School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thermal said:
I don't understand the argument against registration. It would effectively numb out the gray and black markets, resulting in less illegal weapons on the street, and at no significant inconvenience to the owners.
Click to expand...

There is an extremely intense fear among many gun enthusiasts that any form of registration will almost inevitably lead to large-scale confiscation. This fear is not limited to what would generally be considered extremists.
 
arthwollipot said:
See, this is why this event is no different from all the others, despite many people saying that it "feels" different (what does that even mean anyway?). We're going over the same ground in this thread that we went over in all the other threads, and every time we have this discussion, we get absolutely nowhere.
Click to expand...

What it means is that this time, there's a sense from the media coverage that the response might be different.

Yes, the talking points are exactly the same as they always are, but here in America, this time around the gun supporting right wingers are mumbling when they say them, and this time the gun opponents are standing up and screaming "No more B.S.!" and organizing a Washington march, and appearing on Meet the Press.

And this time, the politicians are starting out with, "Well, maybe we can do something about registration or mental health or age limits." Usually they dig in their heels right away and say, "It's not the guns."

It really does feel different this time.


whether that feeling persists......I guess we'll find out.
 
Civet said:
There is an extremely intense fear among many gun enthusiasts that any form of registration will almost inevitably lead to large-scale confiscation. This fear is not limited to what would generally be considered extremists.
Click to expand...

And the other side is saying that it wouldn't be that because look at how common gun ownership is in the UK! Getting there would only mean disarming 60 million Americans. Not large scale at all....
 
The UK used to be a gun culture - it changed after the first world war.
 
arthwollipot said:
Thank you for that remote diagnosis of me and many of the people I know.
Click to expand...

You regularly wear a sword in your everyday life?

I wear a Gladius when I am re-enacting, not doing the shopping.

For a start in the UK parading around the streets with a sword would get you arrested.
 
IanS said:
No, actually it's very far from common for ordinary private citizens to personally own guns, and it's almost impossible for private citizens to keep guns and bullets on ready access in their own private homes.

Take a look at the link I gave earlier to that BBC article describing the UK gun law's and under what circumstances any particular individual can legally own a gun. What you see there is that there are plenty of UK farmers & gamekeeper's and people who like to shoot partridges & pigeons on farmland, who are legally allowed to own shotguns, and there are quite a few licensed secure gun clubs where all the guns are only available for use on the club premises (afaik, you cannot take guns away from the premises) ...

... but the key element is this - not only are handguns entirely banned in the UK, and also various types of rifles, but if any private person does apply for a licence to own a gun, then he/she must show on the application forms why they actually' "need" any sort of gun in the first place ... and that is a requirement that is 99.9% impossible for anyone to meet (except for the aforementioned farmers and gun clubs) ... if you say that you need a gun for self defence then that will be rejected immediately as obviously absurd and untrue ... if you say you need one to shoot a pigeons or targets in your back yard/garden, then that too will be instantly dismissed since it's not a "need" i.e. not a "necessity" for you to do that ... it's almost impossible to actually support any claim that you actually "need" a gun of any kind.
Click to expand...


No this is wrong it isn't nearly impossible at all.
If you join a shooting club and attend regularly and enter matches either range or field target then you have a need for a gun.
If you have permission from the landowner and regularly go to shoot rabbit, pigeon, crows and such you have a need.
If you regularly go shooting deer then you have a need.

Over the years I have had a 22 semi auto for field shooting, a 22 target rifle and a Lee Enfield Mk 4 that I used for 'vintage military' competition.
 
DragonLady said:
The 2nd amendment says:


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

We need to remember that when the constitution was drafted, guns were not just for hunting or self-defense or target practice. They were the weapons of war, which had just freed our country from the tyranny of the British government.

The reason no one in their right minds wants any kind of ban on guns that prevents guns from being readily accessed and used is to prevent our current government from becoming tyrannical. They have to take away the guns -or just keep making them harder and harder to get- before they can make many inroads against our other civil rights.

But, once it's impossible for the average person to get guns, all the average people are hostage to whatever happens next -the loss of free speech & the free press, being subject to search and seizures (ergo losing any guns they've hidden), etc.
Click to expand...

Exactly the whole point is to promote domestic terrorism. As such we should celebrate such shootings and the constitutionally protected right they are. In fact we need to seriously deregulate explosives too land mines are a classic insurgent weapon after all.
 
TofuFighter said:
The WHO reported that in the whole of Africa in 2015, interpersonal violence accounted for 102,000 deaths. That's ALL manner of violence including guns, machetes, and swinging cactii.
....
Click to expand...
I suspect that is seriously understated. Many countries and locations in Africa simply have no mechanisms in place to collect such data.

In addition I imagine they are excluding deaths from political conflicts in their definition of "interpersonal violence".
 
DragonLady said:
(nods)

I hear you. I'm not particularly advocating our current climate. I'm simply reminding everyone how we got here, and why we've stayed here.

However, I personally don't believe it's effective, as in my lifetime I've seen a great number of our civil liberties trampled, and the guns -and people holding the guns- never did anything to stop it.

As I said upstream: money is what will make the difference. If there's anything, anywhere, that will cause America to suddenly become a gun-free zone, it's finding a way for a few currently wealthy Americans to become super rich in a no-gun climate.

California's current water crises -as I understand it- is a prime example. The state government allowed a small group of wealthy farmers to take control of the entire state's water supply. Those wealthy farmers are becoming super rich, and the people of California are living in a water-free zone.
Click to expand...

Once the executions start of the wealthy it will prove the benefits of the right to own guns. A resumption of good old fashion water wars will really strengthen our nation.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
No this is wrong it isn't nearly impossible at all.
If you join a shooting club and attend regularly and enter matches either range or field target then you have a need for a gun.
If you have permission from the landowner and regularly go to shoot rabbit, pigeon, crows and such you have a need.
If you regularly go shooting deer then you have a need.

Over the years I have had a 22 semi auto for field shooting, a 22 target rifle and a Lee Enfield Mk 4 that I used for 'vintage military' competition.
Click to expand...

If we did back-of-the-envelope and compared UK to US ownership rates, then we could say it would be over 95% impossible for current US gun owners.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Exactly the whole point is to promote domestic terrorism. As such we should celebrate such shootings and the constitutionally protected right they are. In fact we need to seriously deregulate explosives too land mines are a classic insurgent weapon after all.
Click to expand...

You forgot the modern version of the TJ quote:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants school children.​
 
Dr. Keith said:
You forgot the modern version of the TJ quote:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants school children.​
Click to expand...

And yet someone shoots up a few congressmen putting such words into action and he is suddenly a terrorist and not a true example of an ideal american patriot. Finally putting the second amendment to use for its true purpose.
 
DragonLady said:
The 2nd amendment says:


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

We need to remember that when the constitution was drafted, guns were not just for hunting or self-defense or target practice. They were the weapons of war, which had just freed our country from the tyranny of the British government.

The reason no one in their right minds wants any kind of ban on guns that prevents guns from being readily accessed and used is to prevent our current government from becoming tyrannical. They have to take away the guns -or just keep making them harder and harder to get- before they can make many inroads against our other civil rights.

But, once it's impossible for the average person to get guns, all the average people are hostage to whatever happens next -the loss of free speech & the free press, being subject to search and seizures (ergo losing any guns they've hidden), etc.

No one in the USA wants that. Or, at least, no one in the USA should want that.

I think if the gun control advocates want to make real inroads toward finding ways to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, and lower the murder rate, they have to approach the issue with the reasons for the 2nd amendment's existence in mind.

Remember: the Constitution is not an ideal, or a best-case-scenario. It's the law.

In some ways, I'm jealous of those in the UK who see their government as a benevolent entity providing for the peoples and working with the overall health of the population in mind.

However, I'm quite American, and at the end of the day I do not -will never- trust our government to put the welfare of the citizens above the person desires of those in power. Nor do I have to go far to find examples of this happening already -from enacting laws forcing people to buy various forms of insurance to seizing assets from those merely suspected of a crime, many of us see the rights to bear arms as a necessity. If our government falls too far out of line with what most of us want, a revolution (or the mere ability to bring one) is the only thing that will protect our free states.
Click to expand...


Do you really think that handguns and rifles would make any inroads against our government if it were to seriously try to suppress the public?

If you were arguing for the legal possession of RPGs, armed drones, and tanks this might make some sense, but as far as current legal weapons are concerned you seem to be deluded by too much Hollywood.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Actually arming the teachers sounds lot more realistic than expecting the federal law to change. People keep thinking Wild West times are over. Well think again .. you got killed ? Means you were not fast enough with your gun. Oh you didn't even have a gun ? Poor you ..
Click to expand...


You mean the Wild West times that never were? At least not in real life.

As has been pointed out many times in these threads, the "Wild West" solution to misuse of firearms was to make people give them up if they wanted to come into town.

The NRA would never stand for the "Wild West" approach to gun control.
 
quadraginta said:
Do you really think that handguns and rifles would make any inroads against our government if it were to seriously try to suppress the public?

If you were arguing for the legal possession of RPGs, armed drones, and tanks this might make some sense, but as far as current legal weapons are concerned you seem to be deluded by too much Hollywood.
Click to expand...

Morale is crucial right now. Keep the men in the secured areas. You'll see how they forget about these "Wolverines."​
 
Belz... said:
A lot of people would find this sentence quite scary, even though it's technically correct.
Click to expand...

Not much different form those who used to think it was fine to have a beer while driving and saw no reason they should be harassed because a few people over did it.
 
Florida House Republicans voted down a Democratic motion to debate an assault weapons ban.

They are afraid to even debate it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom