For those who carry arms on their boats-

As far as I can see they're mostly 'feel good' proposals, designed to give people a sense that something's being done.

If you had looked at the graphs I posted earlier, you might have noticed that gun violence in this country, including the sort that triggered all this fuss, has already been going down for years -- right along with crime in general. You might also have noticed the previous federal 'assault weapons' ban, which was in place for ten years, had no impact at all on gun violence, which kept right on tracking in tandem with the general crime rate.

Yet you, and people like you, carry on as though gun violence in this country is spiraling out of control instead


And the assault weapon the guy carried to the mall? It was empty, which means it was useless except as a club. He'd have been more dangerous carrying a baseball bat.

 

Sure I can read.

" The incidence of homicides committed with a firearm in the US is much greater than other advanced countries. In the United States in 2009 United Nations statistics record 3.0 intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United Kingdom, where handguns are prohibited, was 0.07 per 100,000, about 40 times lower, and for Germany 0.2> "

Its out of control. Forty times out of control. This is why the NRA wants to arm teachers and permit citizens to go shopping , to the movies or your child's little league game fully armed.

The 40 times statistic exposes the twisted logic behind ..... the only way you can stop a bad guy killing people is with a good guy killing people. .


I find it ironic that the barmy gun owner shown shopping with an assault rifle raises no concern, but a Muslim saying prayers on a airplane brings out military jets and sends the poor Muslim into detention.

 

You're quoting statistics out of context. Obviously, people who commit murder will use whatever is handy. So instead of looking at gun homicides, look at the overall homicide rates -- which certainly aren't forty times higher here. And if you didn't count the gang members shooting other gang members, our gun homicide rate would be much, much lower. The average American is in very little danger of being shot to death.

And I repeat: if our homicidede rates are going down steadily, why are you hysterically carrying on as though they're skyrocketing instead?

This must be the incident you're referring to, when you talk about jets being scrambled:

You'll notice the guy was doing a lot more than just 'praying on an airplane.' And since 9/11 was carried out by Muslim religious fanatics, why are you surprised that people thought he might be a problem? Seems like a totally rational response to me... yet you carry on like it proves Americans are some sort of crazy.

I think we're done here. We aren't getting anywhere, you're getting wound up, and I'm not going to keep bandying words with you until you throw another unforgivable insult at me.

 

And what is handier than a gun, if it is easily available?

 

Im not getting wound up.

I'm simply telling you what Americans look like to the rest of the world.

A gun culture .... weekend family Shopping armed with assault weapons ! ....school lockdowns. These aspects of life are very unique

And Its entirely possible that you care little what other society's think.

Hopefully enough Americans will wake up and say enough is enough and address this defect.

 

Michael,

In many Islamic cultures you will find it very hard to convince women that they have a right to wear jeans and show their face or their hair to other men. That's because those women have been raised and educated by Islamic rules of good behavior, in accordance with the supposed Allah's will.
To you it may sound so strange that these women do not want to live according to our acceptance of free and emancipated lifestyle, but for them theirs is the only conceivable way of living.

You should realize that this situation is very similar. You are trying to talk hard-core gun supporters away from their faith. As I have said before, in case of US, the game is over. The gun culture is transpirating from each pore of the US society. You are trying to provoke a revolution in your interlocutor's minds, but it is not possible. An evolution is necessary in this case, and that's a much much longer process - spanning a lifetime of several generations.

Cheers

 

The past ban on assault weapons was not near tough enough to take them off the street, I owned one during the period and there was no impact on ownership, more to modifications. So to say it made no difference on crime rates is correct, since they were irrelevant.

The issue is not crime, the armed robbery, it's the ability to have massive firepower for the mass shootings. The NRA put out some crap showing that knives and clubs were used in more murders, might be true, such weapons are one on one, up close and personal, totally irrelevant to the problem of some nut having the capacity to kill 20 people at a time without even reloading. (Takes me about 2 seconds to change a magazine in an AR-15) But, in two seconds I can physically attack a gun nut who is reloading from about 20 feet away and interupt him....yes, I'm still that quick, most men are.

Mass shooting have been done with assault rifles, the weapon of choice for such an attack, you can shoot masses from hundreds of feet away.

If anyone says gun restrictions would not have an impact on mass shootings, they are wrong and ignore the reality. Machine guns, fully automatic, have been very restricted for years, name one mass shooting incident involving a machine gun.....there aren't any since they were banned/regulated. Proof that if getting a weapon is very hard to get a hold of that there will be fewer on the streets and seldom used if at all. But the restrictions need to be very strict, just restricting the length, capacity of magazines, the type of sights it has or a folding stock doesn't change the fact that the gun exists.

And the gun nuts who say they have a right to guns to fight the government is really on the fringe. Times change and as Michael said, the 2nd is used to pronounce some far fetched idea of replacing the government. Anyone who thinks they are going to have a semi-automatic anything and have a gun fight with an apache gun ship has a screw lose and probably shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. They take your heat signature 5 miles away and sends a hellfire at you, you're done.

The NRA is all about the money, not rights, they use fear and propoganda to stir the simple minded into thinking they need to go buy more guns and ammo.

 

It will be a long struggle.

I believe that common sense gun laws will go a long way.

After sensible laws , education, the media and peer pressure can be used to bring social pressure on gun holders, further reducing gun ownership and violence.

Young children who are brought up around guns learn to believe that guns are normal , similar to the Muslim women who are brought up to be subservient to men.

It took generations to convince whites that blacks were eqaul.

 

The reason the last assault weapons ban did no good, and future ones will do no good, is because they're based on what are essentially cosmetic features. So-called civilian "assault rifles" have no more firepower than any other semi-automatic rifles. And with just a few minutes of practice, even just cycling the bolt without ever really shooting, you can pump out bullets almost as fast with a bolt-action rifle as with a semi-automatic -- particularly if you're firing into a crowd or at close range, so you don't have to sight carefully.

Can you cite any mass shootings that were done from 'hundreds of feet away' with an 'assault rifle'? I really can't think of any.

"Assault weapon" is a term used specifically to trigger emotional responses, like the term "partial birth" abortions. And as a matter of fact, there are increasing parallels between the anti-gun and anti-abortion crowd when it comes to tactics and strategy: invent a horrid-sounding name for something that's really a minor part of whatever you're opposing, then start waxing indignant about it. Once you've demonized it and gotten that first little toehold in the law, you start expanding the restrictions farther and farther....

 

Michael; I can go shopping while carrying a gun right now. That is not something the NRA is trying to accomplish. Besides, there are millions of gun owners that don't necessarily agree with the NRA. I think that it has become a "us against them" position: either you belong to the anti-gun lobby, or you are a NRA member. I am neither. For protection on board, a flare gun is always a good option; particularly the 10ga.

 

The only proposal I've seen that might actually do some good is the one to limit high-capacity magazines. I see no reason for anyone to be manufacturing and selling 30-round magazines that stick several inches out of the grip of a Glock pistol...

As Bill Ruger famously said, "no honest man needs more than ten rounds in his gun."

 

Sorry, flare guns are against the law. Flare guns a non SOLAS explosives and will be confiscated or land you in prison in countries who regulate firearms..

The issue with the NRA is that thay have twisted the facts and made you believe that the Constitution gives you the right to carry a weapon.

I does not give you the right to private firearms possession only your state does

 

I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong.

The 2nd Amendment is worded as follows:

That is crystal clear, in spite of all the attempts to twist it into something it doesn't say. Its simple and direct meaning was affirmed in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER [June 26, 2008], when the Supreme Court of the United States struck down DC's unreasonable gun bans on the grounds that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

You can find the Court's ruling verbatim here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

If you don't mind my saying so, you may be taking in a bit too much territory when you start trying to tell Americans what their own Constitution says....

While I'm at it, I think it's completely offensive for anyone to compare America's Constitutional rights with the misuse and abuse of Muslim women in some backwards countries. And I'm not adding any smileys to that, because there's nothing funny about it.

 

A flare gun is a safety item how the hell can it be not allowed on boats.

Your getting confused with the plastic types and the metal type.

The metal type being more difficult to aquire due to it being able to take a shell.

A metal flare gun is capable of placing a sodium flare in the bottom of an unwelcome boats bilges and is a nasty thing.

PS is it sodium or magnesium?

 

Troy, let's not circle around it too much. Let's just say things as they are. It has nothing to do with defending any constitutional right. No heroism necessary there. The Constitution just tells you that you have a right to bear guns and that's all it says.
But why exactly guys who don't live in a warzone, a favela-style suburb, or in a bear-infested zone want to have a gun?
Simply: they like it. It is a part of your tradition, your fathers and grandfathers have taught you that it is good to have a gun, and you want a gun. Period.
The rest are all just formal, statistical, rhetorical or legal justifications.