Brits and handguns.

[Ranb]

Out of sight, out of mind. And of course people with guns keep her safe, but it doesn't necessarily follow that more guns means more safety.

Sounds like rape isn't a problem until it happens to them or someone they know. This is based on what you said, not what scarletinlondon said.

The arsenal of weapons that confronted me when I rounded a corner.

Perhaps you can imagine my disappointment when the local Walmart stopped selling guns then. If the typical hunting rifles Walmart sells make your jaw drop, then I can only imagine the stroke you would have if you walked into a sporting goods store that sold handguns and other fireams formerly classified as assault weapons.

Ranb

 

[brodski]

Immeasurably safer because, if you remove criminal victims and suicides, the homicide rates aren't so different.
"

can you show your data? Are you removing criminal victims and suicides from both sets of data?

 

[brodski]

I added a holographic sight to my wife's 10-22 and a crimson trace to her S&W 686. Really improved her accuracy.

I do remember in WWII Brits were begging us Yanks for guns for personnel use. Thousands of handguns were sent over. Probably all destroyed by now.

So it goes.

They were destroyed at the time, melted down for scrap to produce military weapons. Churchill's plan to arm the civilian population against invasion was never implemented and was more of a propaganda exercise than anything else- it seems that it is still being used that way.

 

[3point14]

The "because it's in the constitution" argument has always seemed remarkably obtuse to me. Even ignoring the ambiguities (well-regulated militia), just because someone thought something was a good idea 200 years ago doesn't mean it's a good idea now. In fact, US attitudes to the constitution in this respect are the best argument I can think of for not having one.

The "protection from tyranny" one is even worse. Ask Gabrielle Gifford.

Rolfe.

My perception is that a lot of Amnericans view the constitution as a holy and sacred document and don't apply a lot of critical thinking skills to it as a result.

 

[brodski]

Ok


Really? So where did the graph you posted come from? Was the research the scientist performed not real?

I did not know the gun lobby was that powerful. They have not stopped me.

Ranb

They have prevented any federal agency or body from conducting or funding any research which could inform the gun control debate.

 

[Ranb]

They have prevented any federal agency or body from conducting or funding any research which could inform the gun control debate.

Really? The NRA can do that? And I thought it was Congress that controlled funding for research by federal agencies.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/01/obama-lifts-ban-on-funding-gun-v.html

CDC's funding of research on gun violence peaked at about $2.6 million in 1996. The results included findings such as the observation that homicides are significantly more likely to occur in households where a gun is kept. The gun lobby pressured Congress to stop this line of inquiry, and in the mid-1990s legislators issued a series of advisory messages and some legal restrictions on agency actions.

Among other steps, legislators added a directive in the bill that funds CDC's injury prevention center that said "none of the funds … may be used to advocate or promote gun control." Congress also cut CDC's budget by the amount it was spending on gun violence research, without specifying where the cut should be made. Managers got the message and cut gun-related research.

Ranb

 

[brodski]

Really? The NRA can do that? And I thought it was Congress that controlled funding for research by federal agencies.

Ranb

You're quite right. Lobbyists and pressure groups achieve any of their political goals through congress.

Why are these idiots in, funding and supporting the NRA wasting so much time and money on an exercise which could never help them achieve any of their goals?

 

[Ranb]

My perception is that a lot of Amnericans view the constitution as a holy and sacred document and don't apply a lot of critical thinking skills to it as a result.

Nah, it is just another law. But we don't really get to pick and choose the laws we obey now do we? If a law prohibits the government from infringing upon a right, then it is the law. If you don't like it, get it changed, move or live with it.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

Why are these idiots in, funding and supporting the NRA wasting so much time and money on an exercise which could never help them achieve any of their goals?

Which excercise and goals are you referring to?

Ranb

 

[Captain_Snort]

Ok


Really? So where did the graph you posted come from? Was the research the scientist performed not real?

I did not know the gun lobby was that powerful. They have not stopped me.

Ranb

Read the article, he is doing some excellent research, despite the interference of the NRA in possible sources for funding. The lack of a large amount of properly funded research makes the claims of the pro gun lobby, somewhat dubious and seem to me, just like what some are spouting here, a somewhat dubious, undocumented use of statistics. The few peer reviewed papers that are in existence do not seem to have been rebuffed, or even referred to, just ignored.

The simple fact is, guns facilitate the killing of people, and the US has an exceptionally high murder /gun death rate when compared to similar developed countries with stricter gun control laws. It makes no odds if it gang crime, cold blooded murder, accidents etc. I am quite thankful we do not have such a situation here.

 

[brodski]

Which excercise and goals are you referring to?

Ranb

The exercise of lobbying politicians and the goals of limiting restrictions on firearm ownership. Your own link showed that for 17 years federal research on gun violence was effectively prohibited, this was in keeping with the wishes of the NRA.

The NRA spends a fortune on lobbying and campaigning- either they are successful in this and do influence legislation and policy or they are unsuccessful and therefore wasting vast amounts of time and money. Which is it?

 

[geni]

More dangerous fauna,

UK had dangerous fauna. We killed it. From what I hear you guys can't even take out your wild boar population.

 

[3point14]

Sounds like rape isn't a problem until it happens to them or someone they know. This is based on what you said, not what scarletinlondon said.


Perhaps you can imagine my disappointment when the local Walmart stopped selling guns then. If the typical hunting rifles Walmart sells make your jaw drop, then I can only imagine the stroke you would have if you walked into a sporting goods store that sold handguns and other fireams formerly classified as assault weapons.

Ranb

Actually, I think it's going to be more shocking in a supermarket - a familiar environment, I imagine they look pretty similar the world over. Apart from the guns.


One would kind of expect it in a gun shop. In a supermarket it would be a little like finding a hardcore pornography aisle.

 

[3point14]

Nah, it is just another law. But we don't really get to pick and choose the laws we obey now do we? If a law prohibits the government from infringing upon a right, then it is the law. If you don't like it, get it changed, move or live with it.

Ranb

Yes, but laws have to be made. And some should be repealed.

I have mostly given up engaging in US gun control threads as it is impossible to discuss without the constitution getting in the way. Some debaters will put it down like it's the ace of trumps and they're playing Bridge. They believe that's the end of the argument and won't brook any discussion around the fact that the second amendment is clearly, demonstrably wrong.

 

[Ranb]

Read the article, he is doing some excellent research, despite the interference of the NRA in possible sources for funding.

It is an interesting article.

He has, for instance, repeatedly criticized the assault-weapons ban enacted by Congress in 1994, in part because the ban was easily circumvented. Instead, he advocates three steps informed by research: requiring background checks for all US gun sales, forbidding alcohol abusers and those convicted of violent misdemeanors from buying guns and rewriting current federal restrictions on gun ownership to better capture people who are mentally ill and at risk of violence to themselves or others.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

I have mostly given up engaging in US gun control threads as it is impossible to discuss without the constitution getting in the way.

I rarely use the 2nd amendment as a pro-gun argument simply because it is all but ignored by Congress.

They believe that's the end of the argument and won't brook any discussion around the fact that the second amendment is clearly, demonstrably wrong.

Wrong or not it is still the law.

Firearms in Washington State are restricted based on issues other than violent crimes against people, if you can believe the claims made by the legislators that pushed the bills restricting those fireams. I am trying to get some of the those restrictions eased. When I discuss the gun control laws with my Representatives I typically find out that they passed a gun bill because they thought it was a good idea that had nothing to do with saving lives.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

The exercise of lobbying politicians and the goals of limiting restrictions on firearm ownership. Your own link showed that for 17 years federal research on gun violence was effectively prohibited, this was in keeping with the wishes of the NRA.

The research was not performed because the CDC decided not to do it. But yes they got the message when their budget was cut buy the same amount they spent on gun research.

The NRA spends a fortune on lobbying and campaigning- either they are successful in this and do influence legislation and policy or they are unsuccessful and therefore wasting vast amounts of time and money. Which is it?

Considering the restrictions that are still in place, they are wasting their money. They wouldn't even give me the time of day when I asked for advice on easing restrictions in my state; and my efforts were a success.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

UK had dangerous fauna. We killed it. From what I hear you guys can't even take out your wild boar population.

Could you guys kill it today if it was not taken out long ago? There are efforts by "pig huggers" to prevent hunters from killing them. Hunting in populated areas is not encouraged either.

Ranb

 

[The Don]

Could you guys kill it today if it was not taken out long ago? There are efforts by "pig huggers" to prevent hunters from killing them. Hunting in populated areas is not encouraged either.

Ranb

Yes, there's a significant wild population in the Forest of Dean. A cull by Forestry Commission Rangers is ongoing.

 

[3point14]

Could you guys kill it today if it was not taken out long ago? There are efforts by "pig huggers" to prevent hunters from killing them. Hunting in populated areas is not encouraged either.

Ranb

Bear in mind that there's a lot less wilderness over here for them to go hide and breed in.