Gun activists.

[Kellfire]

It's not an argument, just a civil debate. I see it from both sides strangely as a gun owner. It's hardly a debate however when you don't engage and just make statements that have no relevance to the original discussion... Ignore the first portion of my post as you can't answer 'yes' and refer to my obviously sarcastic comment at the bottom to avoid a direct discussion.

I think there’s something innately wrong with you if you think it’s ok to own a gun.

I can’t make it any clearer than that.

If you want to obfuscate and bring up nonsense about kitchen knives then I’m done with the conversation.

 

[GreiginFife]

It doesn't matter if guns are made illegal the only people that are going to shoot people are criminal and don't care for the law aside from accidents. Lets say guns are somehow banned in America and an amnesty clears every gun out of public circulation? A new culture would replace it, the UK has knife crime as there the most accessible and discreet weapon for criminals to possess without dropping a lot more money on a gun illegally obtained via black market etc.

The gun would just be replaced by another means, granted the knife is theoretically less capable of mass murder in schools etc. as the perpetrator could be battled off. The car or truck is a replacement that in my opinion is just as capable if not more capable than a gun to kill/maim masses of people.

Take the vegas shooter for example, 59 fatalties when opening fire into 22,000 people. A terrible number but lets say he didn't have guns... With a suitably kitted out car how many deaths 'could' there have been if he drove through the crowds? I dare say more to be honest.

We have guns in the UK and I honestly can't recall in recent years any suitably certified gun owner using it with criminal intentions, it's the illegal held guns that cause the problem. Handguns were banned post dunblane in 1997 so no law abiding citizen can access them in the uk. The handgun is still however the most used firearm in crime which speaks volumes. Unfortunately in the USA due to the amount of guns in cicrculation and lesser suitability checks guns are in a lot of wrong hands, but I don't see now how they can rectify this. An outright ban will just never happen but there is a big problem with people that have access to guns.

What I'm saying is the gun is clearly not the problem it's the process in which they are obtained which gives much more accessiblity to guns to those with criminal/murderous intentions.

Re: the bold bit, in this instance it would mean he had to get much closer to the people he was killing something the gun gives the option of removing is the personification of the victim. Paddock shot from a 32nd story shootimg indiscriminately from a distance of some 6 or 7 hundred yards or more, he also wounded over 400 people.
The gun made it possible for the targets to be far away and he could mentally disassociate himself from them as people whereas driving directly at people forces an up close view of your target. now that won't bother some psychos but it certainly gives options to others. take away the gun you take away one of the options and the few options of killing from distance.

That's my gripe, the gun doesn't kill people granted. but it makes the means a hell of a lot easier and less "personal".

​

 

[Britishshooting]

Re: the bold bit, in this instance it would mean he had to get much closer to the people he was killing something the gun gives the option of removing is the personification of the victim. Paddock shot from a 32nd story shootimg indiscriminately from a distance of some 6 or 7 hundred yards or more, he also wounded over 400 people.
The gun made it possible for the targets to be far away and he could mentally disassociate himself from them as people whereas driving directly at people forces an up close view of your target. now that won't bother some psychos but it certainly gives options to others. take away the gun you take away one of the options and the few options of killing from distance.

That's my gripe, the gun doesn't kill people granted. but it makes the means a hell of a lot easier and less "personal".

​

I agree with what your saying it's definitely less personal than 'stabbing' lets say.. unfortunately that doesn't stop it happening a lot. There are a lot of mindless people out there that just have no compassion at any level.

 

[GreiginFife]

I agree with what your saying it's definitely less personal than 'stabbing' lets say.. unfortunately that doesn't stop it happening a lot. There are a lot of mindless people out there that just have no compassion at any level.

You are right, the distance a gun provides give opportunity to remove what ever little compassion a potential killer might have (save for the said compassionless nuts).

 

[Swango1980]

Re: the bold bit, in this instance it would mean he had to get much closer to the people he was killing something the gun gives the option of removing is the personification of the victim. Paddock shot from a 32nd story shootimg indiscriminately from a distance of some 6 or 7 hundred yards or more, he also wounded over 400 people.
The gun made it possible for the targets to be far away and he could mentally disassociate himself from them as people whereas driving directly at people forces an up close view of your target. now that won't bother some psychos but it certainly gives options to others. take away the gun you take away one of the options and the few options of killing from distance.

That's my gripe, the gun doesn't kill people granted. but it makes the means a hell of a lot easier and less "personal".

​

I'm on your side of the argument, and agree generally, especially in terms of the Vegas shooting. Although, it should be said, many shootings, and mass shootings, the gunner is very much up close and personal. Often, they'll shoot victims at point blank range. So, you could also argue that the victim is very much personified, much more than, say the Nice terror attack, where the driver is mowing down masses of people.

A gun offers that mad man a rapid method to take someone down, without any real form of defence. They can also take down multiple targets quickly (especially with semi-automated weapons). Banning them, you remove this option from them. Would they be as confident going and stabbing victims instead. Sometimes not, but even if they did, generally less damage would hopefully be done as they'd simply not be able to take people out as quickly, and victims might be able to defend themselves better, generally.

What is the purpose of a gun? It is to kill people (or neutralise people), or as equipment in sport. It is not used for travel, it is not used for food consumption. So, why not just ban them completely, and if you are involved in a sport that uses them, have them locked up strictly at the sporting club? I don't see what people should simply just be allowed to have them lying about their house, or in their handbag. Just seems incredible. If the argument is for protection, then is the same argument made for martial arts weapons such as Nunchucks , Swords or Brass Knuckles (no idea what the law is on things like that in USA)? If all these guns were not lying about in the first place, you wouldn't really need them for protection anyway. How many American civilians save their life, or the lives of other by shooting people? Weigh that up with how many American's shoot someone dead by accidentally think their life was in danger, but it wasn't? How many American's, especially kids, get killed by accidentally shooting themselves or each other when they see a gun lying about? How many Americans kill others with a gun, when they could never have got that gun in the first place had it not been available to them?

If I was a betting man, I would strongly favour betting that less people would die if guns were controlled, as in say the UK. Perhaps it is in the interest of the government to keep them available, both from a financial and voting perspective, but also a bit of population control?

 

[bobmac]

There are a lot of mindless people out there that just have no compassion at any level.

And the easier is for them to get access to a gun, the easier is to kill more people.

 

[GreiginFife]

I'm on your side of the argument, and agree generally, especially in terms of the Vegas shooting. Although, it should be said, many shootings, and mass shootings, the gunner is very much up close and personal. Often, they'll shoot victims at point blank range. So, you could also argue that the victim is very much personified, much more than, say the Nice terror attack, where the driver is mowing down masses of people.

A gun offers that mad man a rapid method to take someone down, without any real form of defence. They can also take down multiple targets quickly (especially with semi-automated weapons). Banning them, you remove this option from them. Would they be as confident going and stabbing victims instead. Sometimes not, but even if they did, generally less damage would hopefully be done as they'd simply not be able to take people out as quickly, and victims might be able to defend themselves better, generally.

What is the purpose of a gun? It is to kill people (or neutralise people), or as equipment in sport. It is not used for travel, it is not used for food consumption. So, why not just ban them completely, and if you are involved in a sport that uses them, have them locked up strictly at the sporting club? I don't see what people should simply just be allowed to have them lying about their house, or in their handbag. Just seems incredible. If the argument is for protection, then is the same argument made for martial arts weapons such as Nunchucks , Swords or Brass Knuckles (no idea what the law is on things like that in USA)? If all these guns were not lying about in the first place, you wouldn't really need them for protection anyway. How many American civilians save their life, or the lives of other by shooting people? Weigh that up with how many American's shoot someone dead by accidentally think their life was in danger, but it wasn't? How many American's, especially kids, get killed by accidentally shooting themselves or each other when they see a gun lying about? How many Americans kill others with a gun, when they could never have got that gun in the first place had it not been available to them?

If I was a betting man, I would strongly favour betting that less people would die if guns were controlled, as in say the UK. Perhaps it is in the interest of the government to keep them available, both from a financial and voting perspective, but also a bit of population control?

I agree but my point is that the gun offers the Opportunity to remove the personal aspect from it. Yes a car can be used to mow down random people indiscriminately but the driver must see and be connected to his action it can't be done from 600 yards away.
As I say, my problem with guns is how they provide the option for people to disassociate from their actions directly.

It's just my view though.

 

[bobmac]

Swords or Brass Knuckles (no idea what the law is on things like that in USA)?

I saw a programme on TV about an old guy crossing the border between America and Canada and he was stopped and searched.

They found a hand in the glove compartment which he was allowed to keep but his brass knuckle dusters were confiscated and destroyed.
Apparently they can give you a nasty bruise.

 

[patricks148]

I saw a programme on TV about an old guy crossing the border between America and Canada and he was stopped and searched.

They found a hand in the glove compartment which he was allowed to keep but his brass knuckle dusters were confiscated and destroyed.
Apparently they can give you a nasty bruise.

did they not wonder where the rest of the body was?

and was this his knuckle duster holder?

 

[Ye Olde Boomer]

If this thread tells us anything, it tells us that cultural tradition matters.
I live in a lovely retirement community.
Our development immediately abuts a gun club with outdoor rifle range and shotgun trap shooting.
I don't shoot anymore--I play golf--but many if not most of my neighbors are members.
A few moved here specifically to join that club.

We hear pop...pop...pop...pop all day long. We also hear birds chirping. Nobody pays particular attention to either.

The British phobia of firearms not only doesn't broadly exist in America, but is impossible for many Americans to understand.
Most of us think of our rifles and shotguns the same way we think of our golf clubs, our bowling balls, our tennis racquets, and your cricket bats.

Now, however, since joining this internet community, I understand how this simply won't compute with the typical citizen across the pond.
But even as I begin to understand your thoughts on the matter, it's obvious that many here will never understand mine.

 

[patricks148]

If this thread tells us anything, it tells us that cultural tradition matters.
I live in a lovely retirement community.
Our development immediately abuts a gun club with outdoor rifle range and shotgun trap shooting.
I don't shoot anymore--I play golf--but many if not most of my neighbors are members.
A few moved here specifically to join that club.

We hear pop...pop...pop...pop all day long. We also hear birds chirping. Nobody pays particular attention to either.

The British phobia of firearms not only doesn't broadly exist in America, but is impossible for many Americans to understand.
Most of us think of our rifles and shotguns the same way we think of our golf clubs, our bowling balls, our tennis racquets, and your cricket bats.

Now, however, since joining this internet community, I understand how this simply won't compute with the typical citizen across the pond.
But even as I begin to understand your thoughts on the matter, it's obvious that many here will never understand mine.

i know a fair few people with guns, Rifles and shotguns.... not one has a handgun... why they are for one thing and one thing only... same a assualt rifles and other Automatic weapons.. and its not for shooting at targets

 

[Britishshooting]

I think there’s something innately wrong with you if you think it’s ok to own a gun.

I can’t make it any clearer than that.

If you want to obfuscate and bring up nonsense about kitchen knives then I’m done with the conversation.

You are a very serious guy!

This thread has put me in the mood for some claybashing, on my way now!

 

[Deleted member 23270]

Guns are made for one purpose only, to kill.

I will never understand the American attitude towards guns. Every time I hear of a mass shooting I am filled with sadness for the victims but at the same time I find it hard to feel sorry for them. You guys have made your bed, now you have to lie in it.

 

[Ye Olde Boomer]

Guns are made for one purpose only, to kill.

I will never understand the American attitude towards guns..

That's what I'm saying about culture differences impacting how we think.

Look, I understand how many of you don't care about traditional American values pertaining to firearms and believe that private ownership of same is wrong regardless of cultural tradition.

I have opinions like that myself. I don't care, for example, that female genital mutilation is culturally accepted in some places. To me, it's obviously an obscenity regardless of how much culture is used as an excuse.

But being an American, I can't see any similarities between private firearms ownership and obscene practices that are defended in other places on the grounds of cultural values.
I just can't see it. Non-military rifles and shotguns are sports equipment, handguns are personal protection devices, and I refuse to believe that being a sportsman willing to defend one's self is anything approaching a bad thing.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

That's what I'm saying about culture differences impacting how we think.

Look, I understand how many of you don't care about traditional American values pertaining to firearms and believe that private ownership of same is wrong regardless of cultural tradition.

I have opinions like that myself. I don't care, for example, that female genital mutilation is culturally accepted in some places. To me, it's obviously an obscenity regardless of how much culture is used as an excuse.

But being an American, I can't see any similarities between private firearms ownership and obscene practices that are defended in other places on the grounds of cultural values.
I just can't see it. Non-military rifles and shotguns are sports equipment, handguns are personal protection devices, and I refuse to believe that being a sportsman willing to defend one's self is anything approaching a bad thing.

Do you have any intention of killing someone?

 

[patricks148]

That's what I'm saying about culture differences impacting how we think.

Look, I understand how many of you don't care about traditional American values pertaining to firearms and believe that private ownership of same is wrong regardless of cultural tradition.

I have opinions like that myself. I don't care, for example, that female genital mutilation is culturally accepted in some places. To me, it's obviously an obscenity regardless of how much culture is used as an excuse.

But being an American, I can't see any similarities between private firearms ownership and obscene practices that are defended in other places on the grounds of cultural values.
I just can't see it. Non-military rifles and shotguns are sports equipment, handguns are personal protection devices, and I refuse to believe that being a sportsman willing to defend one's self is anything approaching a bad thing.

few if any other country shares this opinion, and making out its a traditional thing... love to know the % of the population that had guns 70 years ago... before handguns an auto weapons available.... very few id say so shoots this notion of Tradition and a way of life out the water

 

[Ye Olde Boomer]

Do you have any intention of killing someone?

Of course not.
I'm not a vegetarian, unfortunately, but If I had to kill my own food, I certainly would be.

I also have no expectation of somebody breaking into my home in the middle of the night.
But is someone did, here in America, I would not be arrested for shooting him/her in the head.
And after the investigation, my firearm would be returned to me.
And I agree with that as well.

I don't understand the British firearms phobia, but I do understand that cultural differences exist.

And patricks 148, American civilians have been armed to the teeth since we were an English colony.
It's not a new thing.
The new thing is owning para-military weapons, and I agree with abolishing private ownership of those.
Such a proscription would not violate our constitution.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

Do you have any intention of killing someone?

Of course not.

Then there is no need for you to own a gun.

End of.

 

[Ye Olde Boomer]

Then there is no need for you to own a gun.

End of.

Absurd position in my view. People will disagree, however.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

Absurd position in my view. People will disagree, however.

Q) Why do you have a gun?

A) To defend myself because other people have guns

Solution Do away with guns

But Americans are too stupid to see the solution. We currently have a problem with knives but rather than make them legal and everyone carries one the Govt are working on laws to clamp down on them.