Florida shooting ...

octatonic

Chris Rock had it right- make guns free but make every bullet cost $5k each.

Neil

p90fool said:

Neil said:

FX_Munkee said:

I can't find it now but I did like the tweet that suggested the American Government could ban all guns overnight. Then when the gun owners are really upset, we could all send them "thoughts and prayers", because if that's good enough for losing a family member it should be plenty for not being able to own a gun anymore.

It's a lovely thought but I'll be honest, if the American government banned guns overnight that would be enough for all the second amendment people who believe that keeping guns is their right to protect themselves from the government to rise up.

I could honestly see a civil war starting.

There sadly is no answer IMO.  

There is an answer, and it's simply to ban automatic weapons. There is simply no excuse for them being in civilian hands. 

Yes, your average resourceful nutter could use a vehicle as a weapon or make a homemade bomb, but I'm willing to bet 90% of them would never bother, it's the Hollywood-style shoot 'em up glory they're after. 

Automatic weapons (NFA) are pretty much banned in all US states. 

You are probably referring to semi auto rifles.

If you banned them you would still have semi auto pistols or revolvers which can fire as quick as you can pull the trigger as well.

Which is why I say there is no answer.

Even a total ban would still leave millions of guns floating around.

The genie is out of the bottle. 

VimFuego

Neil said:

p90fool said:

Neil said:

FX_Munkee said:

I can't find it now but I did like the tweet that suggested the American Government could ban all guns overnight. Then when the gun owners are really upset, we could all send them "thoughts and prayers", because if that's good enough for losing a family member it should be plenty for not being able to own a gun anymore.

It's a lovely thought but I'll be honest, if the American government banned guns overnight that would be enough for all the second amendment people who believe that keeping guns is their right to protect themselves from the government to rise up.

I could honestly see a civil war starting.

There sadly is no answer IMO.  

There is an answer, and it's simply to ban automatic weapons. There is simply no excuse for them being in civilian hands. 

Yes, your average resourceful nutter could use a vehicle as a weapon or make a homemade bomb, but I'm willing to bet 90% of them would never bother, it's the Hollywood-style shoot 'em up glory they're after. 

Automatic weapons (NFA) are pretty much banned in all US states. 

You are probably referring to semi auto rifles.

If you banned them you would still have semi auto pistols or revolvers which can fire as quick as you can pull the trigger as well.

Which is why I say there is no answer.

Even a total ban would still leave millions of guns floating around.

The genie is out of the bottle. 

there is a significant difference in both firepower and accuracy between a rifle and a pistol. At 100 meters, when I was shooting regularly, I could easily shoot a 6" grouping, firing a weapon with enough power to accurately shoot over 500 yards, and will put that bullet through a brick wall at 300 yards.
Just removing these weapons would be a significant start, sometimes you have to just make a start, even of the road is long. 

Neil

VimFuego said:

Neil said:

p90fool said:

Neil said:

FX_Munkee said:

I can't find it now but I did like the tweet that suggested the American Government could ban all guns overnight. Then when the gun owners are really upset, we could all send them "thoughts and prayers", because if that's good enough for losing a family member it should be plenty for not being able to own a gun anymore.

It's a lovely thought but I'll be honest, if the American government banned guns overnight that would be enough for all the second amendment people who believe that keeping guns is their right to protect themselves from the government to rise up.

I could honestly see a civil war starting.

There sadly is no answer IMO.  

There is an answer, and it's simply to ban automatic weapons. There is simply no excuse for them being in civilian hands. 

Yes, your average resourceful nutter could use a vehicle as a weapon or make a homemade bomb, but I'm willing to bet 90% of them would never bother, it's the Hollywood-style shoot 'em up glory they're after. 

Automatic weapons (NFA) are pretty much banned in all US states. 

You are probably referring to semi auto rifles.

If you banned them you would still have semi auto pistols or revolvers which can fire as quick as you can pull the trigger as well.

Which is why I say there is no answer.

Even a total ban would still leave millions of guns floating around.

The genie is out of the bottle. 

there is a significant difference in both firepower and accuracy between a rifle and a pistol. At 100 meters, when I was shooting regularly, I could easily shoot a 6" grouping, firing a weapon with enough power to accurately shoot over 500 yards, and will put that bullet through a brick wall at 300 yards.
Just removing these weapons would be a significant start, sometimes you have to just make a start, even of the road is long. 

Of course there is a difference but let's be honest, someone going berserk with any sort of firearm will cause untold damage.

It's not that I am against a ban on semi auto rifles and I don't see any use for them apart from "fun" but if they were banned tomorrow I still think we would see the same amount of massacres in the US. 

Remember Thomas Hamilton in Dunblane?  Just pistols.

VimFuego

and wosshiname at hungerford was semi automatic rifles, at the time of hungerford I was involved in shooting and I recall there were also calls to ban pistols, but the gun lobby convinced the government not to ban them. It's easy to be wise in hindsight, but you can't help but think if they had been banned, dunblane may not have happened.

VimFuego

fing is, you keep up with the "there's nothing we can do" and "banning them won't work" world weary cynical line without offering any evidence that gun control won't work nor offering any alternatives. Clearly, things as they currently stand are not working, gun control in other countries has worked, so I see no reason why it won't work in america. Offering up tired objections is just supporting the status quo, which we know isn't working. 

ICBM

Neil said:

Of course there is a difference but let's be honest, someone going berserk with any sort of firearm will cause untold damage.

It's not that I am against a ban on semi auto rifles and I don't see any use for them apart from "fun" but if they were banned tomorrow I still think we would see the same amount of massacres in the US. 

Remember Thomas Hamilton in Dunblane?  Just pistols.

Yes, but there's still a significant difference in the US - the guards at the schools, as in most places there, are armed with handguns. Against an attacker with a handgun they stand a reasonable chance of stopping them. Against an attacker with a semi-auto assault rifle, almost none - they would be unlikely to get close enough at all before being shot.

Look at what happened in Las Vegas - the shooter was essentially in a sniper position in a tall building, armed with what (by being fitted with a bump stock) were effectively fully automatic rifles. The "good guys with guns" had absolutely no chance of stopping him, even if that is a valid strategy (and I admit that there is very little alternative given the number of guns).

Bump stocks are specifically designed to get around the regulations on fully automatic weapons and the very fact that they are even legal at all is ludicrous. Guess why they aren't banned... because a certain political lobby group opposed it.

There's no legitimate reason to own an assault rifle anyway - it's not even a very good weapon for self-defence. I understand why many Americans want guns for self-defence, and that isn't going to change. I don't see handguns being banned, or shotguns - but both are harder (obviously not impossible) to carry out a mass shooting with because they have fairly limited range and accuracy.

crunchman

Given US culture, you will never ban handguns but you could limit magazine sizes.

I have seen articles suggesting that.  6 shots would be enough to defend yourself but would make it more difficult for a nutter.

I think that is stage 2 or 3 though.  Banning semi-automatic rifles and making some kind of background/mental health check mandatory would be the first thing to do.  If you look at the link I posted above, a large majority of US citizens are in favour of both of those measures in recent polls.

Teetonetal

crunchman said:

Given US culture, you will never ban handguns but you could limit magazine sizes.

I have seen articles suggesting that.  6 shots would be enough to defend yourself but would make it more difficult for a nutter.

I think that is stage 2 or 3 though.  Banning semi-automatic rifles and making some kind of background/mental health check mandatory would be the first thing to do.  If you look at the link I posted above, a large majority of US citizens are in favour of both of those measures in recent polls.

What is the argument for letting someone with known mental health issues have easy access to a gun? 

p90fool

Neil said:

p90fool said:

Neil said:

FX_Munkee said:

I can't find it now but I did like the tweet that suggested the American Government could ban all guns overnight. Then when the gun owners are really upset, we could all send them "thoughts and prayers", because if that's good enough for losing a family member it should be plenty for not being able to own a gun anymore.

It's a lovely thought but I'll be honest, if the American government banned guns overnight that would be enough for all the second amendment people who believe that keeping guns is their right to protect themselves from the government to rise up.

I could honestly see a civil war starting.

There sadly is no answer IMO.  

There is an answer, and it's simply to ban automatic weapons. There is simply no excuse for them being in civilian hands. 

Yes, your average resourceful nutter could use a vehicle as a weapon or make a homemade bomb, but I'm willing to bet 90% of them would never bother, it's the Hollywood-style shoot 'em up glory they're after. 

Automatic weapons (NFA) are pretty much banned in all US states. 

You are probably referring to semi auto rifles.

If you banned them you would still have semi auto pistols or revolvers which can fire as quick as you can pull the trigger as well.

Which is why I say there is no answer.

Even a total ban would still leave millions of guns floating around.

The genie is out of the bottle. 

Well whatever they're called there is no logical reason for members of the public to own them, or anything else which pumps out bullets more than one at a time. 

It's all fine and dandy having weapons which nutters COULD get their hands on, but wtf is the justification for selling weapons for which ONLY market is nutters? 

Haych

Teetonetal said:

crunchman said:

Given US culture, you will never ban handguns but you could limit magazine sizes.

I have seen articles suggesting that.  6 shots would be enough to defend yourself but would make it more difficult for a nutter.

I think that is stage 2 or 3 though.  Banning semi-automatic rifles and making some kind of background/mental health check mandatory would be the first thing to do.  If you look at the link I posted above, a large majority of US citizens are in favour of both of those measures in recent polls.

What is the argument for letting someone with known mental health issues have easy access to a gun? 

This is one of the face-palms in the whole "let's do more thorough background checks" argument.  Sure, you're not going to let anyone with a known mental illness buy a gun, but not everyone who is mentally ill is in the system, and not everyone who passes background checks today is guaranteed to remain perfectly sane for the rest of their lives after buying said gun.

Mental illness can creep up on anyone and at any time.  Once you've got the gun, if you turn bonkers any time afterwards the background checks will do nothing.

Foster

I'm not completely anti-gun, not that I own one. I wouldn't mind having a go on a Lee Enfield and other WW1 guns.

Interestingly enough if Semi-Automatics were banned in the US that'd include the Luger. A Pistol more than 100 years old!

CHRISB50

Teetonetal said:

crunchman said:

Given US culture, you will never ban handguns but you could limit magazine sizes.

I have seen articles suggesting that.  6 shots would be enough to defend yourself but would make it more difficult for a nutter.

I think that is stage 2 or 3 though.  Banning semi-automatic rifles and making some kind of background/mental health check mandatory would be the first thing to do.  If you look at the link I posted above, a large majority of US citizens are in favour of both of those measures in recent polls.

What is the argument for letting someone with known mental health issues have easy access to a gun? 

They start bringing up contravening their 2nd amendment rights. 

stickyfiddle

CHRISB50 said:

Teetonetal said:

crunchman said:

Given US culture, you will never ban handguns but you could limit magazine sizes.

I have seen articles suggesting that.  6 shots would be enough to defend yourself but would make it more difficult for a nutter.

I think that is stage 2 or 3 though.  Banning semi-automatic rifles and making some kind of background/mental health check mandatory would be the first thing to do.  If you look at the link I posted above, a large majority of US citizens are in favour of both of those measures in recent polls.

What is the argument for letting someone with known mental health issues have easy access to a gun? 

They start bringing up contravening their 2nd amendment rights. 

Which is interesting, cos you can't imagine the founding fathers meant "the right to bear arms, even for nutters who intend to murder children in their classrooms"...

Though in their current mood the NRA would probably still try and argue the case for it. 

ICBM

When the Second Amendment was written, the average rate of fire of a gun was around one round per minute, and any nutter trying to commit mass murder with one would be overpowered by bystanders before they could reload.

stickyfiddle

ICBM said:

When the Second Amendment was written, the average rate of fire of a gun was around one round per minute, and any nutter trying to commit mass murder with one would be overpowered by bystanders before they could reload.

Yeah. But let's not let logic get in the way of a good shootout. 

I saw an NRA vid in a comments section somewhere earlier and I was amazed at the level of "us vs them" rhetoric in there. It was as if they're trying to raise an *actual* army against those who would take away their guns. 


EDIT: found it:

"The only way we stop this - the only we save our country and freedom - is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth"

That's incitement to violence if ever I heard it, and if it was coming from a muslim the very same NRA members would be demanding "justice" against them.

I wish I was making it up. 

Octafish

Neil said:

FX_Munkee said:

I can't find it now but I did like the tweet that suggested the American Government could ban all guns overnight. Then when the gun owners are really upset, we could all send them "thoughts and prayers", because if that's good enough for losing a family member it should be plenty for not being able to own a gun anymore.

It's a lovely thought but I'll be honest, if the American government banned guns overnight that would be enough for all the second amendment people who believe that keeping guns is their right to protect themselves from the government to rise up.

I could honestly see a civil war starting.

There sadly is no answer IMO.  

That's the funniest bit about the right to bear arms. Do these morons really think they'd stand a chance if the US government decided overnight it was going to impose martial law  ? They obviously didn't see what happened to Koresh...

Chalky

stickyfiddle said:

CHRISB50 said:

Teetonetal said:

crunchman said:

Given US culture, you will never ban handguns but you could limit magazine sizes.

I have seen articles suggesting that.  6 shots would be enough to defend yourself but would make it more difficult for a nutter.

I think that is stage 2 or 3 though.  Banning semi-automatic rifles and making some kind of background/mental health check mandatory would be the first thing to do.  If you look at the link I posted above, a large majority of US citizens are in favour of both of those measures in recent polls.

What is the argument for letting someone with known mental health issues have easy access to a gun? 

They start bringing up contravening their 2nd amendment rights. 

Which is interesting, cos you can't imagine the founding fathers meant "the right to bear arms, even for nutters who intend to murder children in their classrooms"...

Though in their current mood the NRA would probably still try and argue the case for it. 

Er, don't forget the Founding Fathers were pro-slavery and anti-police.  If you got rid of the NRA tomorrow, Americans would still end up with very few gun controls compared to here. You really need to learn about Americans to understand their culture, and stop thinking it is similar to the British culture, cos it aint.

littlegreenman

OMG!!! If even Pat Robertson thinks there's an issue with AR-15's and the need for background checks then surely a change is a-coming!

littlegreenman

Trump would have gone in! What an absolute fuckwit...