School shooting Florida

[The Great Zaganza]

The claim that some people want to ban all guns is a Canard. The pro-gun side has always claimed that any regulation is a "slippery slope" to total abolishment of gun rights.
Sorry, but you don't get to play that card anymore.

 

[MikeG]

Soldier in the US do not come from the jungle, they come from the civilian population.........

Where do you think they come from in the UK? Australia? Germany? New Zealand?

 

[MikeG]

No, I didn't just pull my opinion out of my arse. I lived in Norfolk Co. for three years, on the outskirts of the village of Watton. I also traversed the Stanford PTA twice daily (that's a heavily wooded military training area). I am highly skeptical of your claims regarding harvested animals.

I had many friends and was active in the community, but I never witnessed nor discussed a firearm in private ownership, so again I'm skeptical of your claims...

I'm now sceptical of your claims. Norfolk is NEVER, but never, called Norfolk County.

And if your experience really was in a military training area, do you think you can come up with any particular reason why there wouldn't have been any civilian guns in the area?

 

[surrogate]

Get a clue or two. They are cheap and freely offered. Do you have any idea how long it takes to train a person unfamiliar with firearms? You obviously don't. In addition, based on the tone, you're really not interested in being educated. Uh, bye.

The British Army, like other armies, does train recruits who are unfamiliar with firearms. But if you don't want to discuss that, fine.

Well, how long does it take?

I have shot a gun (.40 H&K) on exactly one occasion when I went with a friend to the shooting range. We weren't there very long and I shot about 50 rounds, as did my friend. At the time he was a US immigration agent, and I was surprised that he wasn't significantly better than me once I became accustomed to the flash and recoil.

 

[MikeG]

Well .. IMHO all was pretty much said. Like 20 times. In this thread alone.

It's really all about what is going to happen. The protest movement seems to be larger than before. NRA is loosing supporters .. but mainly because they feel NRA is actually not enough pro-gun. It seems lot's of people thinks this time it's different. But is it ?

Losing.

Got any evidence for this?

 

[jimbob]

Where do you think they come from in the UK? Australia? Germany? New Zealand?

To be fair, a lot *do* come from Commonwealth countries - especially Fiji.

However the argument* seems to be that it would cost more to train US troops if there weren't semiautomatic rifles available to people with grudges. If this were the case (which I doubt) then I would have thought that then the money saved by reducing civilian shootings could be spent on the US military, increasing its training to overcome this.





*With a side order of "a cop with a handgun isn't necessarily outgunned by someone with a semiautomatic rifle", which probably explains why the US Army got rid of all its automatic weapons and replaced them with handguns as used by the US police. It was a radical move, so it's a complete secret that only a select number of people know about.

 

[MikeG]

.........You say this as if the US has an obligation to join all European squabbles at the very first sign of conflict.........

You seem to be unaware of your commitments. NATO. Commitments freely entered into because they're in your own best interests.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

We need lots of rednecks with guns so that military training becomes cheaper?



Sorry, but that must be the stupidest argument against gun laws I've ever heard.

 

[MikeG]

...... Its standard gun-nut rhetoric he is just mindlessly parroting along with the alarmist crap that dribbles from the foaming mouths of NRA spokespeople!.....

I'm thinking Russian troll factory, actually.

 

[MikeG]

If we need less guns to make things safer let's try it.

Next month let's disarm bank guards. If that works out well ill change my mind.

The sarcasm implies that you seem oddly unaware that most of the rest of the civilised world has done the experiment for you, and found that it works: fewer guns, tightly regulated, means near-zero school shootings, and a quarter of the homicide rate that the US seems content with.

 

[MikeG]

I was going to ask if I was the only one who has never been in a bank with an armed guard before.

I've seen armed guards at banks in Africa. I've never seen a guard of any sort in any bank in Europe, Australia, India or Scandinavia. If society isn't awash with guns, you don't need armed guards.

 

[MikeG]

To be fair, a lot *do* come from Commonwealth countries - especially Fiji.........

Which also don't have an armed populace. The point I was trying to contradict was a loony "if we don't have an armed populace our army won't have any suitable people to recruit".

 

[Reheat]

I'm now sceptical of your claims. Norfolk is NEVER, but never, called Norfolk County.

And if your experience really was in a military training area, do you think you can come up with any particular reason why there wouldn't have been any civilian guns in the area?

I am not British, so forgive me for putting the County after Norfolk. I suspect you know it's location.

No, my total experience was not in the Stanford Military Training area as you've implied, I merely traveled thru that location twice daily as it was a short cut to my work location at RAF Lakenheath. I didn't live in the woods, duh. I lived on the outskirts of a village which I named. It's at least 5 miles from the village where I lived to the training area.

I did see a few pheasants there, but nothing else except a few birds in the way of animals. On second thought someone was raising sheep in at least part of the area. The only military I ever encountered there were Gurkas. I don't recall ever encountering any British Army folks.

I rode a bicycle throughout much of the area around my house, but never ever encountered anyone hunting much less shooting and never discussed nor heard a discussion of firearms.

I suppose I had a unique experience as I would certainly have enjoyed hunting pheasants, but never had the opportunity...

 

[cullennz]

We need lots of rednecks with guns so that military training becomes cheaper?



Sorry, but that must be the stupidest argument against gun laws I've ever heard.

Tbf their reasoning shifted to needing lots of US civilians having guns in case th UK gets invaded by Germany in a WW3 and the UK need to borrow them of the US civilians which I'm sure you agree is much more reasonable

 

[Reheat]

You seem to be unaware of your commitments. NATO. Commitments freely entered into because they're in your own best interests.

Well, do say. NATO did not exist during WWII. That was the time period being addressed in my reply to a statement about being late to enter WWII. If you were paying attention instead of looking for a nitpick you would have realized that.

 

[MikeG]

Tbf their reasoning shifted to needing lots of US civilians having guns in case th UK gets invaded by Germany in a WW3 and the UK need to borrow them of the US civilians which I'm sure you agree is much more reasonable

........because most strategists agree that WW3 will be fought with small arms, obviously.

 

[MikeG]

Well, do say. NATO did not exist during WWII. That was the time period being addressed in my reply to a statement about being late to enter WWII. If you were paying attention instead of looking for a nitpick you would have realized that.

I'm not nitpicking. I believe the entire line of your thinking is fallacious. Every single aspect of its reasoning is weak or just flat-out wrong.

And you did say "has an obligation", which is present tense. Forgive me if I hadn't realised that the present tense doesn't relate to the present.

 

[Reheat]

I'm not nitpicking. I believe the entire line of your thinking is fallacious. Every single aspect of its reasoning is weak or just flat-out wrong.

What is fallacious is your accusation that I don't know about NATO commitments. The subject under discussion was WWII. The s and d are next to one another on the keyboard, so pardon me if I hit the wrong one. First typo I've made today..

 

[cullennz]

........because most strategists agree that WW3 will be fought with small arms, obviously.

Exactly

 

[MikeG]

What is fallacious is your accusation that I don't know about NATO commitments. The subject under discussion was WWII. The s and d are next to one another on the keyboard, so pardon me if I hit the wrong one. First typo I've made today..

OK, fair enough if it was a typo (you didn't say previously that it was). In the light of that, I withdraw my response.