Who mentioned the civil rights movement? however, since you brought it up Ernie:
[img] 
[/img]
historical events which are outside most people's lifetime to make your point.
But you chose to ignore the reason why so many of their families fled their home countries and came to the USA - many of them are only first or second generation immigrants, and I made the point that it was the tales of their parents and grandparents and extended families that affected them, not their direct experience.
Zulu straight answer please.
Why do people need assault rifles?
Who said anything about need?
You don't need a 150mph car or a 6" travel full susser to ride round swinley - but the point of being free is that you're allowed to own one if you want one.
Imagine if our society was built around only being allowed to own something if you could demonstrate 'need' for it?
'Can i have a new pair of shoes please?'
'Only if you can prove the old ones are worn out!'
Yep as I thought unable to give a straight answer. Generally new shoes don't kill people
That's the problem with freedom, too much is bad for you. Some people have the same problem with food to complete the circle. Some restrictions are necessary for the good of us all, the needs of the many outweigh the requirements of the few. (This also needs balance to avoid tyranny).
Lol at Zulu!
are you really surprised they are paranoid of government
Z-11.. there's a hell of difference between a flintlock circa the American Revolution & some of the hardware now in circulation. Now, there's nothing wrong with the Americans' age-old suspicion of the Government (although I'll take my cue from [url= http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html ]here[/url], rather than Tea Party nutters), but - frankly - the manner inwhich many of 'em dress up their gun fetish is [i]pathetic[/i]. The near-sexual excitement with which some people talk about resisting The State ("perhaps sir would care to try this RPG... excellent for taking out traffic wardens & low-level admin staff") leads me to suspect that they should get a fugging life.
i see a parallel between gun-deaths in America and road-deaths in Britain.
America could save 30,000 lives a year if they banned guns, and enforced the ban.
Britain could save upto 2000 lives a year if we cut all speed limits by at least 10mph, and enforced the new lower limits.
imagine the (British) lunatics that would crawl out the woodwork to whine louldly about their freedom if we introduced a strict, blanket 40mph limit on all rural roads + a strict, blanket 20mph limit in all residential areas.
The thing that doesn't work (for me) about the car:gun comparison is the 'intent' - I've [b]no[/b] problem with owning a gun for shooting game etc. But, whatever Z-11 says, nobody in civilian life [i]needs[/i] a rapid-fire assault rifle.
hell of difference between a flintlock circa the American Revolution & some of the hardware now in circulation
Well, surely in the 1780's the 'enemy' had essentially the same weapons as well?
Seriously, think about the effect on the American East-European emigree population of watching from the sidelines as their families and friends were murdered in Prague in '68 and Gdansk in '70, and the plastic paddies watching what happened on bloody sunday. The only result was going to be a psychology of 'I'm going to make damn sure that can never happen here'
Then you sit back and look at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and you see their own government confirming their worst fears
Once you get behind that psychology, then you can understand a little more why they are, as a nation, where they are now.
noteeth - MemberThe thing that doesn't work (for me) about the car:gun comparison is the 'intent' - I've no problem with owning a gun for shooting game etc. But, whatever Z-11 says, nobody in civilian life needs a rapid-fire assault rifle.
I cannot agree more with you mate !
However as most magazine fed, self loading rifles can be easily converted to full automatic this would be impossible to control.
America could save 30,000 lives a year if they banned guns, and enforced the ban.
And would the majority of gun-deaths perpetrators i.e recidivist violent criminals submit their weapons to the ban ?
I don't think many people are paranoid of government in quite that sense. Only a few nutjobs seem to bring out that line, and I bet most of them are not descendents of recently oppressed Europeans.
Personal safety is by far the most common argument I've heard - i.e. the criminals all have guns, so how does it make sense for me to give mine up?
There is SOME merit to that point. Not enough to make me pro gun though of course.
Once you get behind that psychology, then you can understand a little more why they are, as a nation, where they are now
I'm (basically) an anglo-irish mongrel with very few US family connections, but it's a source of considerable distress to me that what I think of as the 'other' America (the, y'know, enlightened place that give us so much great literature, music and, uuhh, bike stuff) should also spawn such utter swivel-eyed lunatics. I do agree, though, it's their show - to run as they please. If the consequences include the easy availability of heavy-duty weaponry with which to slaughter children, then so it goes. And on their oh-so-freedom lovin' heads be it.
That said, I want to go back there soon. 😀
Personal safety is by far the most common argument I've heard - i.e. the criminals all have guns, so how does it make sense for me to give mine up?
Agreed - it probably is key for most people, but that's not always how the rhetoric of the gun debate plays out.
Personal safety is by far the most common argument I've heard - i.e. the criminals all have guns, so how does it make sense for me to give mine up?There is SOME merit to that point.
however the flip side is that if you reduce the number of guns overall, then there are less legitimate weapons that become available for 'inappropriate' use.
hold amnesties and prosecute severely for unauthorised possession and eventually you reach a point similar to our situation.
to bring the car analogy in to play again, reduce the number of cars and it will very likely follow that you'll reduce the number of casualties resulting from car use.
Wow big hitters don't even have a break for christmas 😯 Merry Christmas to you all guys-perhaps whack some crap TV on and get drunk. It's cliched but it's got to be better than arguing on here on boxing day!
The car analogy is not really valid as you put it. If you reduce the number of cars, would you reduce the numbers of cars used in crimes? Probably not, as criminals intending to commit a robbery say woudl go out of their way to procure a getaway car.
Simply outlawing certain guns wouldn't solve much, because most people who care about them would simply flout the law.
[i]however the flip side is that if you reduce the number of guns overall, then there are less legitimate weapons that become available for 'inappropriate' use.[/i]
and more importantly, ammunition
Make it $5,000 a bullet.
Hora is Chris Rock and I claim £5 towards a new frame.
True though. The bullets used in Columbine cost 17c each.
This is the first thing I have written about this subject after reading the same argument all over the internet. I have deliberately taken my time.
Far as I can see, the most dangerous thing right now is mis-information in the media. Social media being the largest perpetrator. I have lived in the US for a little over two years now, and constantly hear stories about the "Muslim President" wanting to "take our guns away", and "give citizenship and benefits to the illegals". I've heard about "Somalian terrorist cells", "Russian soldiers in Colorado" (WTF), "they're gonna make us all drive hybrids", "taxation is going to take all our money", "we're going to run out of drinking water" (that one looks like it may be true in many places)...
Anyway, my point being, I don't know how rumors like those start, but they are on the internet and tv (Fox news usually) and are spreading like wildfire. News storied are all turned into propaganda, and even TV shows about apocalyptic scenarios, conspiracies and national security are rife (Walking Dead, Doomsday Preppers, Americans, Homeland, 24). The election was just months of two candidates and their parties slandering each-other and shouting how untrustworthy they are. People are being mislead and are scared. I think that moves some people to do irrational and unpredictable things... Vicious circle...
IF guns of any type were suddenly to be made illegal (which i doubt will happen) it would take decades for even a dent to be made... Few people will surrender any weapons voluntarily, and even if armed soldiers went door-to-door with a list they would get slightly more. Civil war is a term getting thrown around a lot too, but I really don't see U.S. soldiers being given the order to turn on civilians nation-wide, and I doubt many would follow such an order.
In the last week there have been over 3,000,000 AR rifles sold nation-wide due to the RUMOUR that they will be banned. These people aren't buying them so they can be surrendered again. Guns were gifted in this household for Christmas and they probably will be next year too. We aren't praying for a revolution or for zombies, we're not praying for someone to break in some night so we can shoot 'em... We hunt, we go to the range as a family and we just don't want to ever be in the situation that we wish we had them.
Don't know what's going to happen, but we're just going to have to ride it out one way or another...
PS. I don't plan to reply to this, just wanted to add a perspective from this side of the water
The car analogy is not really valid as you put it. If you reduce the number of cars, would you reduce the numbers of cars used in crimes? Probably not, as criminals intending to commit a robbery say would go out of their way to procure a getaway car
but if obtaining a car and possessing one is in itself an offence for which there is serious punishment, it's another hurdle to overcome in the perpetration of your crime. i could take my pick from any number of cars littering the streets right now and ram-raid a jewellers, it would be a relatively straight forward thing to do ( though getting away with it might be more tricky! ) but the prospect of obtaining a gun and holding the jewellers up at gun-point is much more difficult for me.
having a gun available makes shooting people easier. reduce the number of guns and it becomes more difficult, if only because of supply and demand. no?
however the flip side is that if you reduce the number of guns overall, then there are less legitimate weapons that become available for 'inappropriate' use.hold amnesties and prosecute severely for unauthorised possession and eventually you reach a point similar to our situation.
But it only takes a loony with one legally held gun and 10 rounds of ammunition to kill 10 small children in a school.
But it only takes a loony with one legally held gun and 10 rounds of ammunition to kill 10 small children in a school.
But it generally seems to keep happening in the US
So it's not related to the easy supply of guns?
[quote=MrSmith ]
But it only takes a loony with one legally held gun and 10 rounds of ammunition to kill 10 small children in a school.
That's true. But if just one loony fails to find a gun and ammo because it's been made a tiny bit more difficut, that's ten lives saved.
But it generally seems to keep happening in the US
So it's not related to the easy supply of guns?
It happens everywhere, It happens in places with reasonably strict gun control(U.K.) and in places where you can get a gun in 15min with a flash of your I.D/drivers licence.
It will happen again in the next few years but the odds of it happening to your son/daughter are fairly slim so I would rather worry about road safety or health service cuts if I was a rational thinking concerned parent
As I said "seems to [b]keep[/b] happening in the US"
That's true. But if just one loony fails to find a gun and ammo because it's been made a tiny bit more difficut, that's ten lives saved.
If they fail to find a gun they aren't looking hard enough.
Remember the gun death stats are comprised of very different things.
Most of it is gangland shootings. Nutter shooting sprees aren't as common.
having a gun available makes shooting people easier. reduce the number of guns and it becomes more difficult, if only because of supply and demand. no?
How many crimes are NOT committed because the potential perps know that other people are probably armed?
How many crimes are NOT committed because the potential perps know that other people are probably armed?
[img] 
[/img]
back to the arm everyone argument again
in all seriousness why do you need one of these?
[url= http://www.floridaarmory.com/Colt-LE-6920-M4-5.56-Carbine.html ]Colt LE6920 M4 5.56 Law Enforcement Carbine[/url]
Those ducks must be scary....
In other countries a collection of armed people is a militia, in other places under control or direction of a Warlord.
As long as the US wants to shove it's **** down the throat of the rest of the world then we get to point back.
