Sickening. Is this any way to teach morals? Love thy neighbor.

 

I applaud your decision, both of you, to remain unarmed.

 

Thankyou. Your applause means a lot to me. Thankfully of course as we all know I live in Australia, so being unarmed is the default. Almost enforced by law, you could say. And my kids will likely never hold a gun in their entire lives. Nor know the fear wracking US kids every school day. As I said - thank-you.

 

Seriously doubt that kids go to school every day wracked with fear.
Well, maybe fearful what the little red haired girl thinks of them, or if teacher will believe the dog ate their homework, or how tough the math test will be.
But not thinking about whack jobs with guns.

 

How true. It's like buying a lottery ticket. You don't think your gonna win, till you're number is up. The kid's parents understand this lottery.

 

Seriously? You don't get my point. Let me say it again. Take away the AR and the crazy murderer is limited (to the number of people he can slaughter in five minutes). Crazies will always be with us. A new one born every few minutes. Take away the high powered, high capacity long rifle from all of us. We can't handle it.

 

Ok. No more semi automatic rifles.
No extended mags.
A 9 MM or .45 magazine holds a minimum of 8 rounds. Changing mags is very fast.
A shotgun at 10' can kill several people with a single shot. A pump shotgun typically holds 5 rounds and reloads in about 10 seconds.
With speedloaders Shooter used to fire 18 rounds from his .38 S&W in 30 seconds. Accurately.

But banning ARs is the solution?

 

Not a solution, but the AR seems to be the weapon of choice for mass murders. What would y0u select if you wanted to look real cool walking into a mall or a school?

 

granddaughter.
She makes old cool.
Very cool.

Look, if ARs aren't available, like sub machine guns aren't now (they were readily available in the 1930's, weren't they?) Then these whack jobs will take what's available. A 9MM, a .45, a shotgun.
All perfectly legal and readily available. And just as deadly.
Just as deadly.
So when these assholes are using a .45 as their "weapon of choice" we can ban them and that will help, eh?

 

For some reason, I'm having trouble picturing a kid with a 9mm pistol killing as many people as a kid with an AR. Or a kid with a shotgun mowing down as many either. I think you're stretching your argument just a bit too far. So there we are, you and I, gonna jump in the middle of a nest of bad guys in Afghanistan, I grab my AR and you take out your 9mm and tell me it's just as deadly. OK, I'll say. Here we go.

 

Fine. But there's no way to tell ahead of time, with any accuracy, the good guys from the borderline bad guys from the certifiable crazies. Back when airplane highjackings were all the rage, some bright light bulb proposed handing out handguns to all the passengers just in case. Now, sure there are armed plain clothes agents on some planes. Those represent law enforcement, properly trained and authorized to protect civilians. But if arming "someone like Boebert or her kids", as you say, seems like a good idea to protect us all, well then, hush my mouth.

 

Why of course. Those are the faces of the American Taliban taking photos of them and their kids holding assault weapons just like the Afghan Taliban and middle east terrorists do. Its very fitting because the only difference between them is the god they pray to.

 

I'm an athiest, but I'm pretty sure the Christian God and Allah are one and the same.

 

The poster family of the American Taliban.

 

Well, I agree with all you say, except in the USA it actually is a right beyond being a privilege. However, similar to freedom of speech which has it's limitations and restrictions, the fight here is what restrictions need to be imposed to make this country safer.

 

We can't own an RPG and launcher, damn. We can't even own a bazooka for self defense, damn. We can't even own a fully-automatic rifle, well, not quite true. We need a special permit and it's hard to get. Now they want to take away our high-powered semi-automatic rifles and large capacity magazines. If I could find a country in the world that allowed it, I'd move!

 

That's where it should stop though. I could arrive to the US and get a fire arm. I might not know how to use it, might not respect it but fuck it I could get one. But you can't argue that gun control works in other countries. I love shooting of all kinds, but I don't need to own a semi automatic hunting rifle to shoot deer. I don't need to have a handgun outside of a shooting range situation. I don't need a pump action shotgun to shoot clay pigeons. Shooting for me is a sport and a hobby. It taught me respect for the sport.
A more closely monitored gun ownership system, and a lack of semi automatic weapons would reduce killings and mass murders. This is shown in other countries time and time again. You can't deny that fact!

 

Well, we don't need sports cars designed to go faster than any legal speed limit in the US, or a motorcycle capable of speeds and maneuvering that begs to be run illegally.
And other than a drivers license one doesn't need any kind of training to operate either.
There is no background check required to buy a sportscar or motorcycle, just convince the bank you can afford it.

35,000 to 40,000 people die each year in auto accidents.
15,000 to 20,000 people die each year by gun homicide or accident.
20,000 to 25,000 people die each year by gun suicide.

Here's the thing about your "fact" that closely monitored gun ownership would reduce killings and mass murders.
It probably couldn't get past the courts.
That pesky 2nd amendment again.

 

Here's the thing about "closely monitored gun ownership"
When the government knows who has what guns, and how many, and where they are kept it is but a small step to confiscation of those guns.
That is what the 2nd was specifically intended to avoid.

America is a free country and so long as we can own guns, we can expect to remain free.
We have laws to stop the killings and mass murders.
We don't enforce them, at least we don't enforce them aggressively enough.

The problem, in shooter's view, is the whack jobs pulling the trigger.
A much harder problem to address, we can agree.
But taking the easy approach, to control the guns, the magazines, and the ammo doesn't stop the killings.
And if too aggressive, it steps on that pesky 2nd.

 

You really think the government will take away your little 9mm? They got better way to control you if they wish.
Owning a little pisser isn't what keeps us free. It's our vote.
The whack jobs will go on killing. There's no way to stop it. But we can take away the means for them to kill so many at a time.

 

You might want to rethink that @JamesP1989 because you could also get killed in another epidemic we have here in the US. Gun carelessness because we have more gun rights then we have gun sense and responsibility to go with them in this country

British man killed in 'reckless' Georgia shooting

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-surrey-60088087
.

 

"adequate"?
Quick question. How many of those whack jobs legally possessed or made legal purchases of the guns they used to kill people?
Background checks do not reliably identify whackos.
Background checks will not ever reliably identify whackos.
red flag laws are perhaps the good approach, but in the end friends, family and neighbors need to take responsibility when they believe they know someone who is about to go off the rails and start killing people.
So far, they haven't worked all that well, and it's because communities are not yet willing to take responsibility.
They still want the easy answer of "just take all the guns away".
And the government is more than happy to advance that concept.

 

So you're solution is to find the whackos. But, How? You admit background checks will not reliably identify them. I agree. You admit red flag laws may be a good approach. But it seems the country isn't cooperating. Only twenty states have them. So, what do you propose? Hope that friends, family and neighbors take charge of watching each other? Really?

 

I taught my kids gun safety and we had fun at the local rod and gun club. Rule number one: Treat ALL guns as though they are loaded and about to go off.
You say you would choose a trained kid with an illegal gun over an untrained adult. But would you choose a trained illegal adult over a kid packing heat?

 

Its funny how citizens in other countries are happy to combat a problem like guns together, and work toward a solution for the greater good, and America, the so called centre of freedom, is now a place where the greatest killer of their children is the gun, and they are unable to reach the same solution that everyone else reached.

 

"...and work toward a solution for the greater good..."

There we go, let's do it for the greater good.
This is one of those phrases (paying your fair share is another one) that is subjective BS from beginning to end.
Ironically, the greater good seems to ALWAYS be defined as what Liberals want to do to increase the government's power...

 

What I'm not hearing from those who wouldn't agree to limit firearms in the public, is how on Earth to reduce the gun violence, if only the mass shootings, in this country.

 

Then you haven't been paying attention.

 

clever

 

So, shooter says on the one hand "We, the people protect our right...Against our government". And in the same breath, or maybe the next one, "Do you really think Americans would try to take away another Americans right to bear arms?"
@shootersa.... you want to clarify what you're trying to say?

 

@toniter asked, so are you gonna "Hide in your home with an AR when this corrupt government shows up in its tank and RPG?"

I live in a rural Texas county which is home to over 4000 military veterans, of which 99.9% are armed. The county sheriff here's already publicly said he'd not abide a government order to confiscate weapons. There are a whole lot of rural county sheriffs across the country who feel the same way. And there aren't enough armed FBI, IRS, Homeland Security, etc., who can come out of the cities to accomplish this across the country.

Regardless of leadership and technology, wars are always eventually won by men on the ground. These are the men and women who make up the combat arms, the ones who drive the tanks and who shoot manpads (not rpg's). @shootersa is saying it might be a mistake to assume they're gonna just unthinkingly follow the demands of urban liberals who flaunt the 2nd amendment...

 

For sure, it won't be easy, and it won't happen quickly.

 

The meme (if that's what it is) says, "we have the right to bear arms to resist the suspreme power of a corrupt and abusive government". And I'm saying you are no match for the supreme power if that corrupt government turns against you. At the time the amendment was written, you would have had a chance because your muzzle loader was as good as their muzzle loader.

 

I don't think the local, state or federal government has the manpower to disarm the American people. If you're referring to the military, regardless of technology or leadership, in the end the people called upon to do this would be the grunts of the combat arms. And I don't think you can count on them to do this.

Besides, if this were to occur, it would only validate the above meme...

 

You're not the only country with guns my man. But you are the country with the highest gun crime in developed world.
I'd say any country who blindly ignores the destruction done by irresponsible gun owners is a government with either a lack of care for it's citizens or a blinding disregard for morality

 

George Washington? What did he know about high powered, semi-automatic rifled long barrel guns with 100 shot magazines?
And anyway, what you gonna do against a government with evil plans? They'll drop a napalm bomb on your head!

 

I'd say any country who blindly ignores the destruction done by irresponsible gun owners is a government with either a lack of care for it's citizens or a blinding disregard for morality
Ya know, keeping things bottled up inside like you do can cause ailments. I'm glad you got that out.

They'll drop a napalm bomb on your head!
You sir, are a tactical and a strategic genius...

 

One intelligent post after another

 

Like I said. In the developed world. Your argument being that Brazil is above you? Well done America.

 

Yes, well done indeed @shootersa , you continue to try to explain providing corroborating facts to all & sundry who come here & display their lack of knowledge. I'm often amazed at your patience & effort. Anyone with an hour to spend can search the internet & verify that legal gun owners and legal gun ownership are not the cause of the relatively high USA gun-crime stats.

 

But @jelly4wire, although the overwhelming acts of violence (other than suicide and domestic violent shootings which are substantial) are committed with illegal firearms, most of those firearms started out as legally purchased then resold on the black market usually in another state.

 

@toniter , Thanks, I'll do some research into the origins and life-cycle of illegal guns and bone-up on that topic.

 

GUN RIGHTS
Follow above link for what I've found about the origin of illegal guns.

 

Yes. There will always be whackos. Shooter doesn't have to "imagine", remember he used to be a cop. We were trained to always assume there was a weapon. A gun, a knife, a sap, a stick, whatever. And the closer you had to get to your subject, the more caution was required. Rifles and bats we should be able to spot almost on spotting the subject. Inside 10' a knife was as lethal as a gun.

The whackos were the biggest concern. We had a few and they could go off without warning and felt no pain and responded to the world unpredictably. Guns? fuck that, I got one as well. Knives, bats, etc.? Yeah, I have a gun.

 

Good Morning, Vietnam!!!! and you too shooter. I figured you'd be jumping on that post when I said "imagine you're a cop". We're all aware you're the go to guy for all things cop and cop training. An admirable occupation. Happy you made it out the other side.

 

Shooter is happy as well, you know, to have "come out the other side".
Shooter's partner, who also was a commercial airline pilot, told Shooter that being a cop and a pilot were about the same thing; 90% boredom and 10% terror.

But there are others around here with more cop experience, and more recent experience, than Shooters experience.
When Shooter was a cop there were no computers or cell phones and a police department our size that had a teletype was a big deal. Only Shooter and two other cops had bullet proof vests, heavy fucking things, had to buy them ourselves. After Shooter quit being a cop we took Shooters vest to the range and shot it up. Everything but a hollow point .38 and buckshot went right through.

 

Geesh, well it would still stop a crazy mother with nail clippers! I worked with a guy who was a flatfoot cop in Manhatten for just two years. Like you say, some of it was terrifying. But he was disgusted by several of his fellow cops, maybe they were underpaid. Very corrupt, stealing money from the "poor" street drug dealers, even taking their drugs after roughing them up. Oh well, good for you not to have tested the vest on the job.

 

Shooter is more glad than you that he never had to test it.
Shooter never saw or heard of any kind of corruption or police brutality while he was a cop.
Apparently Shooter was lucky in both regards.

Shooter quit when he arrested the mayors son for burglary and the mayor took exception. Shit runs downhill, and when the shit got to Shooter he decided he was done playing cops and robbers.

 

Well then, shooter, if, by your line of thinking, those in the military would never enforce an order to take away our guns, yet the purpose of the second amendment, as you say, is to protect against a government trying to do just that, I'm not following your line of reasoning. Do we need to fear the military taking our guns or not? If the government is a necessary evil, as you say, yet its military would never act to take away our guns, then why do we fear it?

 

So, we need our guns, to protect the evil tending government from making it difficult to own those guns. Ya, whatever you say.

 

Not relevant. There are places where you can buy a gun that you have zero experience with. Besides, you could look those things up if you really wanted an answer. Besides, Chicago's laws are the same as Illinois laws. You only mention Chicago because you still think Chicago has strict gun laws.

 

Fully relevant.
In many states/areas to get a CCW one must pass a background check and complete training. And in those places carrying CCW without a permit is illegal.

Shooter thinks you know that.

 

And yet Chicago still has no special gun laws in place. Not sure why you single out Chicago when our gun laws are the same as the rest of Illinois.

Also, the only requirement for gun ownership in Texas is being 21 and not a felon... There were a couple other points, but nothing major. You need no training or license, and if you go to a gun show and buy from a private dealer, you don't need a background check either.

 

Divert fail.
Whats the requirement to CCW in Illinois?

 

You're more than welcome to look it up, but I know you won't because it would shatter your view that Chicago has strict gun laws.

But it is funny how you demand to talk about Chicago, but bringing up anyone else's gun laws is a diversion.

You are a funny space alien!

 

Manufacturing generates $2 TRILLION annually.
Gun and ammo manufacturing generates $28 BILLION.

Hardly BIG business.

 

What's your threshold to determine if something is big business? Or maybe this is you minimizing things again!