Another US shooting..

[Yuri Bezmenov]

The big problem with gun laws is twofold IMO:

1-it prevents the law abiding people, who might otherwise have no defense against an attacker from not being slaughtered by those determined to do so.

And 2-hardcore scumbags, terrorist jihadis, career criminals? gun regulations aren't going to make a difference, because those hellbent on violence of that nature, school shooters etc. they don't give a fuck about a few regulations, when they want the guns for purposes of indiscriminate slaughter. Thus such regulations actively serve to enrich the proportion of armed criminal thuggish elements to those who are law abiding, nonviolent and forced to remain unarmed but for what they have the means to arm themselves with (E.g things like coilguns, ECT cannons, railguns, nasty little contraptions built from microwave emitters and waveguides and pulsed power sources etc.)

So the law abiding who want weapons to defend themselves find themselves restricted, whilst the thugs and the terrorists aren't taking the least bit of notice in the first place.

Tell you what... how about another 30 years of inaction?  That'll solve it.

No gun control action will solve it either.

God you're fucking dense.

[odeon]

The big problem with gun laws is twofold IMO:

1-it prevents the law abiding people, who might otherwise have no defense against an attacker from not being slaughtered by those determined to do so.

And 2-hardcore scumbags, terrorist jihadis, career criminals? gun regulations aren't going to make a difference, because those hellbent on violence of that nature, school shooters etc. they don't give a fuck about a few regulations, when they want the guns for purposes of indiscriminate slaughter. Thus such regulations actively serve to enrich the proportion of armed criminal thuggish elements to those who are law abiding, nonviolent and forced to remain unarmed but for what they have the means to arm themselves with (E.g things like coilguns, ECT cannons, railguns, nasty little contraptions built from microwave emitters and waveguides and pulsed power sources etc.)

So the law abiding who want weapons to defend themselves find themselves restricted, whilst the thugs and the terrorists aren't taking the least bit of notice in the first place.

Tell you what... how about another 30 years of inaction?  That'll solve it.

How are you guys solving the bombing problem you guys have historically had? I reckon making bombs illegal should help.

They did solve it.

[Al Swearegen]

The big problem with gun laws is twofold IMO:

1-it prevents the law abiding people, who might otherwise have no defense against an attacker from not being slaughtered by those determined to do so.

And 2-hardcore scumbags, terrorist jihadis, career criminals? gun regulations aren't going to make a difference, because those hellbent on violence of that nature, school shooters etc. they don't give a fuck about a few regulations, when they want the guns for purposes of indiscriminate slaughter. Thus such regulations actively serve to enrich the proportion of armed criminal thuggish elements to those who are law abiding, nonviolent and forced to remain unarmed but for what they have the means to arm themselves with (E.g things like coilguns, ECT cannons, railguns, nasty little contraptions built from microwave emitters and waveguides and pulsed power sources etc.)

So the law abiding who want weapons to defend themselves find themselves restricted, whilst the thugs and the terrorists aren't taking the least bit of notice in the first place.

Tell you what... how about another 30 years of inaction?  That'll solve it.

How are you guys solving the bombing problem you guys have historically had? I reckon making bombs illegal should help.

They did solve it.

Britain has been a victim of bombings from at least IRA conflict. I remember there was a spate of them, including on a double decker bus, some years ago. I remember not long ago little kids were blown to bits in a popstar concert.

No this issue is not solved. There is not the same bombing instances or culture in UK.

We thankfully know that if we ban bombs and make them illegal there wont be any more bombings. That is what they shoyld do.

If they have done this, then we may have to reassess the notion that banning weapons that potentially causes death and/or controlling it will not prevebt bad people from doing bad things and ignoring illegaility.

Maybe preventative measures and better mental health services and such is better than banning weapons from decent people who would not abuse them and bad people who will any way?

Of course it may be reasonable to do a bit of  both but I wonder whether goung to "ban them ban them" as people have a wont to do, is the reasonable course of action

[Jack]

Tell you what... how about another 30 years of inaction?  That'll solve it.

What exactly do you expect? Have already made the point, gun control is high on the list of expectations when electing democrats, but eight years of the Obama administration produced nothing. Not only no new legislation, but also not a single effort to enforce the existing legislation. The Brady Act has been in effect for 24 years and there are still states which are absurdly non-compliant, while the federal government does nothing in terms of enforcement. In addition to state government compliance issues, then federal government fails in their own responsibilities to register felony convictions and dishonorable discharges. No one reads about failure to perform background checks, because the general public are the only ones adhering to the laws, while the leadership who impose those laws make that compliance moot. The majority of americans support more strict gun control, but personally would like to see the current laws enforced. There's only so much the average person can do, so continuously sniping about American guns in general either implies a lack of understanding of the situation, or a simple need to snipe, because America.

[odeon]

The big problem with gun laws is twofold IMO:

1-it prevents the law abiding people, who might otherwise have no defense against an attacker from not being slaughtered by those determined to do so.

And 2-hardcore scumbags, terrorist jihadis, career criminals? gun regulations aren't going to make a difference, because those hellbent on violence of that nature, school shooters etc. they don't give a fuck about a few regulations, when they want the guns for purposes of indiscriminate slaughter. Thus such regulations actively serve to enrich the proportion of armed criminal thuggish elements to those who are law abiding, nonviolent and forced to remain unarmed but for what they have the means to arm themselves with (E.g things like coilguns, ECT cannons, railguns, nasty little contraptions built from microwave emitters and waveguides and pulsed power sources etc.)

So the law abiding who want weapons to defend themselves find themselves restricted, whilst the thugs and the terrorists aren't taking the least bit of notice in the first place.

Tell you what... how about another 30 years of inaction?  That'll solve it.

How are you guys solving the bombing problem you guys have historically had? I reckon making bombs illegal should help.

They did solve it.

Britain has been a victim of bombings from at least IRA conflict. I remember there was a spate of them, including on a double decker bus, some years ago. I remember not long ago little kids were blown to bits in a popstar concert.

No this issue is not solved. There is not the same bombing instances or culture in UK.

We thankfully know that if we ban bombs and make them illegal there wont be any more bombings. That is what they shoyld do.

If they have done this, then we may have to reassess the notion that banning weapons that potentially causes death and/or controlling it will not prevebt bad people from doing bad things and ignoring illegaility.

Maybe preventative measures and better mental health services and such is better than banning weapons from decent people who would not abuse them and bad people who will any way?

Of course it may be reasonable to do a bit of  both but I wonder whether goung to "ban them ban them" as people have a wont to do, is the reasonable course of action

You're not making much sense. It seems to me that you're trying to compare the IRA-related terrorism of the past (yes, really; do read up) with the US's gun-related violence. Seriously?

[Al Swearegen]

The big problem with gun laws is twofold IMO:

1-it prevents the law abiding people, who might otherwise have no defense against an attacker from not being slaughtered by those determined to do so.

And 2-hardcore scumbags, terrorist jihadis, career criminals? gun regulations aren't going to make a difference, because those hellbent on violence of that nature, school shooters etc. they don't give a fuck about a few regulations, when they want the guns for purposes of indiscriminate slaughter. Thus such regulations actively serve to enrich the proportion of armed criminal thuggish elements to those who are law abiding, nonviolent and forced to remain unarmed but for what they have the means to arm themselves with (E.g things like coilguns, ECT cannons, railguns, nasty little contraptions built from microwave emitters and waveguides and pulsed power sources etc.)

So the law abiding who want weapons to defend themselves find themselves restricted, whilst the thugs and the terrorists aren't taking the least bit of notice in the first place.

Tell you what... how about another 30 years of inaction?  That'll solve it.

How are you guys solving the bombing problem you guys have historically had? I reckon making bombs illegal should help.

They did solve it.

Britain has been a victim of bombings from at least IRA conflict. I remember there was a spate of them, including on a double decker bus, some years ago. I remember not long ago little kids were blown to bits in a popstar concert.

No this issue is not solved. There is not the same bombing instances or culture in UK.

We thankfully know that if we ban bombs and make them illegal there wont be any more bombings. That is what they shoyld do.

If they have done this, then we may have to reassess the notion that banning weapons that potentially causes death and/or controlling it will not prevebt bad people from doing bad things and ignoring illegaility.

Maybe preventative measures and better mental health services and such is better than banning weapons from decent people who would not abuse them and bad people who will any way?

Of course it may be reasonable to do a bit of  both but I wonder whether goung to "ban them ban them" as people have a wont to do, is the reasonable course of action

You're not making much sense. It seems to me that you're trying to compare the IRA-related terrorism of the past (yes, really; do read up) with the US's gun-related violence. Seriously?

Thanks for the suggestion.

No I was rather making the point that bad people (and mentally ill people) do bad things. Whether making illegal bombs or illegslly using firearms, bad people will continue to do bad things. Good people will not.

People are not allowed to make bombs and kill people, though it happens often enough. People shoyld not misuse firearms but it happens enough.

I think one of the glaring problem with guns in the US is that gun laws are not being enforced. Timee and time again someone makes an ertor or the database had an error or thete was some other reason for the wrong people given access to weapons they were disqualified from purchasing.

So better enforcement of existing US laws, gun education and better mental health would cut doen many of the incidents in the same way the removing public bins and aggressively educating the public to be aware of any unattended bags, made a difference.

[odeon]

That's a weird argument. I'd say that most people who make (and use) bombs are bad people in that they make them and they deliberately use them to kill. I can't be arsed to look up the numbers but I'm willing to bet that they are significantly fewer than the people who use firearms to kill their fellow human beings in the US. Significantly fewer, as in a factor of hundreds or thousands.

Now, are you saying that if the existing gun laws in the US were followed to the letter, only roughly the same (or comparable in at least some sense of the word) number of people would still be killing others using guns?

That is a novel argument, I'll give you that, but seriously?

[FourAceDeal]

Terrorist bombings used as an excuse against gun control? 

Please never delete those posts.  I'm linking to them from elsewhere as examples of just how dumb a dumb person can be without knowing that they're dumb.

Tell us Al, what gun do you own?  You seem to be such a fan of them.

[odeon]

The mind boggles, I know, but the entertainment factor is off the scale.

[Al Swearegen]

That's a weird argument. I'd say that most people who make (and use) bombs are bad people in that they make them and they deliberately use them to kill. I can't be arsed to look up the numbers but I'm willing to bet that they are significantly fewer than the people who use firearms to kill their fellow human beings in the US. Significantly fewer, as in a factor of hundreds or thousands.

Now, are you saying that if the existing gun laws in the US were followed to the letter, only roughly the same (or comparable in at least some sense of the word) number of people would still be killing others using guns?

That is a novel argument, I'll give you that, but seriously?

One of the problems that Democrats have when confronting these kinds of issues after a tragic incident is that they find that any remedy they offer is met with "Those measures would not have stopped this tragic situation" and they are right.
Chicago is a gun free zone. So there is absolutely no gun violence there....except of course there is.
People are not allowed to purchase and own guns if they have a history of mental health problems and/or a criminal record...except they somehow manage to both purchase and own guns.

THIS is precisely what I mean. Ban guns like Chicago did and what is the effect in Chicago. Honestly, do you think that will work in America and based off what is and continues to happen in Chicago...how? That too is IF you could foment enough support to get around Constitutional rights and such.

So presuming that this is NOT going to work AT ALL, we go to the very next step which is to say "Most people do not step out their door and start firing at everything the moment they leave their house. Who is responsible for the mass shootings and who is responsible for incidental gun violence, What type of people? What makes them different from the majority that do not. How can we prevent these kinds of people from hurting other US citizens?

Criminals and mentally ill are two huge flags. Proportionally these people make up a HUGE amount of the amount of both mass shootings and incidental gun violence. So stop these people and the effect on gun violence will plummet without the majority of US citizens who are not criminal nor mentally ill.

It is a pretty easy logical flow. Unfortunately what I see happen too often is that an incident happens and people get outraged and call for demands that are easily countered as unhelpful as they would not have addressed the problem at hand OR they call for call for Australia style buyback or gun restrictions which goes precisely nowhere because of the Constitution.

I also see that time after time criminals and mentally unfit people get to own or possess guns and often are sold by people who ought to have known better and /or did not check properly OR there has been a database glitch.

Enforce the reasonable and practical laws well and police and audit such places to get better controls, get illicit firearms from the criminal population and it will make the same difference in the same way that removing public rubbish bins in London removed a big inconspicuous hiding place for the IRA when it came to the spate of bombings in London. Practical moves to reduce occurrences.

[Al Swearegen]

Terrorist bombings used as an excuse against gun control? 

Please never delete those posts.  I'm linking to them from elsewhere as examples of just how dumb a dumb person can be without knowing that they're dumb.

Tell us Al, what gun do you own?  You seem to be such a fan of them.

You know what would be really stupid? As you are a connoisseur of dumb, I will let you know.

It would be ridiculously stupid to say, imply, infer, suggest that my post was "Terrorist bombings used as an excuse against gun control? " BUT what would be even more stupid would be to actually believe that was what I said or the crux of it after reading my post.

It was actually saying that acknowledging that bad things will happen in society. Murders, rapes, assaults, fraud, theft...and bad people will do these things and will impunity and without respect for ANY restriction.

So if you think that suggesting "guns be banned in America" is the answer to even be considered that is even more mind-numbingly stupid than actually believing that "Terrorist bombings used as an excuse against gun control?" what I said or the crux of it after reading my post.

Not only is it ridiculous given the ingrained cultural attachments to guns and its Constitutional rights BUT as mentioned look at Chicago which should be the best example of a city free from gun violence due to the strict gun controls and yet it is in serious gun trouble.

So, if you are indeed a lover of stupid propositions and stupid ideas and love seeing stupid people think stupid things. I have given you plenty to work on. The stupidity of someone called "FourAceDeal". THAT guy is a fucking loon.

Edit: Not that it matters much, but no I don't have a gun but most of my extended family do and so do a few of my daughter's friends and their families. Guns are not that prevalent in Australia though.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

FourAceDeal, the phrase "the gift that keeps on giving" springs to mind.

[Gopher Gary]

FourAceDeal, the phrase "the gift that keeps on giving" springs to mind.

It seems like I see you here a lot lately. Why don't you post more? 

[odeon]

FourAceDeal, the phrase "the gift that keeps on giving" springs to mind.

[odeon]

It was actually saying that acknowledging that bad things will happen in society. Murders, rapes, assaults, fraud, theft...and bad people will do these things and will impunity and without respect for ANY restriction.

It's not what you started out with but sure, let's dismantle this one instead:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.30def2356189

Bad people? Toddlers?