[Closed] The Gun Shop

very hot on safety

Then, he turned to his friend, brandishing the Desert Eagle, and said, "I think this one is more 'me', y'know."

I wanted to pummel him in to the ground.

Now if you had the Beretta on you, you could have acted on this urge.

Going back to the woman who didn't have enough money for classes after buying her gun,
surely they should make these mandatory and a requirement before you are allowed to walk out the door with the gun.

not always true of customers though. i watched a guy looking down the barrel of an AR-15 (which, just for fun had a 99 round extended magazine) then smacking the butt off the ground trying clear the barrel when it jammed using his home-made bullets (the "sports stores" sell diy bullet kits).

There's a guy that will be a statistic soon enough.

As I've had it told to me, some folk in America see it as their duty to uphold their rights. Use it or lose it so to speak.

revs1972 - Member

Going back to the woman who didn't have enough money for classes after buying her gun,
surely they should make these mandatory and a requirement before you are allowed to walk out the door with the gun.

Pfffft, they can't even concede that mental health checks before gun sales would be a good thing. The doctor who makes the determination might be anti-gun.

y they should make these mandatory and a requirement before you are allowed to walk out the door with the gun.

They were very calm, observant with the new customers and very hot on safety.

Up to the point of selling deadly weaponry to strangers that is...

The same could be said for hammers and knives, all are tools, just that guns tend to be able to carry out their job from further away.

The problem here is not with the guns themselves, it is the way that the US culture is so ingrained with their ownership and that nutters can, and do, own them.

*Disclaimer: I own two firearms. One gets used for clay pigeon shooting and one gets used for F-Class TR. I also enjoy shooting pistol when I go to the US because I'm half decent at it and can't shoot it here.

Self fulfilling mutual destruction of an illeducated, socially unaware part of US society. Rich people rarely get shot that's a more interesting statistic however if you are black white or poor...

mental health checks before gun sales would be a good thing

While I'm as facepalmingly against the "right to bear arms" bullshit that legitimises assault rifles under the bed as anyone, that has always struck me as a dumbass response tbh - what exactly are "mental health checks" supposed to be - a questionaire? "Are you dangerously psychopathic?" or do they preclude from ownership anyone who's been to to a doctor at any point with the symptoms of mild depression?

In the case of the latter, all you get is exacerbated mental health problems, because people will be reluctant to go to their doctor with any mental health issues if they know or suspect that their "rights" will be affected.

..500,000 guns in circulation....half a billion guns

Just a clarification point, does anyone happen to know which (if either) of those is the correct figure?

Brainwashed folks.

While I'm as facepalmingly against the "right to bear arms" bullshit that legitimises assault rifles under the bed as anyone, that has always struck me as a dumbass response tbh - what exactly are "mental health checks" supposed to be - a questionaire? "Are you dangerously psychopathic?" or do they preclude from ownership anyone who's been to to a doctor at any point with the symptoms of mild depression?

In the case of the latter, all you get is exacerbated mental health problems, because people will be reluctant to go to their doctor with any mental health issues if they know or suspect that their "rights" will be affected.

It's a very good question, and one of the issues with the UK system, I, and I know of another licence holder, have had ongoing issues with the police after an adult diagnosis of autism, which the police have somehow categorised as a 'mental health issue'

..500,000 guns in circulation....half a billion guns

Just a clarification point, does anyone happen to know which (if either) of those is the correct figure?

Half a billion, or roughly 10 guns per head of population.

Goodness knows where he goes on holiday within driving distance of Minnesota that isn't just like Minnesota.

Most Americans either don't go on holiday or don't leave their state. You don't appreciate how provincial people can be. They relate to their physical landscape completely differently to the way that most people on this forum (as outdoor sportspeople) would do.

"How the US compares: The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 - the most recent year for comparable statistics - was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with just 0.1."

Guns are not readily available or common in the uk. It seems in the States there are guns everywhere.

So being honest thats not really a fair stat, as if we had guns would it be the same? The argument is that nutters are nutters, and will use whatever is at hand if they can't get a gun. That has logic to it.

So by that argument I would say that comparable countries would have comparable deaths by violent crime, so lets say educated developed nations, with a history of immigration, prosperity and other stuff. That would make US, UK and Oz pretty similar - so you would expect the death by violent crime rate to be the same, it's just the US use guns, we use knives and sarcasm.

Death by violence:

US: 5.56 per 100,000
UK: 0.63 per 100,000
Oz: 1.15 per 100,000

So it appears that of the three countries comparable demographics, violent crime is a lot higher where you can easily own a gun.

That comparison breaks down when you look at Canada at 1.88 per 100k - so they are either nicer than comparable countries, or the only thing that really affects it is the yanks just love killing each other.

Whatever the reason it will never change, there are too many guns in circulation and a large proportion of the country see it as their fundamental right to own a gun.Taking that away is just a step too far as far as many are concerned, its a god given right - and no logic will overcome that

willard
The same could be said for hammers and knives, all are tools, just that guns tend to be able to carry out their job from further away.

Sorry, but no, not really. To kill someone with a knife (or a hammer!) takes guts and a physical assault. To shoot someone dead with a gun takes the flex of a finger from 50m away. That's a BIG difference to the average, untrained person with access to a gun, probably making poor decisions in a short time frame. In the UK our firearms officers undergo months (years) of training and continuous assessment, and even that cannot be 100% reliable, mistakes will still be made.

Plenty of people in a fit of anger or fear could shoot someone, i bet a much, much, lower number would have the guts to go up and knife someone at close quarters......

(which is why there are so many "accidental" gun deaths in the USA, where toddlers find a gun and shoot their mum etc).

Its a cultural thing, which is pretty difficult to change.

But we did manage to change the culture of drink driving here in the UK.

It took Australia one tragic event to change their culture: Port Arthur.

Up to the point of selling deadly weaponry to strangers that is...

lots of things are sold for one purpose and then misused by owners, people are licensed and trained in the use of cars and how to safely use them yet 35,000 people are killed by them every year in the U.S.

the only thing that really affects it is the yanks just love killing each other.

As MT ^^ alluded to though, that includes accidental deaths. I can't remember the exact statistics, but isn't it the case that the majority of shootings are accidental (and also, the majority is with their own gun)? I think.

Half a billion, or roughly 10 guns per head of population.

I read somewhere that most guns are owned by people who own the guns. (ie lots of gun owners have loads of guns and there are loads of folks that don't have any at all)

[url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/21/the-average-gun-owner-now-owns-8-guns-double-what-it-used-to-be/?tid=a_inl ]numbers of guns owned has doubled[/url]

Overall, amazing as it may seem, gun ownership in the US is the lowest it's been in a long time

"How many people here keep a cricket bat or something somewhere in the house or the ubiquitous maglite torch in the car for self defense?"

Well, I don't, but that's probably because I'm not paranoid. And therein, we can see the root of the problem. Paranoia. I understand gun ownership per person in other nations is much higher than the USA, but the numbers of deaths attributable to firearms is much lower. So it's not the guns themselves that are the real problem, but the paranoia within a fragmented, disintegrated and dysfunctional society. I would bet that if questioned, most gun owners who cite 'self defence' as a reason for ownership, would be unlikely to believe that such a 'threat' would come from people like themselves. And that that 'threat' would come from 'other' groups. IE whites fearing blacks, etc.

In order to try to understand the paranoia that leads to the acquisition of weapons, it's useful to look at youth gang culture here in the UK. Many kids carry knives because of a sense of fear that other kids may be carrying them, and they want parity. Kids have major issues with feeling inadequate, so will seek ways to be stronger, tougher, more capable, less weak. Knife carrying is far more prevalent amongst kids from less advantaged backgrounds, where there is a far greater sense of dog eat dog and the struggle for 'survival'.

It's the same the world over, throughout history. The key, therefore, is to address inequality and insecurity within society. And with things going the way they are, I doubt we're getting any closer to that at all.

The same could be said for hammers and knives, all are tools, just that guns tend to be able to carry out their job from further away.

All a gun can do is kill and or maim folk, it is its reason for its existence

Its also much harder to knife someone to death or bash their brains in with a hammer than shoot them with a gun ; that is why america has so many more gun murders than knife murders or hammer bashing incidents
Its just a patently false claim of equivalence

In regards to the paranoia on display I find it quite worrying that Americans often refer to 'bad guys' like they are living in a comic book. I've even seen interviews with police officers where they talk about 'catching bad guys'. It sounds to me like the 'bad guy' is some sort of bogeyman that everyone should be afraid of!

That comparison breaks down when you look at Canada at 1.88 per 100k - so they are either nicer than comparable countries, or the only thing that really affects it is the yanks just love killing each other.

Canada is very big and far less densely populated so statistically there is a greater distance between people so they need to be a better shot.

I read somewhere that most guns are owned by people who own the guns. (ie lots of gun owners have loads of guns and there are loads of folks that don't have any at all)

That wouldn't surprise me. If we looked at, oh I don't know, foreign stamp ownership in the UK, you wouldn't find that the majority of people had one or two but rather that those damned philatelists were hoarding them all. Basically it's more akin to having a hobby rather than owning a tool.

I went visiting friends in the US a while back. The son in the family I was staying with was college age. He had his gun collection in a trunk like a tea chest in his bedroom, god knows how many he had, too many to count at a glance. (We pinko Brits insisted that it was padlocked and stayed that way for the duration of our stay.) It's as normalised as having a collection of stuffed toys over here.

Canada is very big and far less densely populated so statistically there is a greater distance between people so they need to be a better shot.

No, clearly they need BIGGER GUNS!!1!

Watching that I couldn't help thinking the majority would have been better investing their $500 in a good bullet proof vest rather than a firearm.

I always though that if someone pointed a pistol at me and said "give me your wallet and phone" I would be much safer just handing them over and being on my way. If I tried to pull out a weapon I would be much more likely to get shot than if I just complied. Therefore Gun ? Safety.

Cougar - Moderator
I read somewhere that most guns are owned by people who own the guns. (ie lots of gun owners have loads of guns and there are loads of folks that don't have any at all)

It seems that the number of households that own a gun has decreased, but of those that do, the number of weapons they own has doubled.

http://www.chron.com/national/article/A-new-estimate-on-how-many-guns-the-average-gun-6584060.php

I used to really enjoy shooting on a range, but accept that in the UK, it is better to have the policies that we have in place than to ever loosen them.

I feel sorry for Obama, i think that he genuinely sought to change guns laws, but the gun lobby is so strong there and he was shouted down every time about by the House of Representatives (think that is correct).

What i don't understand, it is one thing to own a gun for supposed self defence, it is another thing to own an AR15 assault rifle, why can they at least not limit the weapons available, it will not solve the problem, but will at least limit it?

There was a programme on the radio a few weeks ago when the proposal was to let students take guns into school in order to reduce the risk of Columbine like shootings presumably by letting them shoot the aggressor- What could possibly go wrong ?

edlong

that has always struck me as a dumbass response tbh - what exactly are "mental health checks" supposed to be - a questionaire? "Are you dangerously psychopathic?" or do they preclude from ownership anyone who's been to to a doctor at any point with the symptoms of mild depression?

What about someone who suffers from severe depression who has recently tried to kill themselves? What about someone who's bi-polar, schizophrenic or has exhibited some form of violent psychosis or who is dependent on medication to control any of the above? You can't imagine a situation where someone would be less fit to own a gun due to mental health issues?

Even someone with mild depression - is it a good idea to sell them a gun?

In the case of the latter, all you get is exacerbated mental health problems, because people will be reluctant to go to their doctor with any mental health issues if they know or suspect that their "rights" will be affected.

And on the flip side of the coin you have people who know/are known to have psychological problems who have unrestricted access to firearms.

I'm glad I don't live in the US.

And if Trump gets into power...........?

There is definitely something in the US psyche though, there are countries where they have relatively high gun ownership too such as Germany and Switzerland, and whilst i don't agree with it, they don't seem to have the same corresponding gun deaths and spree shootings?

What i hate is the fact that there has been shooting after shooting of children in schools and the response, get more guns! England had Dunblane and there was a mass shooting in Australia, is Tas about 20 years, the response to this, blanket reforms on gun ownership.

What i don't understand, it is one thing to own a gun for supposed self defence, it is another thing to own an AR15 assault rifle, why can they at least not limit the weapons available, it will not solve the problem, but will at least limit it?

Because, like it or not, self defence isn't the reason for the second amendment, whereas limiting government power is

Now, you're welcome to think that is stupid and disagree with it, but you might want to look at the Brexit thread to hear people waxing lyrical about how our government is a fascist tyranny who thinks it can do whatever it wants and making comparisons with the 1930s...

England had Dunblane

Geography fail.

Hungerford is in England.

What i don't understand, it is one thing to own a gun for supposed self defence, it is another thing to own an AR15 assault rifle,

How else are you going to defend yourself from someone with an AK?

perchypanther - Member
England had Dunblane
Geography fail.

Hungerford is in England.

I knew what i meant....

 

jimjam - Member
What i don't understand, it is one thing to own a gun for supposed self defence, it is another thing to own an AR15 assault rifle,
How else are you going to defend yourself from someone with an AK?

I think the idea is that if they didn't allow the sale of assault rifles and their ilk in the first place, that the other person wouldn't have the Ak47 either?

Or if they are deemed necessary for sporting usage, why can they not be restricted to single shot, where they must be left and locked up at the range?

I think the idea is

It was a joke. I was joking. And also trying to be clever.

Hungerford is in England.

I knew what i meant....

jimjam - Member
I think the idea is
It was a joke. I was joking. And also trying to be clever.

I hoped it was, but you might have been one of those sneeky 'merikans coming over here and taking our women and using our forums........

Because, like it or not, self defence isn't the reason for the second amendment, whereas limiting government power is

Amusing.

scud

I hoped it was, but you might have been one of those sneeky 'merikans coming over here and taking our women and using our forums........

If I was you would have already known about it - with bells on. On one of the mainly american forums I frequent this kind of debate is non existent. It could never even happen. The pro gun people, even the moderate ones are literally off the chart in every way compared to the average European. They aren't even remotely concerned with the wheres and hows of "bad guys" terrorists or mentally unstable people getting access to guns because they themselves have their guns.

The gun isn't the problem, it's the solution.

I was in business in Charlotte NC this summer. There was a gun range next to the hotel where I was staying. I haven't fired a gun for 30 years since I left the RAF but I enjoyed it as a skill so spent an hour on the range with a couple of hand guns. Good fun, but I wouldn't want one at home. A hammer is too dangerous for a clutz like me.