quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Faux:
Piss off, Spiffy.
Right now is a good time for this discussion.
And it fucking well isn't whining.
There is an election for the POTUS this year, and lots of room to discuss your feelings about Republicans. You can probably even vote if you choose to.
This thread is about guns, (hence its title) and I for one am glad it has been started up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by maleveque:

The Second Amendment can kiss my ass.

---

quote:

---

Silver faux posted:
Your arroganance is misplaced here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Faux:
Of course you have a right to express your opinion on party politics, Spiffy.
Perhaps that is why you mentioned Republicans and former Republican Party leaders so often in your previous post.
Why not go do that somewhere else?
This thread is about guns. Hence the title.
Your arroganance is misplaced here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:

quote:

---

Silver faux posted:
Your arrogance is misplaced here.

---

Kinda like your junior moderating?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:
if hell isn't the place, what is? I think Spiff gets to say what she will and if our undies get in a bunch we can move on. Same as when other people get all hysterical about guns being the problem - people like spiffy and I get to move the fuck on if we don't like it. suck it up, princess.

---

Hhhhmmmnnnnnn......I seem to recall someone asking me to pull back in Hell last time someone died.......

Obviously Spiffy commands more respect.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I'm not big on gun rights. But Spiffy has a point, and I think she has a right to say it.

She didn't trash Republicans--she mentioned specific, relevant items. We here in the US don't have a national health care system. So it can be hard to get care for physical problems, let alone mental. Plus many folks in mental institutions were released into the community, years ago, for treatment in more normal circumstances. Except there was no one to make sure they went to the meds dispensary...so many wound up unmedicated and very symptomatic. Many of the homeless here in SF are mentally ill.

So, in this case, anyway, mental health treatment might have helped.


{PS to Spiffy: Last time i checked, your mailbox was full.}
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
However, one is left to wonder: Given the fact that he was mentally unstable (as I understand the news stories to be saying), if he didn't have a gun, wouldn't he have simply chosen a baseball bat or a knife or a big stick or something else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
However, one is left to wonder: Given the fact that he was mentally unstable (as I understand the news stories to be saying), if he didn't have a gun, wouldn't he have simply chosen a baseball bat or a knife or a big stick or something else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:
if hell isn't the place, what is? I think Spiff gets to say what she will and if our undies get in a bunch we can move on. Same as when other people get all hysterical about guns being the problem - people like spiffy and I get to move the fuck on if we don't like it. suck it up, princess.

---

Hhhhmmmnnnnnn......I seem to recall someone asking me to pull back in Hell last time someone died.......

Obviously Spiffy commands more respect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:
Gun ownership is exceptionally common in peace-loving, Nobel prize awarding Norway. There are apparently 1.5 million firearms held legally in what is basically a very small country. Yet gun-related crime rates are usually very very low, even by European standards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:
if hell isn't the place, what is? I think Spiff gets to say what she will and if our undies get in a bunch we can move on. Same as when other people get all hysterical about guns being the problem - people like spiffy and I get to move the fuck on if we don't like it. suck it up, princess.

---

Hhhhmmmnnnnnn......I seem to recall someone asking me to pull back in Hell last time someone died.......

Obviously Spiffy commands more respect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:
One thing I learnt from the coverage of the Breivik case is that gun ownership is exceptionally common in peace-loving, Nobel prize awarding Norway. There are apparently 1.5 million firearms held legally in what is basically a very small country. Yet gun-related crime rates are usually very very low, even by European standards. IIRC parts of Canada have comparable rates of gun ownership to the US, again with much lower rates of gun crime. There's something going on here beyond the mere existence of guns.

---

Indeed, the rather polemical Michael Moore makes this point in Bowling for Columbine, in relation to Canada.

The big issue seems to be not merely guns but believing that guns solve problems.

I honestly wonder how much influence there is from Hollywood (and also TV, but especially film). Got a problem with someone in your way? Solve it, with a gun!
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I agree 100% maleveque.



 

---

Posted by maleveque (# 132) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:

No, wait, easier to blame the guns, because you don't want to face the real reason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteC:
Grow up cupcake. On that thread, you were out of the ballpark trying to make the thread all about you and your issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteC:
Grow up cupcake. On that thread, you were out of the ballpark trying to make the thread all about you and your issues.

---

Ah yes. I forgot I was accused of Yorickism.

---

If you want I can be your buddy and when you start doing it again we can have a safe word. "Armageddon" maybe.

AtB Pyx_e
 

---

Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :
 
I have absolutely no empathy for any people on threads about guns who eventually show up to say guns are needed to protect them from others, so they carry one pretty much everywhere.
Second prize in a gun battle is a coffin; first prize may well turn out to be a first-degree murder charge, if the person you shoot turns out to be unarmed, but mistaken for an aggressive enemy.
I also don't like to see people or groups (including Republicans and their leaders) demonized, because that could possibly lead to the idea that if you just wiped out that/those enemies, the problem would disappear.

Hand guns are designed for killing people, or for target practice in order to be prepared to kill people.
They should not be available to any civilians, because if you want one, you are already contemplating using it.
I would sooner die than own or carry a handgun.
I can not imagine how it is possible to live with oneself and yet carry a handgun.
 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Armageddon


(damn flood control ruins another joke)

[ 07. May 2012, 13:10: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
I own a small collection of firearms for hunting and target practice. I've never bought a gun intending to 'carry' or for 'home defense'.

As someone who is comfortable with guns, who is proficient with guns, who has relied on guns for food, who has had his life saved by guns, and as someone who, frankly, loves the hell out of his second Amendment rights; this kind of event really tears me apart.

I am often very conflicted about whether or not my 2nd Amd. rights are 'worth it' in the face of such loss. I hate the loss of human life on any level.

At the same time I'm hesitant to say that I should be stripped of my rights because others have abused their rights. But I have a hard time being just plain indignant about the negative effect that guns have had in society.

The one thing I do know is that if we gun owners want to keep our rights and maintain (as we do) that guns are not the real problem; then we gun owners damn-well ought to do something about the real problem. What that 'something' is, I'm not sure. But we can't just sit back and indignantly claim that 'it's not the gun's fault when 1+2 still equals 3.

(I know it's not very hellish, but...)

For maleveque: I truely am sorry for you loss, God knows I am. May He comfort you.

Blessings,
~A conflicted gun owner
 

---

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :
 
Canada went through the same kind of mental health deinstitutionalization in mental health care in the 1980s as did the US, so that's not the salient difference.

Per capita, gun ownership is much lower here than in the US, and most guns owned by civilians here are rifles and shotguns, mostly owned by hunters, farmers, and ranchers. Legal civilian ownership of handguns or semi-automatic weapons is very very rare. Very few crimes are committed with legally owned guns. Most illegally owned guns are smuggled in from the US.

When a mentally ill person attacks someone around here, a knife is the typical weapon. Yes, a knife can be just as deadly as a gun, but you have to get close to use it, and potential victims have a better chance of getting away.

Restricting guns doesn't make violence disappear. But it can help reduce body counts while other problems are also dealt with.
 

---

Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :
 
Politicians usually do not get elected by creating public policy and then running on its merits, IMO.
They get elected by discerning which direction the parade is headed, then getting in front of it and claiming to be leading it.
Uber-villian Ronald Raygun did not single-handedly gut the mental health system stateside.
Close to one hundred million people stood in ballot boxes and decided "Shit, yeah! That's what I been talking about."
And yeah, if you walk around the neighbourhoods surrounding Yonge and University Avenue in Toronto, you will see people on day passes from the Clarke Institute screaming at passersby, trees and telephone poles occasionally.
It ain't just stateside where people once locked away out of sight are now right in your face when you buy your precious iced latte.
 

---

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE]

The big issue seems to be not merely guns but believing that guns solve problems.

I honestly wonder how much influence there is from Hollywood (and also TV, but especially film). Got a problem with someone in your way? Solve it, with a gun!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Yes, a knife can be just as deadly as a gun, but you have to get close to use it, and potential victims have a better chance of getting away.

Restricting guns doesn't make violence disappear. But it can help reduce body counts while other problems are also dealt with.

---

Lots of good stuff on this thread, but this wraps it a nutshell for me. We have homeless people in the UK, and food banks, and although mental health provision isn't great, it's better than it was when we first had 'Care in the Community', but we have proportionately fewer fatal incidents. I'm afraid that 'the tool' does have to take some of the blame - as someone else has said, guns make killing too easy. But, yeah, people who have legitimate business can still own shotguns and rifles.

One of the great learning experiences of the ship is that people you like and respect can talk complete horse shit when it comes to guns. But I suspect those of you who want guns and good quality mental health care are in a minority. Gun culture isn't just about the perception that guns solve problems - seems to me it commonly goes with a whole world view which is about looking after your own - solving your own problems - while the weak and the friendless go to the wall. To such people, State welfare and healthcare are as big a threat to civil liberties as gun control - in fact, they're two sides of the same coin.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
You and me both, Passer. I've had Facebook contact with a bloke in Boston who goes on and on and on about guns as if he's - wheehaaa! - livin' on the wild frontier.

I don't get it either.

Out in Alaska, where Irish Lord comes from, I can just about get it. Or out in Wyoming or Idaho. But not a city like Boston. Ok, so there are lots of armed nutters out there, but even so ...

I could get it if there will still only muzzle-loading muskets and rifles around and the US didn't have a standing army and had to rely on a citizen's militia - as was the case when the Second Amendment was drafted.

By it's the way that it is presented as the sine qua non of democratic or human freedom that boggles my mind ... like the right to free speech. If these gun-nuts were equally as obsessed with health-care and equitable welfare and so on, I could perhaps buy it.

But they aren't.

This Facebook dude I know happens to be Orthodox but he's just as bat-shit gun-crazy as any red-neck fundamentalist. He keeps posting pictures of armed platoons of monks in the 1913 Greece/Balkan war to demonstrate how guns and Orthodoxy should co-exist. He's not canonical Orthodox so he's likely to be more fruit-cake than the average, but even so ...

Of course, the average US gun-owner is law-abiding, responsible and takes great care not to cause accidents or leave their weapons lying around for kids to play with etc. And it is a fact that most gun crime in the States is carried out by people with illegal weapons and not your average, law-abiding Joe. Of course.

But there are 85 fatal shootings in the US a day. 85 a day. Ok, here in the UK we've got a different set-up but even here I think that around 12 to 20 gun deaths a year from a population of nearly 60 million is too much. The US homicide rate is 10 times that of Western Europe according to some statistics.

And when I point that out to some of these US gunslingers they simply shrug and say that 'Freedom comes at a heavy price.' My arse.

This Orthodox guy is convinced that the Armenian genocide during WW1 wouldn't have happened if the Ottomans and then the Young Turks had allowed the civilian population to pack heat. He also quotes Gandhi to suggest that the British Raj wouldn't have lasted as long if the British authorities had allowed the Indian people to be armed. Well, how does he explain the ethnic cleansing and genocide that happened after the ending of British rule? I'm not saying the Raj wasn't culpable to some extent but arms and sectarian divisions make for an explosive mix.

When you push him he'll even say that he needs his guns just in case the Government comes after him or in case he has to defend himself against fundamentalist rednecks from the Deep South or the Mid-West ...



It gets even whackier if you ask a rhetorical question, such as: how many deaths did he think there might have been during the London riots last summer if the rioters had started using guns on any big scale? He'll just shrug and say that the rioters and people in the inner-cities, black and other ethnic minorities ought to have guns in order to fend off Government interference ...



What planet do these people live on?

What kind of fucking Frankenstein's fucking monster has that made-sense-in-the-18th-century-but-makes-no-fucking-sense-now Second Amendment created?

I try to understand, I really do, but faced by that kind of bullshit bilge (and I'm not including Irish Lord in this) then I begin to despair.

What planet, what kind of fucking fucked up fucking planet ...?
 

---

Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :
 
From this side of the pond, the issue can seem very, very strange. Two incidents have shaped UK gun law in fairly-recent decades. In the 80's the Hungerford massacre, when a guy armed with a legally-owned AK47 and other similar weapons roamed the town killing at random. Automatic weapons were then banned. Then the Dunblane shootings, when a whole class of 5 year olds was slain by a disaffected rejected scoutmaster, using handguns which were subsequently banned as well. The UK pistol-shooting team has to train for the olympics abroad. I don't know what the arrangements will be for the London games this summer.

Who needs guns? Military, police, farmers, gamekeepers... anyone else? Maybe if you live somewhere there are bears in the woods. I can't believe anyone in Europe or North America needs to shoot for food. People who enjoy target-shooting or killing small animals can take up archery.

The trouble with guns is they make killing so easy. What was that incident in a US trailer park a year or so ago? Some crazy family row, like we can see on daytime reality shows if we really want to watch, but there was a gun and suddenly people are dead, and the perpetrator is probably doing life, or maybe on death row by now. Yes we have violence here, sometimes with illegally owned guns, it happened just down the road a little while ago, but more often it's knives or bottles or whatever and sometimes people end up dead but more often, not.

I concede I'm prejudiced, I find something sordid about weaponry. During the debate after Dunblane, I saw footage of a gun club, maybe 30 or so guys, filmed from behind while they stood shoulder to shoulder, target shooting with handguns. Scruffy looking, slouching in anoraks and crumpled, baggy trousers, I could have believed they were wanking. What a sight.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
From what I can gather, Bean Sidhe, it isn't that long ago that people in remote parts of the US had to rely on hunting to supplement their diet. Spiffy and perhaps Irish Lord might tell us that this is still the case. Which would be fair enough. Hunting rifles are one thing, handguns and automatic rifles something else again.

I wouldn't begrudge the average US farmer a shootin' iron in case of rattlers and bears.

I don't think that's the issue. It's just that sensible gun-ownership in the US seems to have gone beyond what the rest of the civilised world would deem acceptable. The problem is, it's become linked in many Americans' eyes with their view of themselves, their civil liberties and their democratic rights.

And lobbyists like the NRA don't play fair. A Guardian article (I could get the link if you wanted it) recently suggested that the NRA actually HELPS the hoodlums and even potential terrorists with its refusal to countenance even the most sensible of reforms.

I showed this to my batshit crazy Bostonian friend and he simply responded by sending me a link to a news-story about a woman who always carried a gun in her car getting the better of a shoot-out with an armed gang who were attempting a hold-up somewhere.

So that makes it alright then ...

Who gives a monkey's whether hoods and terrorists can get hold of weaponry just as long as Calamity Jane there can carry a gun in her vehicle in order to thwart armed robbers ...

I know this is stereotypical and patronising, but I get the impression that these guys have watched too many Westerns.

I don't know whether it's apocryphal but at school we were told that there were two armed guards in front of the button that the President would need to press in the event of an all-out nuclear war. The idea was that if one of the guards went nuts the other one would shoot him before he could get to the nuclear button ...

Which presupposes, of course, that the good guy is always going to be quicker on the draw ...
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
It's not really about hunting. It's about the government. Americans don't trust the government. Any government. We'll need the guns when they come for us.
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
In Europe we believe the way you tell a sound government is when it is not hauling guns around on the streets.

Basically if we don't have them then the government don't need them when they come for us, so that increases our survival chances.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :
 
Couldn't you just keep a few pitbulls and mastiffs?
That's what our inner city drug dealers do, to be ready for when the narcs come for them.
Except in Ontario; pitbulls are illegal here.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
I have an opinion, and the state-given right to declare it ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
From what I can gather, Bean Sidhe, it isn't that long ago that people in remote parts of the US had to rely on hunting to supplement their diet. Spiffy and perhaps Irish Lord might tell us that this is still the case. Which would be fair enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
It's not really about hunting. It's about the government. Americans don't trust the government. Any government. We'll need the guns when they come for us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet
As for Genevieve's murderer - do we actually know that he held his weapons legally?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This thread's insane. "It's because of guns!" "No, it's because of mental health service failures!" Newsflash: both statements are true! Our friend wouldn't be dead if the mental health service wasn't so shit, and she also wouldn't be dead if the crazy bastard hadn't had easy access to guns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:
our laws here are so loose that I dont think permits are needed at all, just a background check for felonies. (Irish Lord - do you know what the rules are anymore?)

---

quote:

---

Spiffy lays it on us:
Let's see, we could blame the Second Amendment, but wouldn't it be a hell of a lot easier to blame Ronald Regan's dismantling of the nation's mental health system, plus the Bush Dynasty and the Republican-lead Congress' systematic destruction of our society's safety net that lead a mentally ill man to have to live in a forest for years?

No, wait, easier to blame the guns, because you don't want to face the real reason.

Oh, by the way? Congress is poised to destroy 124 billion with a b dollars worth of SNAP funding this month. You could call them and complain. Or whine about guns some more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteC:
Grow up cupcake. On that thread, you were out of the ballpark trying to make the thread all about you and your issues.

---

Ah yes. I forgot I was accused of Yorickism.

---

If you want I can be your buddy and when you start doing it again we can have a safe word. "Armageddon" maybe.

AtB Pyx_e

---

Oh that's so sweet of you.
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
I like guns, but frankly they've got nothing in terms of generalized lethality on another blameless instrument: automobiles.

Funny thing, though, automotive deaths are going down. The reason is not because of improved screening of driving licenses (ha!), and it's not because of a general improvement in driver training (double-ha!).

It's because humans are recognized to be flawed, so we've worked on making cars intrinsically safer. In all kinds of novel ways, and as those safety mechanisms prove out they become required on all new instances.

Now, I'm not going to deny that I'm strongly in favour of improving standards of screening (including regular functional tests) and for better training (especially mandatory emergency maneuvers and control in poor conditions). But I will hazard a guess that neither of these things would really be as effective with real humans, considering how fundamentally full of suck average humans are. Get a guy a bit tipsy because his girlfriend dumped him and have him madly texting "WTF" to his bros while driving his H3, and some classes aren't going to help fuck-all in the moment of crisis.

And to revert back to the topic at hand, I'm also going to suggest that while better mental health access and screening would be a good thing, they're not going to make much of a dent on the fact that the US is the Darwinistic-gun-death capital of the world. Get a guy drunk because his girlfriend dumped him and have him making emotionally-charged hyperbole that he tries to emote more effectively by brandishing his chromed M1911 (with the poorly-maintained safety), and having theoretical access to therapy and mood stabilizers aren't going to help fuck-all in the moment of clumsiness.

Not that I'm exactly brimming with workable ideas for the US gun situation. Luckily, I don't care about most people enough to be too worried. How you so-called "thou shalt not kill" gun owners manage to reconcile the issue is proof that humanity will probably die out from self-inflicted stupidity. And I kind of hate you for it.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
The functions of law are not to create Utopia, but to minimise the harm that humans are capable of inflicting upon each other.
 

---

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
As for the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has recently gnawed off half the words: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Kaput. We have "well regulated militias'. They are called National Guards. But the personal right to bear arms now has no connection with them. I'm not sure I totally agree with him, but my moderate Republican dad thinks if you want the right to bear guns that mostly exist to shoot people, you ought to put in a stint in a National Guard unit. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
These stories terrify me.

I can't see the correlation, though, between vehicle accidents and people driving without due care and attention and gun deaths. Vehicles are made to convey people and goods, not to crash into people or run them over. Guns are made for one purpose only. To shoot living things - whether animals or people.

In the case of handguns, it's people. You wouldn't get very far trying to hunt game with a pistol.

Has anyone got the figures on how many fatal automobile (cars for us Limeys) accidents there are a day across the States?

Would it really tell us something if we compared that to the number of gunshot deaths there are a day. 85. 85 a day.

Even given the size of the US population that's a heck of a lot - and sure, it'll be concentrated on certain hotspots and the geodemographic pattern will vary immensely. I don't see anyone arguing that there aren't socio-economic issues, drug-related issues, wider societal issues at play here. No-one is suggesting otherwise.

But it strikes me as obviating any sense of responsibility by a shrugging of the shoulders and the observation, 'Well, what about cars and trucks , they can kill people ...' or 'What about knives ...'

The fact is that things that are manufactured for no specific purpose other than the shooting of other human beings are in widespread and general circulation and the rest of us look on and think ... 'How the heck ...? Why did they allow themselves to get into this situation in the first place?'

Sure, we'll have our own blindspots and idiosyncracies, our ridiculous class-divisions and consciousness, our irritating and annoying tendencies that hack the rest of the world off ...

But I've never seen or heard a shot fired intentionally at another human being, nor do I ever wish to do so.

As to what the solution is ... well, it'd obviously be impractical for the 'gummint' to go round impounding all the guns or confiscating them ... what a shit-storm that would create.

But something needs to be done. Go figure, as the Americans would say.

---

Well done Gamaliel.

You've moved on a bit here from your usual soporific diatribe of:

"On the one hand there is this.

But conversely (I can see this converseness because I'm so awesome )

...there is this.

We should always sit on the fence and find the middle way."
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Why thank you Evensong.

You flatter me.

As this is Hell I will break with tradition and tell you to fuck off and mind your own business.


 

---

Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :
 
At least the US could introduce a medical report before a licence is granted. That this crazy living in the woods could legally own firearms is terrifying.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


As this is Hell I will break with tradition and tell you to fuck off and mind your own business.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You wouldn't get very far trying to hunt game with a pistol.

---

FWIW, folks do hunt with handguns- deer are taken with .357 and .44 magnum handguns fairly often in these parts. The folks I know who choose to hunt this way do so because it it a greater challenge than using a scoped rifle.

As far as the OP, I feel for you. Immensely. But I think the overarching premise is misguided.


 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You've moved on a bit here from [...]
"We should always sit on the fence and find the middle way."

---

What kind of Anglican are you?

 

---

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
FWIW, folks do hunt with handguns- deer are taken with .357 and .44 magnum handguns fairly often in these parts. The folks I know who choose to hunt this way do so because it it a greater challenge than using a scoped rifle....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Faux:

There is no law against drinking a full bottle of bourbon and then fondling your gun collection.

---

bet me. being over the legal driving limit (.08 BAC) and being in physical possession of a firearm is a great way to get 3 hots and a cot courtesy of the state government, here.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Too long and too fluffy?

Yes, my posts can be.

Try a short one, Evensong. Fuck off.
 

---

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
Gamaliel, that is undoubtedly your shortest post ever. It is also undoubtedly my favourite
 

---

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In the case of handguns, it's people. You wouldn't get very far trying to hunt game with a pistol.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
FWIW, folks do hunt with handguns- deer are taken with .357 and .44 magnum handguns fairly often in these parts. The folks I know who choose to hunt this way do so because it it a greater challenge than using a scoped rifle....

---

And thus obviously hunting for fun, not food. "Greater challenge" is for people with full tummies. OliviaG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
And thus obviously hunting for fun, not food. "Greater challenge" is for people with full tummies. OliviaG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:

and what I see - the sum total of those branded images and memories - is a culture of violence and dysfunction and pain that is not being addressed. I dont see the gun, or the car, or the knives, or the fists. I don't even see the alcohol or the drugs. I see broken hearts.

I want us to remove the butter knives, yes, to paraphrase a brilliant moment from Patdys on another thread. But more, I want to find a way to reach the broken hearts. I want children to grow up feeling loved and not feeling desperate. I WANT TO FIX THIS but I don't know how.

---

 

---

Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :
 
dammit, comet, I was planning to shut up.
Yeah, lots of suicide, high school buddies, friends, using guns, using cars, a nursing student using pills, a baby in the extended family dying of cancer, all those images in all of our minds; and I called some of them up in yours with my flipancy.
And if I called some horrifying memories up in your mind, others probably also had the flashbacks, the sadness, the buried pain come shrieking back from beyond walls not nearly secure enough.

I remember, as a hospital chaplain in a large hospital, dealing with death often several times a shift; for most of the family members, they, at that moment, were the only ones I had ever sat with as they felt the horrifying sting of violent death; if they suspected otherwise, I probably wouldn't have been anything other than another shirt and tie drifting past them on the worst day (usually, night) of their lives.

I remember accompanying a family member to the morgue to identify the body of a family member, killed in a senseless car crash. It was beyond recognition, and I stayed there with her grieving relative while she wept her heart out, and I missed an interview with a search committee for a call to ministry which I really, really wanted.

And then, perhaps in fury, I turn to something that sounds so simple - gun control - and I want to scream. So I do. And it doesn't help.
And I need to shut up. Now.

[ 08. May 2012, 18:45: Message edited by: Silver Faux ]
 

---

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
maybe we both need to scream, Silver Faux. maybe we all do.

maybe a little healthy screaming is the start.

you comfort the broken hearts; I tell their stories. we both have the be the "grown ups" for others - I suspect we both are happy to do so and are honored by the trust to do so. But when you're the bucket catching the runoff, sometimes you need to unload too or you'll overflow.

I do that, often (and probably not in a healthy way) by being a bitter bitch. I have no room for high ground. so go ahead, be flippant and pissy and bitter. just don't let that be the end of your reaction. siphon off the bile and then take the next step.

whatever the fuck that is.

somebody, tell me what that is.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:

if we could find a fair way of taking away guns that are meant for people but allowing the guns that are meant for food, I'd be fine with that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:
I wonder if its just Scandinavia. IIRC all Swiss adult males are part of the Swiss reserves and keep their firearms at home with them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:

if we could find a fair way of taking away guns that are meant for people but allowing the guns that are meant for food, I'd be fine with that.

---

That's pretty much how it works in Britain.

---

yes I know, and in a perfect world that's the answer. there's more going on here.

As most of my fellah 'mericans know - there's NO WAY it could happen right now. There's a small but very noisy bunch of nutballs who are just waiting for government to take any step in that regard. I know - my sister married one of them.

These people are already on edge - the fact that we have a black president who is not reactionary has them terrified. Their little circles of misinformation heated to a frenzy even before Obama was elected. Their sole concern- Obama will take away the guns.

so they're stocking up. guns. ammo. legal and illegal. Purposefully unregistered so the evil government won't come after them. They are terrified of some vague notion of a totalitarian state (the ones I know couldn't even pronounce totalitarian, but that's what they mean)

if some lawmaker were to introduce a bill in this current climate that takes away people's guns in any way and for any reason, there would be riots. These are people who are ignorant, scared, and very heavily armed. and in good communication with each other. they scare the fuck out of me.

they are not the majority of gun owners - not even close. but they are ready to be very unforgettable in very short order.

The only way I can see something like this happening that would not be disastrous is if it started with education. like what has happened with tobacco. a long, organized, careful campaign of education. and dealing with the social ills I yammered on about above.

The reality is that banning guns is just not possible right now without epic tragedy. I can see it happening someday; I don't believe it's possible right now.

Great Britain is a different place with a different history and different culture. We are big, and spread out, and encompass a lot of ground and a lot of subcultures and just simply a lot of people.

WWII was a big, very personal, very real threat to you guys. the aftermath of that led to a lot of changes that make sense within the context of where you were. Gun control may not have come directly out of that (I frankly don't know the history enough) but it seems to be a part of that overall social change.

We are not a little island somewhere. it's almost impossible for the entire country to feel that kind of threatened all at once (oddly enough, 9/11 came close). I think it helps make big, societal changing legislation if the whole populace is united due to an outside threat. (or another reason? I'd love another reason)

After 9/11 the country was okay with huge changes in airport security. we even allowed crazy bullshit like the Patriot Act (that's another thread) because we were threatened.

But there's damn little that unites a crazy many millions who can live 5 or 6 time zones away from each other, who can be eating fresh oranges off the tree on one side of the country while snowshoeing on the other.

people who's soul food can include collard greens or yankee potroast or enchiladas or pad thai or nut stew or fried plantains. people who come from so many backgrounds and so many histories and live in so many places.

I feel just as "alien" to the culture of, say, New England or the Deep South, as I do to the culture of England or Australia or France.

this is a big fucking place. to get us all under one tent on anything is really kind of amazing - it's amazing anything ever gets done in Washington. But something like gun control, that feels so invasive, and steps on the constitution - which many hold more sacred than the bible or other holy book of their choice - I don't even know how it could be done.
 

---

Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :
 
I've lived in a place with unrestricted guns - I never EVER want to live in such a place again. It was extremely dangerous.

Listening to you, Comet, sounds like a lot of rather tortured special pleading to me.

Of course it is difficult. But it is a fact that guns are designed to kill and main - that is what their sole purpose is. How can we love the beastly things? They may possibly be necessary - but they are more often than not, even in the "best" of hands, bringers of horror misery and death.

So having prety much unrestricted gun ownership in the 21C suggests to me that:
1. You guys need to amend that "sacred" Constitution of yours and re-educate people to understand that these lethal things are a privilege not a "right";
2. Until you do lots of people will die uneccessarily

Over to you lot.
This side of the Atlantic is safer - I love it that our police do NOT habitually carry firearms.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Comet, I know this is Hell, but I for one feel very moved by your posts and understand your predicament and - to some extent - the complexity of the issues you've raised. We don't have anything comparable her e so it is hard for us to comment. The biggest thing we're likely to come across in the woods is a red deer or a recently re-introduced (accidentally) wild boar and they tend to run away from people rather than attack them.

I concede the point that a revolver is more effective than a rifle in certain circumstances - such as the one with the injured moose. But I wouldn't have thought a handgun would be that effective in most hunting scenarios - although I can see the value of the quick-on-the-draw thing if a bear's after you.

Anyway, all that's detail. As we all seem to be agreed, there are all sorts of social/economic, geodemographic and even climatic influences and factors.

It's a bit like the story of the Irish guy asked for directions out in the sticks who replied, 'Well, I wouldn't start from here, Sor ...'

But you are where you are. I would have thought that if any of this could have been anticipated then a way could have been found to make some kind of exceptions and caveats for States like Alaska and Wyoming and so on where there are stupendously wide open spaces, whilst introducing what would look to the rest of us as more sensible controls in urban areas. But perhaps that wouldn't have been practical either.

I've got no downer on the US. Admittedly I've only visited New York - and was impressed - so although I do carp and tease a bit I'm always willing to listen to voices like yours who know what things are like on the ground and how this stuff works.

All I can say, in a very unhellish way is ...



And God bless America. You'll need it.
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bean Sidhe:
At least the US could introduce a medical report before a licence is granted. That this crazy living in the woods could legally own firearms is terrifying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:
IIRC all Swiss adult males are part of the Swiss reserves and keep their firearms at home with them. Again not so much gun crime. ... Its a fairly toxic mix of ideology, unresolved social issues and terrible laws that make gun ownership particularly deadly in the US.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Listening to you, Comet, sounds like a lot of rather tortured special pleading to me.

Of course it is difficult. But it is a fact that guns are designed to kill and main - that is what their sole purpose is. How can we love the beastly things? They may possibly be necessary - but they are more often than not, even in the "best" of hands, bringers of horror misery and death.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:
So long as one side says "all guns are evil murder sticks!" and the other side says "pry'em from my cold dead fingers!" nothing will ever get done. if the gun control folks want any change to ever happen, ever, they need to tone it down and try for reasoned discussion.

yes, same could be said for the pro-gun world - but they have what they want, no change necessary. so, no motivation to bother with a discussion.

hysteria only makes the rest of us ignore you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
So I get the wilderness side of this though I have only a sling shot (catapult) today. I go into black bear country, and have never had an adverse encounter, though almost had a moose try to get into the canoe once. The only wildlife I'd support taking a gun for is grizzly bears but I've camped in such country as well without. Avoidance is the best option in most cases.

---

I backpack quite a bit, and I tend to think that, in that context, a gun is more trouble than it's worth. It is heavy, and since I'm not going to carry any more than I absolutely have to, it would come at the expense of something else. Plus, I'm not going to be able to ask a charging ursine beast to please stop a moment while I dig my handgun out of the depths of my pack.

Oh, btw... I learned a really great way to tell the difference between a black bear and a grizzly: Go and kick it in the butt and then run away as fast as you can and climb a tree. If it climbs up after you and eats you, it's a black bear. If it just pushes the tree over and eats you, it's a grizzly. See? Simple.
 

---

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
Oh, btw... I learned a really great way to tell the difference between a black bear and a grizzly: Go and kick it in the butt and then run away as fast as you can and climb a tree. If it climbs up after you and eats you, it's a black bear. If it just pushes the tree over and eats you, it's a grizzly. See? Simple.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
1. Require people who want guns to write little exams and take a little practical test on safety and proper use etc.

2. Require that physicians and other health professionals report people who show medical conditions that would suggest their competence to have guns is compromised.

---

1 is a requirement for carry permits in most states, and for hunting licenses in many. I don't know of any that require anything like that for simple ownership though.

2 will result in a revocation of a carry permit in most states that issue them. That's the way it already works.
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
The good Padre reminds me of a sign I saw on the Internet once.

Some people I know who have and use guns respect them as tools. If guns are used as tools, they are OK by me. By used as a tool I mean for hunting game for the purpose of eating the game. Or, hunting game for some other reasonable purpose.*

There are people who have guns as family heirlooms that speak to a piece of family history. Good for them.

There are people who collect guns as a piece of history, or interest. Fine.

There are people who have guns for protection. I have much more mixed feelings about this. A gun is protection if you have it handy, know what you are doing with it. You use it only when your life, or another life, is threatened. And, you shoot to prevent the life from being ended by the aggressor.

The problem is that unless you meet all these criteria, you are much more likely to end up getting your ass shot. Yes, really.

Then there are the people who like guns for the feeling of power it gives them when they are quite suspicious of the "people in power."**

I don't want members of the last group even near a BB gun.

There are, of course, thousands of variations on the themes. Or, YMMV.

I remember a National Geographic show involving this guy from the University of Florida who studied alligators in the Okefenokee Swamp. He was armed with a long stick when he waded the Swamp studying the gators.*** I assume his is still uneaten, although he might be. I also remember this guy who studied bears in Alaska and is now remembered as a series of bear poops.

Unfortunately, our history as humans involves a lot of stuff that looks suspiciously like homicide and genocide. Legislating people to not have a gun unless they are certified as OK is not going to do much about the nutcases who want guns because of the people out to "get them."

Don't believe me? How are laws banning certain drugs doing?

Knee jerk reaction is probably not as useful as more reasoned debate here.

Just a few random, boring, thoughts.

_______________
* I have a friend who shoots gophers for Amish farmers. That is useful in that the Amish farmers use horses to pull plows. If the horses fall into a gopher hole they are probably lamed and useless for plowing. Less gophers = fewer lamed horses.

** Which can also be read as "The people out to get them and take their guns away."

***Not the team.
 

---

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
comet and spiffy:

As for education and changing culture, etc., that's why KenWritez and I thought the militia requirement was such a good idea. You can have all the frickin' guns you want, you can have a fucking rocket launcher for all I care, but you have to be in your state's militia or civil defense or whatever. You have to have an address and a phone so the militia can actually be called up if need be. You have to drill with your fellow gun-owners on a regular basis to ensure the militia is actually functional and effective, and not just a gun club. In the 2nd amendment, the need for a militia is the explicit reason for the right to own weapons. Stupid SCOTUS.

My own position, btw, is that because I live in Caprica City, I currently have no need for either a gun or a car. If I retire to the wilds, I will probably have both. OliviaG
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re militias:

I didn't see this mentioned, so...

There are lots of *non-governmental* militias in the US. Folks who like to stockpile guns...who think that any recent form of government is wronger than a wrong thing that's mistaken...who are just itching for a chance to go after Them (for any given definition of them). Especially other-racial Thems.

If that powder keg ever gets lit...


 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Putting aside the hunters/rural farmers thing. I think people who want to own a gun show enough of a sign of mental illness to be automatically disqulified.

AtB , Pyx_e
 

---

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
comet and spiffy:

As for education and changing culture, etc., that's why KenWritez and I thought the militia requirement was such a good idea. You can have all the frickin' guns you want, you can have a fucking rocket launcher for all I care, but you have to be in your state's militia or civil defense or whatever. You have to have an address and a phone so the militia can actually be called up if need be. You have to drill with your fellow gun-owners on a regular basis to ensure the militia is actually functional and effective, and not just a gun club. In the 2nd amendment, the need for a militia is the explicit reason for the right to own weapons.

---

quote:

---

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Putting aside the hunters/rural farmers thing. I think people who want to own a gun show enough of a sign of mental illness to be automatically disqulified.

---

Which is precisely what some of us are talking about- why have a rational discussion when you can sling shit instead. Personally, I think anyone who holds that opinion is a bigoted asshat- but that doesn't help the discussion in the least, does it?
 

---

Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :
 
At 85 American gun deaths per day, you wind up with 31,065 dead people per year.
That is roughly the same as having a '911 Twin Towers' event once per month, every month, every year.
So yeah, let's just keep the debate helpfully calm and rational.
No point in yelling "Stop fucking killing each other with guns right now, dammit!"
That's kinda overreacting, wouldn't you say?
Anyone ever heard of a paridgm change in thinking?
Why the fuck keep killing people with guns every bloody day?
I guess I just don't get it, I really don't!

[ 09. May 2012, 15:33: Message edited by: Silver Faux ]
 

---

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Faux:

No point in yelling "Stop fucking killing each other with guns right now, dammit!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Faux:
Anyone ever heard of a paridgm change in thinking?
Why the fuck keep killing people with guns every bloody day?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Faux:
I guess I just don't get it, I really don't!

---

That much is obvious.


Trying to interject reason, logic, and facts into an emotional discussion where folks' heads are firmly buried in the sand, their ears firmly plugged, and their mouths still wide open, still bleating the same, tired, old rhetoric is pretty much like wrestling with pigs- you just get muddy. Not sure why anyone keeps trying.

There's a paradigm shift for you- try listening to the "other side" and assume they're folks just like you, who want to live in a better world, but aren't sure how to get there.
 

---

Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :
 
I know they are folks just like me; some of them are my cousins on my mother's side.
That is at least partly why I abhor the idea of 31,065 Americans dying from gun violence every year. More during leap years, of course.

You don't hafta keep doing that to each other if you don't wanna.
Drinking and driving is no longer socially acceptable.
Owning slaves is no longer socially acceptable.
Keeping guns in order to kill one another need not continue to be socially acceptable.
Moose meat and cultural preferences aside, it is too high a price to continue paying.
 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 

quote:

---

Which is precisely what some of us are talking about- why have a rational discussion when you can sling shit instead. Personally, I think anyone who holds that opinion is a bigoted asshat- but that doesn't help the discussion in the least, does it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:

quote:

---

Which is precisely what some of us are talking about- why have a rational discussion when you can sling shit instead. Personally, I think anyone who holds that opinion is a bigoted asshat- but that doesn't help the discussion in the least, does it?

---

tiny penis?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I have a vague memory that the rate of death by gunshot in Norway is quite a lot higher than in Britain, and Switzerland higher still.

Also it is not true that all Swiss adult males are in the army, and its not true that all those that are keep guns at home. Conscripts have to be mentally and physically fit. Mentally ill people, those convicted of a crime, even recent immigrants and members of certain political parties, can be excluded from the system. And those who are in it have to pass a 21-week basic training.

Its almost the oppossite of the US system. In America the idea seems to be that who ever wants to have a gun can have one, and if you don't want to have onw you don't. In Switzerland its compulsory for some, forbidden for others. And the government gets to choose which group you are in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by monkeylizard:
A referendum pops up every few years to ban the home-storage practice and have it all stored at the local armories. It keeps getting voted down. Feb 2011 was the last one they tried.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:

quote:

---

Which is precisely what some of us are talking about- why have a rational discussion when you can sling shit instead. Personally, I think anyone who holds that opinion is a bigoted asshat- but that doesn't help the discussion in the least, does it?

---

tiny penis?

---

Are you discussing yours, or merely attempting to sling more shit?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I'm just trying to make you angry enough to threaten to shoot me. Idiot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Faux:
I know they are folks just like me; some of them are my cousins on my mother's side.
That is at least partly why I abhor the idea of 31,065 Americans dying from gun violence every year. More during leap years, of course.

You don't hafta keep doing that to each other if you don't wanna.
Drinking and driving is no longer socially acceptable.
Owning slaves is no longer socially acceptable.
Keeping guns in order to kill one another need not continue to be socially acceptable.
Moose meat and cultural preferences aside, it is too high a price to continue paying.

---

quote:

---

I'll refrain from calling you names, though. It doesn't do either of us any good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:

quote:

---

I'll refrain from calling you names, though. It doesn't do either of us any good.

---

Admirable, but let me get this straight, you won’t call me a "idiot" but you will shoot me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I think it remarkable that none of the names of the persons who died in this tragedy appear in this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:

quote:

---

I'll refrain from calling you names, though. It doesn't do either of us any good.

---

Admirable, but let me get this straight, you won’t call me a "idiot" but you will shoot me?

---

You said that- I certainly did not. I'm a bit concerned that you're seeing things that aren't there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
It was a question not a statement. The "?" is a clue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Admirable, but let me get this straight, you won’t call me a "idiot" but you will shoot me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I'm just trying to make you angry enough to threaten to shoot me. Idiot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
Oh, btw... I learned a really great way to tell the difference between a black bear and a grizzly: Go and kick it in the butt and then run away as fast as you can and climb a tree. If it climbs up after you and eats you, it's a black bear. If it just pushes the tree over and eats you, it's a grizzly. See? Simple.

---

I've always said that if a person says "I think it was a grizzly", then it wasn't. They are so qualitatively different, and so much bigger. House fly to horse fly. House cat to cougar. Your post makes me think we could have a wildlife encounter thread somewhere.

---

quote:

---

After 112 people were shot dead in 11 mass shootings* in a decade, Australia collected and destroyed categories of firearms designed to kill many people quickly. In his immediate reaction to the Port Arthur massacre, Prime Minister John Howard said of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns: "There is no legitimate interest served in my view by the free availability in this country of weapons of this kind… That is why we have proposed a comprehensive package of reforms designed to implement tougher, more effective and uniform gun laws."

As study co-author Philip Alpers points out: "The new legislation's first declared aim was to reduce the risk of similar gun massacres. In the 10½ years since the gun buy-back announcement, no mass shootings have occurred in Australia."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
Simply removing the guns will not cure the underlying problem. We have to find the answer to the violence before the killing will end, guns or no guns. Maybe that does begin with guns, but somehow I think that the "progressives" will stop there, pat themselves on the back, and gloss over the other issues. True progress demands that we find answers to all of the complexities, not just the one that feels good.

So, to summarize: Quit squeezing that hanky and whining about how other nations have tough gun laws and let's figure out how to stop the violence. The gun issue will become irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reuben:

quote:

---

After 112 people were shot dead in 11 mass shootings* in a decade, Australia collected and destroyed categories of firearms designed to kill many people quickly. In his immediate reaction to the Port Arthur massacre, Prime Minister John Howard said of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns: "There is no legitimate interest served in my view by the free availability in this country of weapons of this kind… That is why we have proposed a comprehensive package of reforms designed to implement tougher, more effective and uniform gun laws."

As study co-author Philip Alpers points out: "The new legislation's first declared aim was to reduce the risk of similar gun massacres. In the 10½ years since the gun buy-back announcement, no mass shootings have occurred in Australia."

---

This is an extract from a Sydney University study published in 2006.

The study also mentions that the rate of Australians killed from gunshots was almost halved from 1996 to 2003 with a decrease in rate per 1 million persons killed from 26.1 (1996) to 14.5 (2003). If the figure stated earlier in this thread of 31,065 Americans killed per year is correct this translates to 1036 deaths per million, making the per capita risk of dying from guns in the US about 71 times higher than the death rate in Australia.

If the Australian legislation (which saw a 45% reduction in gun deaths over 7 years) only saw a 10% reduction in gun deaths in the US this would mean 3,100 less people dying each year.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by monkeylizard:

As for semi-automatic vs manual action, a practiced shooter can be nearly as quick with a good bolt rifle/pump shotgun as with a semi-auto. Spray-and-pray isn't quite as fast, but it's close enough that a crowd being shot up won't notice the difference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
I think it was negligent manslaughter and should be prosecuted as such.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
You do realise that the survival rate of knife victims is far higher than with shooting? So even if all the shootings became knife attacks you end up with a reduced death rate.

Jengie

---

Of course. That's why I said "outweighed in part".
 

---

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Going a bit tangent-wise .

Was anyone, like me , amazed that no-one took a pot-shot at the Royal Family on the Thames last week ?

Surely security couldn't have prevented a sniper attack from anywhere along the entire river frontage past which the Queen's open-topped barge sailed .

Just have to be thankful that no-one in the UK apparently had any desire to rub out a dignitary that day .
 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Well Done! Every e mail you now ever write will be scrutinised.
 

---

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Oops

Sorry forgot . You might think it, but don't for goodness sake put it on the IT . Don't suppose MI5 will find much of interest in my e-mails .

Didn't actually say I wanted to assassinate anyone , (quite like the Monarchy as it happens).
I just thought that, since JFK was shot on a well-advertised open-air appearance , the Royals might at least have had a bullet proof glass around them.

Would have kept the rain off if nothing else.
 

---

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
I was once at an institution being visited by the queen. Every manhole cover was checked and sealed, the woods were searched, there were snipers on the roof - I think you may underestimate how much security had gone into the venture.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0