MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Votes still count for more than people's lives.
Though the opinion polls say they want more control, the NRA & Money mean more than votes and lives.
They should run it anyway and then watch who votes against
then shoot 'em
Votes still count for more than people's lives.
Odd how it works, seems that polls show that the majority of people are happy with a ban, but [url= http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/19/the-assault-weapons-ban-was-always-doomed/ ]politics[/url] means it was always doomed.
Votes still count for more than people's lives.
Unfortunately the nature of democracy means that a politicians first duty is to stay elected. Working in the national interest comes second as its hard to do when out of power. Ho hum.
The problem with democracy is that it assumes people actually know what's best for them in the long run.
Unfortunately the nature of democracy means that a politicians first duty is to [s]stay elected[/s] [b]get rich[/b].
FIFY
[i]Unfortunately the nature of democracy means that a politicians first duty is to stay elected. Working in the national interest comes second as its hard to do when out of power. Ho hum.[/i]
And by law you elect them to act in whatever way they want, that's Democracy.
When will they advocate arming children?
Think I'm joking? I bet at somepoint someone will push for say 10yr old's as sane/mature enough to carry a .22 for personal protection.
Unfortunately the nature of democracy means that a politicians first duty is to [s]stay elected[/s] get rich.
Not convinced by that superb eloquent and well researched argument 😉 After all many politicians are already pretty rich before they start, and could most likely make plenty more money being bigwigs in business than they do as MPs.
It was completely pointless. Banning 'assault weapons' wouldn't save a single life. If you can't use an assault weapon you use a shotgun. More than adequate for the job.
You either ban them all or don't bother (and you can't ban them all due to the constitution).
It was completely pointless. Banning 'assault weapons' wouldn't save a single life. If you can't use an assault weapon you use a shotgun. More than adequate for the job.
Correct.
Handguns are the cause of 95% of the gun deaths in the States. Banning them was never even on the agenda
Correct.Handguns are the cause of 95% of the gun deaths in the States. Banning them was never even on the agenda
Right time to ban hand guns then.....
Though the opinion polls say they want more control, the NRA & Money mean more than votes and lives.
I can't see any reason why the National Rivers Authority need to be armed. It's madness.
Politicians in [u]refusal to pass knee jerk legislation that won't make a jot of difference to the problem[/u] shocker
hora - MemberWhen will they advocate arming children?
Think I'm joking? I bet at somepoint someone will push for say 10yr old's as sane/mature enough to carry a .22 for personal protection.
That is the stupidest thing that I have ever heard! 😯
Everyone knows that you need something a lot bigger than a .22 for personal protection! 😀
rattrap - Member
Politicians in refusal to pass knee jerk legislation that won't make a jot of difference to the problem shocker
Unfortunately when you let things get this far then anything to kerb the number of nutters with guns for no practical, legal or sensible reason other than "cause we can"
Unfortunately when you let things get this far then anything to kerb the number of nutters with guns for no practical
1) Target shooting and self defence are both practical uses
legal
2) It's a constitutional right - that's as legal as you can possibly get
sensible reason other than "cause we can"
3) I'm tempted to give you that one, but see 1
I was reading recently about some interesting aspects to this gun issue. Firstly deaths per gun is actually very very low. There are a huge amount of guns in circulation so deaths per gun is tiny. In fact once you take out crim-on-crim killings and also suicides then the likelihood of you being killed prematurely by a gun is really quite small. The school shootings are thankfully extremely rare. Yet because of the horror of events there's often a fear and emotion attached to gun killings far beyond the rational risks. In fact, if you worried about your child being killed then they are far more likely to drown than be shot. But there is no national outrage to ban swimming pools.
Of course banning swimming pools would be silly but politicians could probably do far more good with their limited time, money and political agreement taking more interest in deaths on the road or mental health.
I fear there will never be enough political and social agreement in the US for them to resolve the issue. We may not have the gun problem but I think we also suffer from politicians clashing on emotive issues rather then tackling things that would make far more difference e.g road deaths.
1) Target shooting and self defence are both practical uses
legal2) It's a constitutional right - that's as legal as you can possibly get
sensible reason other than "cause we can"3) I'm tempted to give you that one, but see 1
The more guns the more need for self defense and the more need to propagate the fear of being gunned down in your own home to sell anti aircraft weaponry to pensioners...
Target shooting is easy keep guns near the targets
Bunch of spoilt brats anyway.....
It all stems to the constitution, which was admirable. No standing army and the right for armed citizens to ensure the power was held by the people, not the government.
It all went tits up, but it was a good idea at the time.
The time and effort being spent on this would be much better spent on tackling mental health issues. Money spent on identification, treatement and support would have a much greater impact.
It all stems to the constitution, which was admirable. No standing army and the right for armed citizens to ensure the power was held by the people, not the government.It all went tits up, but it was a good idea at the time.
And we all know how basing modern life on ancient bits of paper ends up...
It was fiddling things so they could have a standing army that caused the problem.
The constitution was basically the same as switzerland. They turned out OK.
To be fair to the Americans. If there are 3.5 million weapons already in circulation, then any idea of control is a bit of a moot point
Its like trying to retrospectively legislate against cars
Sorry, but its hard to deny that this looks like fun!
To be fair to the Americans. If there are 3.5 million weapons already in circulation
The number is more like 100x that amount. I found the figure of 310 million in a CNN article which estimated that number as of 2009. So roughly one per person.