RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Australian police foil New Year’s Eve terror - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Australian police foil New Year’s Eve terror Rate Topic: -----

#61 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,756
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 05 December 2017 - 08:03 PM

View PostSARGE, on 05 December 2017 - 05:26 PM, said:

Many Americans believe private citizens are banned from legally owning 'machine guns'/automatic weapons, we aren't. It takes a lot of paperwork, a tax stamp, background check, sheriff approval, and time (a year-don't ask how I know this to be true, but you can own a Stg-44).

A friend got one? :whistling:

This post has been edited by zurg: 05 December 2017 - 08:03 PM

0

#62 User is offline   scotsman 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 15,592
  • Joined: 02-December 03

Posted 06 December 2017 - 07:28 AM

View PostSARGE, on 05 December 2017 - 05:26 PM, said:

Expecting to be attacked by a panzer?

Honestly, I don't understand the problem some here have. You merely dispelled a myth - guns are not banned in Britain and Australia. Are they more restricted, yes. Are they banned, no.

Many Americans believe private citizens are banned from legally owning 'machine guns'/automatic weapons, we aren't. It takes a lot of paperwork, a tax stamp, background check, sheriff approval, and time (a year-don't ask how I know this to be true, but you can own a Stg-44).


Thank you.
0

#63 User is offline   scotsman 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 15,592
  • Joined: 02-December 03

Posted 06 December 2017 - 07:34 AM

View Postzurg, on 05 December 2017 - 04:22 PM, said:

I have no interest in your spat with vector about the pedantics of what "banned" means to each of you. Aussies and Brits have some guns (but less by almost two orders of magnitude relative to Americans, and that's just the legal guns) but strictly speaking, you're correct, not all guns are banned there. The majority culture is one that strongly discourages gun ownership though. So I'll leave it at that. I have no further bone to pick with either of you.

My bone is with your rush to judgment that zero terrorist attacks have been thwarted by civilians with guns here, and that few mass shootings have been stopped by such people. How the heck would we know? 1) the media won't report them, 2) specifically, law enforcement may not want to pubicize thwarted terrorist attacks, 3) what qualifies as a terrorist attack? How far does it need to go before we can call is thus? If one is prevented, then it didn't happen, so how can we judge especially when people don't want to call it that?, 4) same argument for mass shootings. How do we know if a shooter was stopped after only one person died that it wasn't going to be a mass shooting, particularly when the media won't publicize it lest gun proponents get good press?, 5) how about the total number of small shootings avoided? A small number times a big number can be a pretty big number, larger than a mass shooting number in fact.

That's my beef with your propaganda.


Sorry, but as a Brit, I don't by and large follow the media you do, even though I have access to it. I don't read religiously US papers/read them online, I don't watch a great deal of NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS or even Fox. I have no interest in what Olbermann, Cooper, Hannity or Wolf think. If there is a mass/spree shoot in the US or anywhere, the UK media* will simply report it. So your argument to me re propaganda tbh isn't one when you are speaking to a furrner.

And I am not dealing in propaganda. A---I am a Brit, not American. B--I am PRO-gun and PRO-2nd. Your gun control laws are up to you. Why would I be indulging in propaganda on an issue where I AGREE with you?.

*Of course some of the UK is liberal, some very liberal, but then some are conservative, very conservative.

This post has been edited by scotsman: 06 December 2017 - 07:50 AM

0

#64 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,503
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 06 December 2017 - 10:04 AM

View Postscotsman, on 06 December 2017 - 07:34 AM, said:

Sorry, but as a Brit, I don't by and large follow the media you do, even though I have access to it. I don't read religiously US papers/read them online, I don't watch a great deal of NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS or even Fox. I have no interest in what Olbermann, Cooper, Hannity or Wolf think. If there is a mass/spree shoot in the US or anywhere, the UK media* will simply report it. So your argument to me re propaganda tbh isn't one when you are speaking to a furrner.

And I am not dealing in propaganda. A---I am a Brit, not American. B--I am PRO-gun and PRO-2nd. Your gun control laws are up to you. Why would I be indulging in propaganda on an issue where I AGREE with you?.

*Of course some of the UK is liberal, some very liberal, but then some are conservative, very conservative.


I can say the much the same as an American, I have a respect and actually like the British people. But, at the same time I neither obsess over the affairs of the British people and don't know a whole lot about things over their. Where I take issue is when something is mis represented or something is represented in a manner that people refuse to understand why something which may not be correct is viewed as true. Do you believe or did you believe Japan allows for private gun ownership? Explain. Keep in mind that Japan's laws are very similar to those of Australia as well as Britain.

How do you call yourself pro gun but believe in restricting ownership of guns solely because of who they where intended for? Are aircraft banned from ownership because they where originally made for Military use and had guns attached? Or because the aircraft was designed to carry and drop bombs? Do we ban things based solely on their intended use or how they could be used?

Oki
0

#65 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,756
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 06 December 2017 - 11:10 AM

View Postscotsman, on 06 December 2017 - 07:34 AM, said:

Sorry, but as a Brit, I don't by and large follow the media you do, even though I have access to it. I don't read religiously US papers/read them online, I don't watch a great deal of NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS or even Fox. I have no interest in what Olbermann, Cooper, Hannity or Wolf think. If there is a mass/spree shoot in the US or anywhere, the UK media* will simply report it. So your argument to me re propaganda tbh isn't one when you are speaking to a furrner.

And I am not dealing in propaganda. A---I am a Brit, not American. B--I am PRO-gun and PRO-2nd. Your gun control laws are up to you. Why would I be indulging in propaganda on an issue where I AGREE with you?.

*Of course some of the UK is liberal, some very liberal, but then some are conservative, very conservative.

The issue is simply this.

You objected strongly to the ABSOLUTE statement that "guns are banned in Australia". My opinion is that you're literally speaking correct, they aren't banned. But they are more severely restricted than in the US by a substantial margin.

Now I, in return, object to the ABSOLUTE statement that individual civilians with guns have never stopped a terrorist act and have very rarely stopped a mass shooting. You have been shown to be wrong on most of that statement, if not all of it. At the very least, reasonable doubt has been raised to your statement, with extremely good reasoning.

If you stick with your ABSOLUTE interpretation of the word "ban", then you must accept my/our ABSOLUTE interpretation of the word "never".

I object to your logical inconsistency. That's all, but it's a significant objection because it contains an agenda. "Propaganda" may be too strong a word for it, but it's bias. It's not fully truthful.

This post has been edited by zurg: 06 December 2017 - 11:11 AM

0

#66 User is offline   scotsman 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 15,592
  • Joined: 02-December 03

Posted 06 December 2017 - 11:57 AM

View Postzurg, on 06 December 2017 - 11:10 AM, said:

The issue is simply this.

You objected strongly to the ABSOLUTE statement that "guns are banned in Australia". My opinion is that you're literally speaking correct, they aren't banned. But they are more severely restricted than in the US by a substantial margin.

Now I, in return, object to the ABSOLUTE statement that individual civilians with guns have never stopped a terrorist act and have very rarely stopped a mass shooting. You have been shown to be wrong on most of that statement, if not all of it. At the very least, reasonable doubt has been raised to your statement, with extremely good reasoning.

If you stick with your ABSOLUTE interpretation of the word "ban", then you must accept my/our ABSOLUTE interpretation of the word "never".

I object to your logical inconsistency. That's all, but it's a significant objection because it contains an agenda. "Propaganda" may be too strong a word for it, but it's bias. It's not fully truthful.


As far as I am aware, none have. I am happy to be corrected.

As re mass shootings, other RN'ers have pointed out a few cases (12 or so), I did say few not none, so in the grand scheme, 12-15 is few compared to the dozens of mass/spree/school shootings in the US from the 60s and Whitman to today and Las Vegas. Thank god for those 12/15/20, though. Again, I am happy to see that even a few times such horrors are stopped.

I have no agenda. I am a UK gun owner for nearly 30 yrs, oppose bad gun laws, support their repeals. I have campaigned since 1996 on such, and did so again last year against a Scottish Govt plan for licences for airguns. I am PRO-gun, I am PRO-2nd. I am on your side!.

This post has been edited by scotsman: 06 December 2017 - 12:19 PM

0

#67 User is offline   scotsman 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 15,592
  • Joined: 02-December 03

Posted 06 December 2017 - 12:18 PM

View Postoki, on 06 December 2017 - 10:04 AM, said:

I can say the much the same as an American, I have a respect and actually like the British people. But, at the same time I neither obsess over the affairs of the British people and don't know a whole lot about things over their. Where I take issue is when something is mis represented or something is represented in a manner that people refuse to understand why something which may not be correct is viewed as true. Do you believe or did you believe Japan allows for private gun ownership? Explain. Keep in mind that Japan's laws are very similar to those of Australia as well as Britain.

How do you call yourself pro gun but believe in restricting ownership of guns solely because of who they where intended for? Are aircraft banned from ownership because they where originally made for Military use and had guns attached? Or because the aircraft was designed to carry and drop bombs? Do we ban things based solely on their intended use or how they could be used?

Oki


I am pro-gun, I am also a very pragmatic person. You, from what I see, basically want any gun you want, no questions asked. And you believe that any pro-gunner shouldn't think about their right and simply accept it and impose it on others. I don't. You are very defensive if I may say on the gun issue and treat the 2nd Am as an almost religious text. I don't. Again, the right to bear arms is not a sanction from God, its a right that should be balanced against other things. The right to safety, the rights of others, what mass ownership can do to a society, and as we see in your country, the price paid. You have the right to own more guns than anyone else on the planet, and do so. And you also have the worst gun violence in the Western world, more than the rest of us combined. We, as nation of 65m, have approx. 100 deaths a year to guns, you have 30000, with five times our population. You have to balance the rights with the responsibilities and the results.

Does that mean I think guns are wrong and the 2nd is wrong. NO. What I believe strongly that you should have that right and that the 2nd Amendment is a right you should never give up. But its one that equally cannot be treated as a sacred text and subject to no discussion. Its a text written nearly 250 yrs ago, and you should always debate how relevant it is to the times you live in. If it passes that test, move on. Debate it at a future time, and so forth and so forth. The American of 2017 has access to weapons not even thought of in the late 1700's. To debate an issue does not mean weakness of resolve or belief.

As a gun owner of 30 yrs, and former (reserve) forces, I know the damage a gun can do and what it can do in the hands of the wrong people. I am also equally aware of the rights of the people in the UK to own a gun, and the rights that have been chipped away at. Unlike the US (by and large). I believe the civilian Brit should have the right to own a handgun, rifle, shotgun, certain semi-auto 'assault weapons' and 'straight pull' versions of the AK, M16, AR15 and others. That I also believe civilian Brits should NOT be able to own a full-auto assault weapon, a machine gun, and a Milan anti-tank weapon, all of which I used in my semi-military service, does not imo mean I am any less pro-gun or pro-freedom than you. It simply means I am pragmatic about the wishes of the UK public, the wishes of the UK gun community, myself as an individual (both civilian and gun owner) and the role of guns in UK society, the laws of the land re guns. Just because you can does not mean you should.

As re the UK, guns have a much less and much different part of the culture and history of our nation as opposed to the US. That the US and UK have different outlooks and ideas on guns is not right or wrong, its just different. Differences in culture, history, laws. If the US way suits the US, cool. If our way suits ours, cool. Horses for courses.
0

#68 User is offline   scotsman 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 15,592
  • Joined: 02-December 03

Posted 06 December 2017 - 12:31 PM

View Postoki, on 06 December 2017 - 10:04 AM, said:

I can say the much the same as an American, I have a respect and actually like the British people. But, at the same time I neither obsess over the affairs of the British people and don't know a whole lot about things over their. Where I take issue is when something is mis represented or something is represented in a manner that people refuse to understand why something which may not be correct is viewed as true. Do you believe or did you believe Japan allows for private gun ownership? Explain. Keep in mind that Japan's laws are very similar to those of Australia as well as Britain.

How do you call yourself pro gun but believe in restricting ownership of guns solely because of who they where intended for? Are aircraft banned from ownership because they where originally made for Military use and had guns attached? Or because the aircraft was designed to carry and drop bombs? Do we ban things based solely on their intended use or how they could be used?

Oki


yes, teacher. LOL

Yes, I do know the laws of the major nations re guns.
0

#69 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,503
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 06 December 2017 - 12:57 PM

View Postscotsman, on 06 December 2017 - 12:31 PM, said:

yes, teacher. LOL

Yes, I do know the laws of the major nations re guns.



The question was do you or did you believe guns to be banned from private ownership in Japan? Popular narrative as well as law can lead a person to believe something which is either inaccurate or completely untrue. IE some people still think the German Autobahn is a no speed limits roadway.
When laws are incredibly restrictive they perform a defacto type of banning because ownership is so low it can be safely assumed a person won't have it, at least not legally. Also, how can someone be pro gun but only if it's the types of guns they think are okay?

As I said that's like calling yourself pro car ownership but only if it's the type of cars you agree with. No large Army Trucks or Commercial vehicles, no sports cars, only the type you think are okay.

Oki
0

#70 User is offline   scotsman 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 15,592
  • Joined: 02-December 03

Posted 06 December 2017 - 01:05 PM

View Postoki, on 06 December 2017 - 12:57 PM, said:

The question was do you or did you believe guns to be banned from private ownership in Japan? Popular narrative as well as law can lead a person to believe something which is either inaccurate or completely untrue. IE some people still think the German Autobahn is a no speed limits roadway.
When laws are incredibly restrictive they perform a defacto type of banning because ownership is so low it can be safely assumed a person won't have it, at least not legally. Also, how can someone be pro gun but only if it's the types of guns they think are okay?

As I said that's like calling yourself pro car ownership but only if it's the type of cars you agree with. No large Army Trucks or Commercial vehicles, no sports cars, only the type you think are okay.

Oki


Mate, we aren't going to see 100% eye to eye on this issue. 95% probably, but not 100%.
You have your opinion, I have mine. And we need justify neither to each other nor anyone else.
0

#71 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,503
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 06 December 2017 - 02:21 PM

View Postscotsman, on 06 December 2017 - 12:18 PM, said:

I am pro-gun, I am also a very pragmatic person. You, from what I see, basically want any gun you want, no questions asked. And you believe that any pro-gunner shouldn't think about their right and simply accept it and impose it on others. I don't. You are very defensive if I may say on the gun issue and treat the 2nd Am as an almost religious text. I don't. Again, the right to bear arms is not a sanction from God, its a right that should be balanced against other things. The right to safety, the rights of others, what mass ownership can do to a society, and as we see in your country, the price paid. You have the right to own more guns than anyone else on the planet, and do so. And you also have the worst gun violence in the Western world, more than the rest of us combined. We, as nation of 65m, have approx. 100 deaths a year to guns, you have 30000, with five times our population. You have to balance the rights with the responsibilities and the results.

Does that mean I think guns are wrong and the 2nd is wrong. NO. What I believe strongly that you should have that right and that the 2nd Amendment is a right you should never give up. But its one that equally cannot be treated as a sacred text and subject to no discussion. Its a text written nearly 250 yrs ago, and you should always debate how relevant it is to the times you live in. If it passes that test, move on. Debate it at a future time, and so forth and so forth. The American of 2017 has access to weapons not even thought of in the late 1700's. To debate an issue does not mean weakness of resolve or belief.

As a gun owner of 30 yrs, and former (reserve) forces, I know the damage a gun can do and what it can do in the hands of the wrong people. I am also equally aware of the rights of the people in the UK to own a gun, and the rights that have been chipped away at. Unlike the US (by and large). I believe the civilian Brit should have the right to own a handgun, rifle, shotgun, certain semi-auto 'assault weapons' and 'straight pull' versions of the AK, M16, AR15 and others. That I also believe civilian Brits should NOT be able to own a full-auto assault weapon, a machine gun, and a Milan anti-tank weapon, all of which I used in my semi-military service, does not imo mean I am any less pro-gun or pro-freedom than you. It simply means I am pragmatic about the wishes of the UK public, the wishes of the UK gun community, myself as an individual (both civilian and gun owner) and the role of guns in UK society, the laws of the land re guns. Just because you can does not mean you should.

As re the UK, guns have a much less and much different part of the culture and history of our nation as opposed to the US. That the US and UK have different outlooks and ideas on guns is not right or wrong, its just different. Differences in culture, history, laws. If the US way suits the US, cool. If our way suits ours, cool. Horses for courses.



No Scottsman, I understand that when you can restrict one type of firearm then it easily opens the door to the next and the next. I also understand that 'types of guns' is incredibly misleading and tends to show a lack of understanding about firearms. I also know that the moment politicians can start 'tailoring' rights it will eventually lead to suppression and denial of more rights. Worse, many people will go right along with it because they are convinced it's in their best interests and will provide an increased level of peace, safety or prosperity. Our 2nd Amendment was put into place because our founders understood the importance of people being able to arm themselves and knew it was the best method to keep government in check and from becoming oppressive.

Your 30,000 number proves to me that you don't have all the facts. About 2/3 of those are suicides. 2014 is the last numbers I know of the top of my head. Of the 11,000 deaths classified as homicides in this country about 9,900 where with a firearm. I have never once downplayed this number, only spoken that the bulk of this is happening in key cities. Yeah, it's a part of the United States no question. But, there are extremes in the exact opposite here as well, what cities in the U.K. or Britain can boast 12 (6 of which where with a firearm) murders in 30 plus years? Any? How about a town of about 30-35,000 much less one that requires every household to have at least one working firearm? The place is called Kennesaw Georgia.
Even Japan can't claim this. Crack down on the criminals lock up the crazies and enforce the laws on the books and the problem will fix itself real quick.



You speak of being able to own 'certain semi auto rifles' but not AR or AK types. So what's your definition of certain semi auto types? What's the criteria, not originally made for the military?
Is an M1 Garand okay but not a original AR-15? And why? You do realize the round fired from an M1 is going to do far greater damage than that of the AR-15 right? By the way, 'Anti Tank' weapons typically involve an explosive, whole different story and classification.

The idea that our founding fathers never thought of something is in fact one of the favorite tactics of the anti gun groups. Do you honestly believe that the same people who started this nation never thought of a gun that could fire multiple times before needing to be reloaded? Ever heard of the Puckle gun? If you believe this idea then we should have controls on everything from free speech to mass communications. Certainly they never thought of the Internet, Television or Radio. Being able to talk to someone on the other side of town much less world was unimaginable, much less someone being able to co ordinate an attack from thousands of miles away.

By the way, Gun 'owner' for over 30 years as well. Shooting since I can remember, experience includes 9 years Active Duty (Army). Claymore anti personal mines, M204 Grenade Launchers, M16A1, A2, and even some quality time in my first Army job M.L.R.S. On the civilian side 12 Gauge Shotguns, .22LR, 9MM, .40 S&W, .44 Magnum and .45 A.C.P. Pistols. Rifles to include numerous 5.56 chambered AR-15's, a few M-14's, 7.62X54R(Mosin Nagant), 30.06, 7.62X39(AK-47), 7.7X58(Jap) Type 99 Arisaka, .22 LR, .177, .45 Muzzle loader Rifle(Kentucky Long Rifle).

Part of our blood has been to be very distrustful of our own Government, not only is it what our founders wanted, it has served us well. World history has been another great teacher as well. Yes, guns have a different role in our society, between hunting, right to self defense, helping to put the fear of God in elected officials and Police, as well as making hostile governments think twice about invasion, it has served us quite well. If you think this is all hyperbole then ask yourself when was the last time Switzerland was invaded.

You stated mass shootings have not been stopped by armed citizens, again, both I and others provided links proving this false. There have been numerous cases. Plus the idea that banning certain types of guns will stop mass shootings or make them less deadly only proves a catastrophic lack of firearms knowledge. Rate of fire, capacity, are irrelevant when you have victims with no way to fight back or escape route. As a person is shooting one at a time and not necessarily rapidly, rate of fire becomes irrelevant. Capacity is irrelevant because A. who is counting how many bullets are fired, B. the average person is neither fast enough to cover the distance to try and take down a shooter or necessarily strong enough. AND C. the shooter may very well have a 2nd Firearm, even an antique or home made single shot. Plus, the average 'assault rifle' shoots a round far less powerful then most hunting rifles or even antique military rifles(often one in the same). IE a 1940 Mosin Nagant using surplus ammo would actually be worse in a mass shooting for the fact that it's a much higher power round that could effectively kill two people at close range. Same thing with ANY higher powered bolt action rifle as well.

This misinformation(typically intentional) is a huge part of the problem and even many gun owners by into it.

Oki
0

#72 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,503
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 06 December 2017 - 02:23 PM

View Postscotsman, on 06 December 2017 - 01:05 PM, said:

Mate, we aren't going to see 100% eye to eye on this issue. 95% probably, but not 100%.
You have your opinion, I have mine. And we need justify neither to each other nor anyone else.



I actually enjoy talking even arguing with others of a different opinion. It's when those opinions are formed from false info or narratives that I take issue. Just as people here have a false narrative about gun ownership in the U.K. many in the U.K. (and here as well) have a false narrative about both crime and guns in general here. IE the 30,000 dead from guns crap. The vast majority is from suicides, not accidents, and not murder.


Oki
0

#73 User is offline   scotsman 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 15,592
  • Joined: 02-December 03

Posted 06 December 2017 - 04:29 PM

View Postoki, on 06 December 2017 - 02:23 PM, said:

I actually enjoy talking even arguing with others of a different opinion. It's when those opinions are formed from false info or narratives that I take issue. Just as people here have a false narrative about gun ownership in the U.K. many in the U.K. (and here as well) have a false narrative about both crime and guns in general here. IE the 30,000 dead from guns crap. The vast majority is from suicides, not accidents, and not murder.


Oki


I am well aware that 30000 die from guns but aren't murdered. Go back and read any post from me on US guns, I always make clear that figure is of all deaths, inc suicide and accident.

On murder, 10000 or 15000 is still a horrible number. No other western nation comes close. The UK has 700-800 murders a year, and about 100 are gun related, and we are 65 million people.
0

#74 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,756
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 06 December 2017 - 04:32 PM

View Postscotsman, on 06 December 2017 - 11:57 AM, said:

As far as I am aware, none have. I am happy to be corrected.

As re mass shootings, other RN'ers have pointed out a few cases (12 or so), I did say few not none, so in the grand scheme, 12-15 is few compared to the dozens of mass/spree/school shootings in the US from the 60s and Whitman to today and Las Vegas. Thank god for those 12/15/20, though. Again, I am happy to see that even a few times such horrors are stopped.

I have no agenda. I am a UK gun owner for nearly 30 yrs, oppose bad gun laws, support their repeals. I have campaigned since 1996 on such, and did so again last year against a Scottish Govt plan for licences for airguns. I am PRO-gun, I am PRO-2nd. I am on your side!.

As I said before, we haven't even defined terrorism, and you say there's been no stops by civilian gun holders. How do we know that zero terrorist attacks were stopped by gun holders? We don't until this is pursued further. Thus your statement isn't a fact, it opinion.

You admitted that some mass shootings have been stopped, but you weren't expecting the number to be as high as it is. Thus you didn't have the fact, you had an opinion .

And then you're not counting the relatively large number of small victim count shooting attempts where a civilian gun holder saved the day.

You don't get to have artistic license on your use of the language if you don't allow others the same courtesy.

This post has been edited by zurg: 06 December 2017 - 04:33 PM

0

#75 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,503
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 06 December 2017 - 04:49 PM

View Postscotsman, on 06 December 2017 - 04:29 PM, said:

I am well aware that 30000 die from guns but aren't murdered. Go back and read any post from me on US guns, I always make clear that figure is of all deaths, inc suicide and accident.

On murder, 10000 or 15000 is still a horrible number. No other western nation comes close. The UK has 700-800 murders a year, and about 100 are gun related, and we are 65 million people.



Still wanna' know what guns exactly you think are okay to own, do explain your reasoning why. Which towns in the U.K. of 30,000 have had 12 or less murders in the last 30 years, or why you would say '30,000 die from guns' instead of 9,900 are murdered with them. Why include those who intentionally take their lives in the same grouping as those who are murdered? Yes, the U.K. has less of a murder and gun murder problem then here. Again though, would you accept me calling the entire U.K. dangerous because the city of London skewers the numbers? What about the non gun murders? How about suicides not committed here with a firearm? Or the fact that there are numerous places in the U.S. which are as safe or safer then anywhere in the world. Most of which do not have insane Gun laws.

Your a gun owner, why ban the ownership of one gun but another is okay. What makes a semi auto assault rifle so much more deadly then a shotgun.
Should guns be banned based on what or who they where designed for?

Oki
0

#76 User is offline   scotsman 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 15,592
  • Joined: 02-December 03

Posted 06 December 2017 - 04:53 PM

View Postoki, on 06 December 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

No Scottsman, I understand that when you can restrict one type of firearm then it easily opens the door to the next and the next. I also understand that 'types of guns' is incredibly misleading and tends to show a lack of understanding about firearms. I also know that the moment politicians can start 'tailoring' rights it will eventually lead to suppression and denial of more rights. Worse, many people will go right along with it because they are convinced it's in their best interests and will provide an increased level of peace, safety or prosperity. Our 2nd Amendment was put into place because our founders understood the importance of people being able to arm themselves and knew it was the best method to keep government in check and from becoming oppressive.

Your 30,000 number proves to me that you don't have all the facts. About 2/3 of those are suicides. 2014 is the last numbers I know of the top of my head. Of the 11,000 deaths classified as homicides in this country about 9,900 where with a firearm. I have never once downplayed this number, only spoken that the bulk of this is happening in key cities. Yeah, it's a part of the United States no question. But, there are extremes in the exact opposite here as well, what cities in the U.K. or Britain can boast 12 (6 of which where with a firearm) murders in 30 plus years? Any? How about a town of about 30-35,000 much less one that requires every household to have at least one working firearm? The place is called Kennesaw Georgia.
Even Japan can't claim this. Crack down on the criminals lock up the crazies and enforce the laws on the books and the problem will fix itself real quick.


IE a 1940 Mosin Nagant using surplus ammo would actually be worse in a mass shooting for the fact that it's a much higher power round that could effectively kill two people at close range. Same thing with ANY higher powered bolt action rifle as well.

You speak of being able to own 'certain semi auto rifles' but not AR or AK types. So what's your definition of certain semi auto types? What's the criteria, not originally made for the military?
Is an M1 Garand okay but not a original AR-15? And why? You do realize the round fired from an M1 is going to do far greater damage than that of the AR-15 right? By the way, 'Anti Tank' weapons typically involve an explosive, whole different story and classification.

The idea that our founding fathers never thought of something is in fact one of the favorite tactics of the anti gun groups. Do you honestly believe that the same people who started this nation never thought of a gun that could fire multiple times before needing to be reloaded? Ever heard of the Puckle gun? If you believe this idea then we should have controls on everything from free speech to mass communications. Certainly they never thought of the Internet, Television or Radio. Being able to talk to someone on the other side of town much less world was unimaginable, much less someone being able to co ordinate an attack from thousands of miles away.

By the way, Gun 'owner' for over 30 years as well. Shooting since I can remember, experience includes 9 years Active Duty (Army). Claymore anti personal mines, M204 Grenade Launchers, M16A1, A2, and even some quality time in my first Army job M.L.R.S. On the civilian side 12 Gauge Shotguns, .22LR, 9MM, .40 S&W, .44 Magnum and .45 A.C.P. Pistols. Rifles to include numerous 5.56 chambered AR-15's, a few M-14's, 7.62X54R(Mosin Nagant), 30.06, 7.62X39(AK-47), 7.7X58(Jap) Type 99 Arisaka, .22 LR, .177, .45 Muzzle loader Rifle(Kentucky Long Rifle).

Part of our blood has been to be very distrustful of our own Government, not only is it what our founders wanted, it has served us well. World history has been another great teacher as well. Yes, guns have a different role in our society, between hunting, right to self defense, helping to put the fear of God in elected officials and Police, as well as making hostile governments think twice about invasion, it has served us quite well. If you think this is all hyperbole then ask yourself when was the last time Switzerland was invaded.

You stated mass shootings have not been stopped by armed citizens, again, both I and others provided links proving this false. There have been numerous cases. Plus the idea that banning certain types of guns will stop mass shootings or make them less deadly only proves a catastrophic lack of firearms knowledge. Rate of fire, capacity, are irrelevant when you have victims with no way to fight back or escape route. As a person is shooting one at a time and not necessarily rapidly, rate of fire becomes irrelevant. Capacity is irrelevant because A. who is counting how many bullets are fired, B. the average person is neither fast enough to cover the distance to try and take down a shooter or necessarily strong enough. AND C. the shooter may very well have a 2nd Firearm, even an antique or home made single shot. Plus, the average 'assault rifle' shoots a round far less powerful then most hunting rifles or even antique military rifles(often one in the same).
This misinformation(typically intentional) is a huge part of the problem and even many gun owners by into it.

Oki


I have the facts, thanks.

As I repeat, I know 2/3 or at the very least 1/2 are not murders. That misses the fact that 30000 all told is a terrible number. Tragic, be it murder or accident or suicide.

I could find a few smaller cities that have less than 12. As for larger, Glasgow (a notoriously hard city) for example (pop 3/4m) had just 14 murders last year. 12 may be low to you, but its not to us.

Just to clarify, the UK allows semi-auto up to and inc .22 and .223 calibre. I would keep it at that. We aren't allowed to own full auto after 1988, but can own the same weapon if its built as straight pull. In fact, next year, finances holding up, I will be buying myself one or two straight pulls, probably one new and one seccnd hand. New is usually nearer to 2000, second hand can be 500-1500. Although this week I just spotted a lovely new Saiga Russian at a very reasonable £800. I just spent £100 this week on a Hi Power replica.

I agree. As you can see, I support you and I support the 2nd. All I said was don't treat it as a sacred religious text. Debate it, its so robust that its survived nearly 250 yrs. It was written by Man, not God. Its not a text from God, its written by falliable men. Its right to debate it, without either side thinking each other are gun nuts or pu*sy liberals. Or that one side are God's own patriots and the other traitors and vice-versa.

NOPE. Another RN'er who misread me. I said (to my knowledge) that no terrorist attack in the US has been stopped by a civilian armed with their guns. I didn't say civilians hadn't and don't stop mass shootings, what I clearly said was that they are a small number and the exception to the rule. That the sad long history of mass/spree/school shootings in the US shows that sadly most haven't been stopped.

That may be the case, but I assume that's not aimed at me. I am secure in my 30 years+ of knowledge. Civilian and semi-military. Nearer to 40, as I have had an interest in guns since I was 5. What wee boy didn't run around with their cheap plastic guns. But I and my brother always took an actual interest in what the make was. Thankfully I have a father and family who are also into guns and were ex forces with WW2 experience. That £1 gun I ran about with in 1980 wasn't just a plastic toy, I took an actual interest in the fact it was a 'PPK', what that meant, who was Walther. I'm a bit of nerd when a subject takes my fancy. LOL
0

#77 User is offline   scotsman 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 15,592
  • Joined: 02-December 03

Posted 06 December 2017 - 04:56 PM

View Postzurg, on 06 December 2017 - 04:32 PM, said:

As I said before, we haven't even defined terrorism, and you say there's been no stops by civilian gun holders. How do we know that zero terrorist attacks were stopped by gun holders? We don't until this is pursued further. Thus your statement isn't a fact, it opinion.

You admitted that some mass shootings have been stopped, but you weren't expecting the number to be as high as it is. Thus you didn't have the fact, you had an opinion .

And then you're not counting the relatively large number of small victim count shooting attempts where a civilian gun holder saved the day.

You don't get to have artistic license on your use of the language if you don't allow others the same courtesy.


And I said that if I was shown to be in error, I would happily admit so. That remark remember was a general point from the earlier debate re civilians doing or not doing something in incidents like Lee Rigby, Nice, Las Vegas.

Yes, I do, its my language. :P
0

#78 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,503
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 06 December 2017 - 05:07 PM

View Postzurg, on 06 December 2017 - 04:32 PM, said:

As I said before, we haven't even defined terrorism, and you say there's been no stops by civilian gun holders. How do we know that zero terrorist attacks were stopped by gun holders? We don't until this is pursued further. Thus your statement isn't a fact, it opinion.

You admitted that some mass shootings have been stopped, but you weren't expecting the number to be as high as it is. Thus you didn't have the fact, you had an opinion .

And then you're not counting the relatively large number of small victim count shooting attempts where a civilian gun holder saved the day.

You don't get to have artistic license on your use of the language if you don't allow others the same courtesy.



Although this didn't happen here, it was none the less an armed civilian
https://learnaboutgu...-armed-citizen/

As reported, a terrorist in Israel used a construction vehicle to ram a bus and a police car, injuring multiple people. The police car was then flipped over by the terrorist, who proceeded to try and crush car with the construction vehicle’s front shovel. Luckily, an armed taxi driver was able to draw his pistol and fire four shots, which wounded the terrorist before he could kill the cops. A police officer later appeared and fatally shot the terrorist with an M-16.



https://www.cnbc.com...ter-terror.html
Not like this guy would know something about the subject right?

Oki
0

#79 User is offline   scotsman 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 15,592
  • Joined: 02-December 03

Posted 06 December 2017 - 05:11 PM

View Postoki, on 06 December 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

Still wanna' know what guns exactly you think are okay to own, do explain your reasoning why. Which towns in the U.K. of 30,000 have had 12 or less murders in the last 30 years, or why you would say '30,000 die from guns' instead of 9,900 are murdered with them. Why include those who intentionally take their lives in the same grouping as those who are murdered? Yes, the U.K. has less of a murder and gun murder problem then here. Again though, would you accept me calling the entire U.K. dangerous because the city of London skewers the numbers? What about the non gun murders? How about suicides not committed here with a firearm? Or the fact that there are numerous places in the U.S. which are as safe or safer then anywhere in the world. Most of which do not have insane Gun laws.

Your a gun owner, why ban the ownership of one gun but another is okay. What makes a semi auto assault rifle so much more deadly then a shotgun.
Should guns be banned based on what or who they where designed for?

Oki


GUNS: I base my opinion on what guns are owned in the UK, whats banned, what gun owners think, what the public thinks. It may not be what YOU want, but its a pragmatic opinion based on what I know and believe is and will be legal/illegal in the UK. What laws may be repealed or refined, and what ones wont be changed. For example, I would like semi-autos to be legal for us legal owners beyond .22 and .223, but I also know that's unlikely to happen. And full auto aint never gonna happen. I strongly support the repeal of the handgun ban. Kneejerk and inconsistent as parts of the UK ban them and others don't. I can travel just 12 miles from Argyll across the Irish Sea to NI and its legal. Stupid.

In a perfect world, everything would be legal. But it isn't and isn't going to be, so I pick my battles and I am pragmatic.

VIOLENCE:

Isnt ANY death by a firearm a tragedy?. Its either the taking of one's life, the taking of another's life or a tragic accident. 30,000 deaths by gun in the US is by any matter a tragedy, even if all were NON-murder.

The UK?. 65 MILLION people, last year 574 murders. About 90-100 by gun. 120 or so of them children, six of those by stranger (same numbers as 1970). Our most violent murder cities?....(please note figures inc attempted murders)

Boston 15.0 per 100,000
Glasgow 14.0 per 100,000
London 12.4 per 100,000
Manchester 6.3 per 100,000

So London and Glasgow, seen as the two toughest cities, along with Liverpool, Edinburgh and Manchester and others are far less violent than comparable US/Can cities. Or at least far less violent than people think.

I am sure there are some very safe cities in the US, but overall, I will stick to living in the UK.

This post has been edited by scotsman: 06 December 2017 - 05:17 PM

0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users