Near Future & Gun Control

I think Clarkson is satirical, not really racist.

Clarkson is also a racist and a blithering idiot, despite making one of my favorite TV shows, sooooo.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/british_create_a_petition_to_keep_piers_morgan_in_u_s/

We want to keep Piers Morgan in the USA.

There are two very good reasons for this. Firstly, the first amendment.

Second and the more important point. No one in the UK wants him back."

Well played, UK.  Well played.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/21525/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban-is-political-suicide-for-democrats

Kind of related, this made me chuckle-


http://thepatriotperspective.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/david-gregory-violates-dc-gun-law-on-national-tv/

Also....

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gregory-mocks-lapierre-proposing-armed-guards-sends-kids-high-security-school_691057.html

Edited by stratoaxe - 24 December 2012 at 3:26pm

Kayback wrote: AgentWhale007, going by numbers fully automatic machineguns should be totally de-regulated then.

 

Nuclear weapons? Probably not. Mostly because I don't think the average citizen has the correct security for true WMD's.

I don't think there should be much law covering Diesel and Fertilizer though.

I routinely use explosives in my hobbies. Mostly black powder I will grant you, but it is still an explosive.

The people trying to get hold of a nuke will be slightly better equipped and slightly better motivated than someone possibly breaking in to your house to steal a firearm.

AgentWhale007, going by numbers fully automatic machineguns should be totally de-regulated then. The number of true automatic weapons used in crimes in the states is sitting at something below 0.3% IIRC, and that number was from before the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. Even back in the 80's when Miami was "machinegun Mecca" they only recovered two automatic weapons in years of police work.

I wasn't specifically replying to you, I was just saying that I've even heard people say they don't care what happens to X gun so long as they get to keep Y gun.

KBK

Edited by Kayback - 23 December 2012 at 7:40am

BARREL BREAK wrote: So, KBK, going back a bit, you have no problem with people having fully functional nuclear arms? They are just tools, after all.

 

Kayback wrote: That right there is the main problem with the shooting community. It is such a wide and encompassing field that there is literally people from every walk in life in it. . . . Anti gunners seem to be a more or less homogenous group and this makes it easy for them to band together.

 

Edited by agentwhale007 - 23 December 2012 at 1:51am

That right there is the main problem with the shooting community. It is such a wide and encompassing field that there is literally people from every walk in life in it.

Hunters, birders, clay shooters, bullseye shooters, long range shooters, IDPA, IPSC, people training for combat, people just plinking, some totally dedicated to whatever avenue they persue, some just having a passing interest and pretty much everything in between.


Anti gunners seem to be a more or less homogenous group and this makes it easy for them to band together. Even if their aims are not totally in line they wil back pretty much any move if it going to futher their agenda.

Shooters don't do that. While there are some that will back everyone's use there are also many who are willing to sacrifice other's useage to prevent the gun grabbers taking their own. I know plenty of cops who think only cops should have guns. I know plenty of hunters who think anyone with a pistol or a semi auto rifle is a hazard and should be locked up. I know wing shooters who think anyone with any sort of rifle or pistol is a thug. I know Olympic Pistol shooters who are happy to have their pistols kept at the club because they only ever shoot there and think anyone who shoots out doors needs their head read.......

There is a lot of "I don't need it, so why should you" going on.

IMHO if people want to try something and don't "get it" or even if they don't want to try it and still don't "get it" that is fine. I'm happy for them to live their lives how they want. I just want that same respect shown to me.

I happen to like guns. They are fantastic pieces of machinery and the skill to use them effectively is beyond many people. Many people can use them to a level of acceptability, but to truely wring them out, those are few and far between.

Yes I will happily admit firearms get used in crimes and many of those crimes are heart wrenching. No to sound callous but they are also in very much a minority. The number of people who are killed by illegal use of firearms, especially in mass shootings, pales in comparison to many other forms of untimely death that are taken for granted with very little call to legislate against them.

I stand by my argument that legislating against the legal use of a tool is the incorret method in dealing with the killings. Totally random "qualities" that have been decided make a weapon more dangerous are questionable at best. I'll grant that a semi automatic action does make a firearm a little more "killy" as does an easily replaceable box magazine, none of which are truthfully needed to be dangerous. Plenty of people died from stripper clip fed internal magazine bolt action rifles over the years. Plenty other were killed by tube fed lever action rifles. Single action pistols also took their fair share.

It isn't the tool, it is the person doing the killing that needs countering when it happens and preferably treatment or confinement before it happens.

KBK