And it begins: Obama Renews Push to Reduce Gun Violence

[Neil]

What's an adequate gun? In terms of home defense, a shot from from a pistol round to the head or heart will make someone just as dead as a shot from a rifle or shotgun. What does "unnecessarily powerful" mean? We aren't talking about grenade launchers or anything like that. A firearm is only as powerful as the round it shoots. So a .223 round from an assault rifle does the same damage as a .223 from a hunting rifle. The only difference is the way the rifle looks, and the way it looks has no bearing on its power. Assault rifles only look menacing because they're associated with war. And then some assault rifles look more menacing than other assault rifles. But looks are deceiving there. Same with shotguns. Sawed off(short barrel) shotguns look more menacing than full length shotguns. Pistols too. Semi auto pistols look more menacing than revolvers. But they really aren't. This is one of the troubling aspects of this whole thing. People think there should be restrictions on certain firearms, but they don't know anything about the firearms they want to restrict. Effectively weakening the peoples ability to defend themselves. So when you add all this up, do you seriously not see a pattern emerging? Because I keep hearing you guys say that our reasons for owning firearms are invalid. So do you really think we're all imagining all of this stuff? That it's business as usual over here, and that we really have no realistic cause for concern? Do you honestly think that our concerns about our liberties being stripped away all boils down to just paranoia? In an attempt to make my point... Over on another thread, this image was posted... This, as the owner put it, was before "I really started to collect guns".   Can I ask do you think that picture in anyway suggests what the 2nd amendment was aimed at? Does that wall help this individual retain his freedom any more than a single gun? Does a wall of guns help protect his fellow citizens? Or does is this unhealthy gung-ho attitude towards guns, and their ease of access, become part of the problem? Does this huge array of death and destruction pose more of a threat to others than it in turn offers security to an individual? To me - and I don't mean to sound condescending - it feels to me Americans have go so carried away with their supposed own freedom and their own rights, that they've forgotten that it may come at the expense of other peoples'. Would it really be so bad if you could only own one gun and a limited supply of ammunition? If this could help prevent some shootings wouldn't that be a good compromise? And as I've said before, I don't pretend to know what the answer to shootings like we've witness over and over in the US, but I know the somewhat sick love affair we seem to witness with devices designed to kill can't help the problem.

[Tricky]

Some of the photos on here amaze me, why does any civilian need a minigun or belt fed .50cal tripod mounted machine gun? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/pi...?frame=2403831

[Neil]

I actually have no issue at all with what ever guns people want at all at a firing range... It's when there's the desire to have a small arsenal in your cupboard I cannot fathom. Seems more down to reasons of bling than anything to do with sensible and justified home defense?

[DjfunkmasterG]

And you can't deny that America is hated by many nations. Maybe if we weren't such cocksuckers, we wouldn't be hated as much. We do have a snobbery to us that tends to even piss off our allies.

[babomb]

Can I ask do you think that picture in anyway suggests what the 2nd amendment was aimed at? Does that wall help this individual retain his freedom any more than a single gun? Does a wall of guns help protect his fellow citizens? Or does is this unhealthy gung-ho attitude towards guns, and their ease of access, become part of the problem? Does this huge array of death and destruction pose more of a threat to others than it in turn offers security to an individual? I think that's exactly what the 2nd amendment was aimed at. For 1 thing, the top 3 firearms to the left in that image are antiques. In no way considered assault rifles as their capacity is limited to 6 rounds at best, and they're bolt action firearms not semi-auto. The bottom rifle to the left is a kalashnikov variant, also a collector firearm, and depending on the manufacture date it could also be an antique. We also don't know the details of this persons situation. So the AR variants on the right could be for other members of his family or friends. They're on display, but he most likely keeps them locked up in a gun safe because that's alot of money to have sitting around like that. If this guy is a responsible owner then I don't see a problem with him owning those firearms. Just because he displays them in a photo like that doesn't mean they're freely available for someone to walk in and grab to go shoot a bunch of innocent people with. To me - and I don't mean to sound condescending - it feels to me Americans have go so carried away with their supposed own freedom and their own rights, that they've forgotten that it may come at the expense of other peoples'. Would it really be so bad if you could only own one gun and a limited supply of ammunition? If this could help prevent some shootings wouldn't that be a good compromise? It doesn't have to come at the expense of the rights of others. I believe there's a way to curtail that without denying anyone any rights at all. I do see a problem with only owning a single firearm and limited ammunition. How would you choose that single firearm? If you choose a pistol for home defense, then you can't own a rifle or shotgun suitable for hunting or sport shooting. People who own competition firearms and take part in actual competitions can go through several hundred rounds in an afternoon. Whether for practice or in a match. So to ease the cost of all those rounds they reload their own shells. Under that rule you propose, none of that is possible at all. Also for hunting you're often required to have several different firearms for different uses. To hunt ducks and water fowl you need a long barrel shotgun with an adjustable choke. If you want to hunt deer in a state where using high powered rifles for hunting is illegal you need a shotgun with a rifled barrel. You don't shoot buckshot through a rifled barrel and you don't shoot slugs through a smoothbore. Then you have remote places such as Alaska where people hunt to eat, to survive the winters. And all resources have to be brought in by truck and there's often several months of the year that bringing supplies in isn't possible. So people stock up on supplies such as ammo to have enough for the whole winter. Because they might run into a situation where they can't get more for an extended period. Then they can't hunt, and their families don't eat. It's also more cost effective to buy a large amount of ammo at once, or to buy a reloading machine, powder and primers. Many Americans also fear the breakdown of society, and a situation where they're unable to obtain more ammo and food. Which isn't an unfounded concern, and that concern is also trumped up by the media and entertainment industry. So in a situation like that, be it a natural disaster or economic collapse, or both, limiting people to a single firearm and a small amount of ammunition could be a detriment to peoples ability to protect themselves and the ability to provide for their families. So under the situation you propose, peoples ability to survive and thrive in certain situations is seriously limited due to the actions of a few nutjobs. So basically what you're saying is that the nutjobs that shoot up schools, malls , and theaters should set the bar for everyone else. That the actions of these insane criminals should be allowed to determine the future of the firearms industry, the hunting industry, and law abiding citizens ability to protect themselves and provide for their families. I'm saying that people like that shouldn't be given such power and influence over an entire society. And as I've said before, I don't pretend to know what the answer to shootings like we've witness over and over in the US, but I know the somewhat sick love affair we seem to witness with devices designed to kill can't help the problem. I agree with that. There is a sick love affair with firearms in this country. However, that's an issue of the free market for the most part. How do you solve that? How do you impose restrictions on marketing and advertising without having an adverse effect on an already failing economy?

[Neil]

It doesn't have to come at the expense of the rights of others. I believe there's a way to curtail that without denying anyone any rights at all. I do see a problem with only owning a single firearm and limited ammunition. How would you choose that single firearm? If you choose a pistol for home defense, then you can't own a rifle or shotgun suitable for hunting or sport shooting. People who own competition firearms and take part in actual competitions can go through several hundred rounds in an afternoon. Whether for practice or in a match. So to ease the cost of all those rounds they reload their own shells. Under that rule you propose, none of that is possible at all. Also for hunting you're often required to have several different firearms for different uses. To hunt ducks and water fowl you need a long barrel shotgun with an adjustable choke. If you want to hunt deer in a state where using high powered rifles for hunting is illegal you need a shotgun with a rifled barrel. You don't shoot buckshot through a rifled barrel and you don't shoot slugs through a smoothbore. You've surely chosen the exeption to the rule? Can we consider Mr Average Joe who lives in a city. He will never go shooting, or take part in competitions. Yet stands a good chance of being allowed to own dozens of firearms with more firepower than a small police station. Does this make sense? Look at the image I 'spoilered' above. Does that look like a hunter or competition shooter to you? It's posted by a Mr Average Joe though, and pre-dates the other guns he's now added!?

[babomb]

Some of the photos on here amaze me, why does any civilian need a minigun or belt fed .50cal tripod mounted machine gun? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/pi...?frame=2403831 Average citizens don't own those. Those can only be owned by firearms dealers that are licensed and authorized to own them. Normal folks show up to events like that to shoot them, but they can't bring them home. Those weapons are designed and manufactured by private companies that are contracted by the department of defense, part of the military industrial complex. Because private industries are better suited to develop weapons like that. The same is true for all industrialized nations. But that doesn't mean that I can buy one and bring it home to mount on the back of a pickup truck.

[Neil]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20838729 - Piers Morgan: Thousands petition for deportation This is fantastic! So people ignore the 1st amendment to uphold the 2nd.

[Publius]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20838729 - Piers Morgan: Thousands petition for deportation This is fantastic! So people ignore the 1st amendment to uphold the 2nd. I guess that's the kind of mindset that results when people get the idea that you can pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights to enforce.

[babomb]

Maybe if we weren't such cocksuckers, we wouldn't be hated as much. We do have a snobbery to us that tends to even piss off our allies. I agree 100% there. You've surely chosen the exeption to the rule? Can we consider Mr Average Joe who lives in a city. He will never go shooting, or take part in competitions. Yet stands a good chance of being allowed to own dozens of firearms with more firepower than a small police station. Does this make sense? Look at the image I 'spoilered' above. Does that look like a hunter or competition shooter to you? It's posted by a Mr Average Joe though, and pre-dates the other guns he's now added!? Ok. But how do you restrict Joe Average from owning multiple firearms and ammo but still allow others to own multiple firearms for hunting and competition shooting? If there was a special license needed for hunting and competition shooting then people will just take up those hobbies, acquire the license and continue on. As to the exception to the rule, well, that represents a sizeable portion of firearm owners. - - - Updated - - - I guess that's the kind of mindset that results when people get the idea that you can pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights to enforce. Exactly right. While I myself am not on that deportation bandwagon, I can see why others are. I watched those debates with Peirs Morgan and he was acting like a total douche. Wouldn't allow his guests to even get a complete sentence out of their mouths before he started his heated rants. Complete with name calling and finger pointing. He's certainly entitled to his own opinion on the matter. Had he gone about it in a more respectful manner and not acted like such a douche bag about it on national television, calling names and shit, nobody would've cared. Especially since he's done this before. He had Micheal moore on his show and they discussed gun control. It was a polite and civil discussion, and nobody had a problem with it. No petitions for deportation were introduced. The Bill Of Rights is non-negotiable. It's the backbone of America. People need to respect that and stop acting like it's an outdated document that has no place in modern society. That's what gets Americans riled up and pissed off. It's one thing to discuss the issue of gun control, it's a completely different ballgame when during that discussion someone begins to disregard or cast aside the BOR. That's when the situation becomes a powder keg. You don't hear Americans arguing about the rights that Brits should be allowed to have under the Magna Carta. Those are your rights. It's not our place to decide those things or to pass judgement on them. If Brits are happy with very restrictive firearms laws, that's fine, we'll support you in that. If you want to repeal those laws and establish your own right to bear arms, great, we'll support you in that too. If you want to discuss our right to bear arms, that's ok too, just be respectful of that right. We don't have a problem with any of this. The problem only comes into play when Brits come over here, and are welcomed by us, and enjoy our way of life while working to undermine or subvert our constitutional rights. Especially when those rights were, in part, established to protect us from you.

[DjfunkmasterG]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20838729 - Piers Morgan: Thousands petition for deportation This is fantastic! So people ignore the 1st amendment to uphold the 2nd. A Texan started Neil... would you expect anything less?

[Publius]

Ok. But how do you restrict Joe Average from owning multiple firearms and ammo but still allow others to own multiple firearms for hunting and competition shooting? The statist approach is to simply declare that what's good enough for Joe Average ought to be good enough for everyone. See Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" for a satirical take on what lies down that road.

[babomb]

Here's a good sentiment. 2nd_amm.jpg On a side note, this image is from facebook. They have all these weird groups and pages for political ideologies and all they do is send out memes like this. Day in and day out. So they either have an automated system that sends these out, or they have people posting shit in shifts, 24 hours a day. They all claim to be spreading the truth. The shit is interesting sometimes. But really it's just a distraction. People are being indoctrinated by this shit and they don't even know it. By sharing the shit they put out it makes people feel like they're doing something by spreading the word. So they're less likely to act. And you know the government uses it to monitor people. During Arab Spring the media was talking it up, saying how facebook was a useful tool in organizing protests. It's basically just a huge database system. It stores peoples personal information, then as you interact with it you associate yourself with all these interests and activities. And since it's all just data, all those things you associate yourself with are automatically categorized and keyword ready. All that's needed is a query engine. Crazy ass world.

[strayrider]

Ok. But how do you restrict Joe Average from owning multiple firearms and ammo... You don't. -stray-

[Neil]

You don't. -stray- Here's a Joe Average with the guns you'd let him have then - How's that working for you at the moment? - - - Updated - - - You don't hear Americans arguing about the rights that Brits should be allowed to have under the Magna Carta. Those are your rights. It's not our place to decide those things or to pass judgement on them. If Brits are happy with very restrictive firearms laws, that's fine, we'll support you in that. If you want to repeal those laws and establish your own right to bear arms, great, we'll support you in that too. If you want to discuss our right to bear arms, that's ok too, just be respectful of that right. We don't have a problem with any of this. The problem only comes into play when Brits come over here, and are welcomed by us, and enjoy our way of life while working to undermine or subvert our constitutional rights. Especially when those rights were, in part, established to protect us from you. Sorry, but we've had gun threads here before where Americans have tried endorsing gun ownership here in the UK? And to clarify, I'm not suggesting the 2nd amendment should be revoked. I'm suggesting its interpretation has got carried away, and that americans have gone far beyond what it was meant when it was written hundreds of years ago. Do you think they envisaged dozens of guns and assault rifles etc? Has gun ownership got carried away for personal pleasure (greed?) instead of personal protection? Maybe gun ownership laws needs adjusting to bring it back into sensible land.