the UK don't shoot back at hunters.

What is the corresponding Constititional Amendment in UK stating that all men have a right to bear arms?

An "amendment".  When laws are no longer fit for purpose you change them.  The second amendment.  It's an amendment.  If ever something showed how things can change with time it would be an "amendment".  You amend things. "Amendment".  Look it up in the dictionary.

We used to have lots of laws in 1791 that we no longer have.  It's amazing what kind of social progress we've made, and the same goes for Australia should you ever choose to venture outdoors.

What percentage of UK are Conservatives and with Conservative values?

Gosh.  You have me there.  We don't have any conservatives in the UK.  Oh wait!  I was thinking of backwardland where everything is the other way round.

We have a Conservative prime minister.  And a Conservative government running the country.  They are called "The Conservative Party" which kind of gives the whole game away as there is a clue to their political affiliation in their name.

How many in UK would consider removal or limitation on guns as a direct path to Governmental Tyrany of which the US has ingrained into their Constitution?

Nothing is ingrained.  Remember the word "amendment"?  Laws change. Otherwise slavery would still be thing.

Are they directly comparable?

Yes.... by everyone on the planet except the gun lobby and their court jester.

[Al Swearegen]

No, no, no. You don't get to pull this Al logic bullshit unopposed.

FourAce logic is pretty evident.
"Here in UK we don't have lots of gun violence because we only have 1% of the guns that US has. US needs change their laws and the solution to things is for the gun control friendly Congressmen and Congresswomen to enter a bill to do that, into Congress and change the law"

The only thing is, of course, this is tried just about every major incident and sometimes without there being a major incident. It gets knocked down consistently and has for many decades. The reasons are obvious. This is a reality NOT what you want it to be. US is NOT UK and nor is the cultural norms you hold tight to your heart the same in the US. So it would be beyond stupid to consider that their whole cultural and legal underpinnings would radically change. So if we remove this radical notion entirely what are we left with in reality?

Oh, I know Al's actual logic (not the bullshit you are trying to strawman to me).

That is "America is what it is and their culture is what it is. Basing what we know and can see in reality, what could make a difference to their society and culture in respect to gun control that would be reality-based and realistic"

Better background checks and compliance auditing, gun education, better mental health services, actively seeking to remove guns out of the guns of criminals and having a means to cross-reference when a gun owner has started to suffer from a hazardous mental health issue to remove guns, are all practical and would reduce gun death

It is not perfect but reality is not perfect."

Al's logic shits all over FourAce's logic which is virtue signalling at best and at worst pie in the sky fantasies claiming to be a serious reality-based discussion.

[FourAceDeal]

No, no, no. You don't get to pull this Al logic bullshit unopposed.

FourAce logic is pretty evident.
"Here in UK we don't have lots of gun violence because we only have 1% of the guns that US has. US needs change their laws and the solution to things is for the gun control friendly Congressmen and Congresswomen to enter a bill to do that, into Congress and change the law"

....then some tedious shit which to be honest I couldn't be bothered to read,,,,,, it's not like it's going to be anything that we've not heard before.  blah blah....

....Al's logic shits all over FourAce's logic which is virtue signalling at best and at worst pie in the sky fantasies claiming to be a serious reality-based discussion.

Why are you putting quotes around text and attributing it to me when it is not what I said?  Every time you post you have to re-frame what has been said to you because otherwise your own arguments hold no water. 


The Toa of Al.

Al:  Let's compare bomb laws in the UK with Gun laws in the US.

4AD:  Surely you should compare gun laws in the UK with gun laws in the US.

Al:  But they're not the same thing.

Do you realise what an ass you sound?  You can't come up with a single statistic or fact to back up anything you say.  Just innuendo and gas and the false logic of a child.

[Al Swearegen]

OKay so they are directly comparable are they?:

How many millions of people in UK currently have guns, compared to the US?

Over 700,000 registered gun owners in the UK.  About 1% of the population.  You need a gun, you get a licence, the police check you out.  You get a gun.  The issue being no one is judged to need a military style assault weapon with a high capacity magazine.  Deer in the UK don't shoot back at hunters.

So much wrong here. What is an "assault weapon"? Anything that assaults is a weapon. You mean assault rifle I guess? But you would be wrong again because that is a term used specifically for automatic rifles - which ARE banned in US. So what the fuck are you talking about. I do not think even you know. But let me be charitable and throw you a rope. Semi-Automatic weapons are certainly legal and hunters would argue that they DO in fact need them and the lawmakers have backed their position forever.
Whilst UK has 1% gun ownership, it has a different culture to America and few in UK get the cultural attachment to guns that Americans in general and a people have. America will NEVER have 1% gun ownership and UK has this. Ought to tell you something.

What is the corresponding Constititional Amendment in UK stating that all men have a right to bear arms?

An "amendment".  When laws are no longer fit for purpose you change them.  The second amendment.  It's an amendment.  If ever something showed how things can change with time it would be an "amendment".  You amend things. "Amendment".  Look it up in the dictionary.

We used to have lots of laws in 1791 that we no longer have.  It's amazing what kind of social progress we've made, and the same goes for Australia should you ever choose to venture outdoors.

In other words there is none.

We are not discussing social progress. Nor Australia. We are discussing the practicalities of reducing gun deaths in America. Australia has no big problem with gun violence outside of some gangs in Sydney and Melbourne. I travel outside a lot how you are trying to tie my reality in with the reality of a land half a world away is a bit odd, to say the least.

What percentage of UK are Conservatives and with Conservative values?

Gosh.  You have me there.  We don't have any conservatives in the UK.  Oh wait!  I was thinking of backwardland where everything is the other way round.

We have a Conservative prime minister.  And a Conservative government running the country.  They are called "The Conservative Party" which kind of gives the whole game away as there is a clue to their political affiliation in their name.

Indeed and our "Conservative" party is the Liberal Party. So that proves me right. Because all Conservative parties have exactly the same values and political align perfectly.

What? Don't they? But is that not what you are trying to do - paint them as interchangeably the same?

Is the Party of Thersa May or Malcolm Turnbull the same as the Republican Party in the US politically? Are May and Turnbull like Donald Trump? In fact, Hillary Clinton politically is very close to Turnbull and probably not far removed from May whereas our Labour Party is closer to the Bernie Sanders and the like.

So maybe try that again?

How many in UK would consider removal or limitation on guns as a direct path to Governmental Tyrany of which the US has ingrained into their Constitution?

Nothing is ingrained.  Remember the word "amendment"?  Laws change. Otherwise slavery would still be thing.

Nope, not nearly good enough. This is a cop out. Maybe one day America will become only 50% gun ownership, never say never. So if you start a campaign now, to encourage people to throw away or turn in their weapons, then in maybe another 300 years if your efforts are vigourously carried on, it will have a knock on effect and ...

We are dealing with the here and now. Reality not wishing for pots of gold at the end of a rainbow.

Are they directly comparable?

Yes.... by everyone on the planet except the gun lobby and their court jester.

If you HONESTLY believe they are then YOU are the court jester.

[Al Swearegen]

No, no, no. You don't get to pull this Al logic bullshit unopposed.

FourAce logic is pretty evident.
"Here in UK we don't have lots of gun violence because we only have 1% of the guns that US has. US needs change their laws and the solution to things is for the gun control friendly Congressmen and Congresswomen to enter a bill to do that, into Congress and change the law"

....then some tedious shit which to be honest I couldn't be bothered to read,,,,,, it's not like it's going to be anything that we've not heard before.  blah blah....

....Al's logic shits all over FourAce's logic which is virtue signalling at best and at worst pie in the sky fantasies claiming to be a serious reality-based discussion.

Why are you putting quotes around text and attributing it to me when it is not what I said?  Every time you post you have to re-frame what has been said to you because otherwise your own arguments hold no water. 


The Toa of Al.

Al:  Let's compare bomb laws in the UK with Gun laws in the US.

4AD:  Surely you should compare gun laws in the UK with gun laws in the US.

Al:  But they're not the same thing.

Do you realise what an ass you sound?  You can't come up with a single statistic or fact to back up anything you say.  Just innuendo and gas and the false logic of a child.

No my arguments are fine and consistent.

Essentially your argument is "It is outrageous and I am outraged. Everything is equivalent and Americans have to enact gun control" mine is "Whatever, Americans won't for a variety of cultural and Constitutional reasons and so rather than basing things on what will not work, the way to reducing casualties of gun violence is to work with what will work. Gun control has been voted down continuously over decades and will continue to be, so going there as a default is impractical at best and moronic at worst"