The gun confiscation redux: law makers caught on hot mic.

a reply to: face23785

You did actually? Great you can copy and paste that actual bit then. Thanks.
Just for the life of me cannot recall stats of "On this day and date, post 1996, 30 people were slaughtered"

Also I cannot be ignorant to a life I am living every day. Pretty sure if people were being killed here in bunches of 10 or more I'd be aware of it. Be all over the news to begin with.

Come visit here some time. Enjoy walking down a street without having to wonder if ever person you pass is packing, or that someone might pull a gin on you in a moment of road rage.....

Any ways unless you want to copy paste that bit I apparently missed, I am done. Only so long I can talk to walls.

a reply to: SRPrime

Thing is that word "accident", an accident is a lot different from intentional.
Accidents happen, mass murder is planned. People drown let's ban oceans.
Seriously apples to oranges.

accident
ˈaksɪd(ə)nt/
noun
noun: accident; plural noun: accidents

1.
an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
"he had an accident at the factory"

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo
a reply to: face23785

You did actually? Great you can copy and paste that actual bit then. Thanks.
Just for the life of me cannot recall stats of "On this day and date, post 1996, 30 people were slaughtered"

Also I cannot be ignorant to a life I am living every day. Pretty sure if people were being killed here in bunches of 10 or more I'd be aware of it. Be all over the news to begin with.

Come visit here some time. Enjoy walking down a street without having to wonder if ever person you pass is packing, or that someone might pull a gin on you in a moment of road rage.....

Any ways unless you want to copy paste that bit I apparently missed, I am done. Only so long I can talk to walls.

Huh? It doesn't matter if that moment of road rage is a gun or a knife, or even a tire iron -- the fact of the matter is that moment of road rage might still result in a fight to the death, and it's not less likely over there than it is here -- if you're going to make that claim, prove it. I'd hypothesize, because we can carry guns here, a road rage incident is less likely to result in death, because the perpetrating party has to wonder "Will I get shot" -- where you are, he's like -- "I'm gonna stab this guy" and he does, no recourse at all.

I don't wonder if every person I pass here is packing, it wouldn't bother me if they were since 99.99% of people who are packing are responsible and non-criminal, and the .1% that are criminal, would be robbing you at knife point [which is actually LESS defendable than gun point.]

And no, you probably wouldn't be aware of it, since you're disarmed -- they'd probably keep that news to themselves, like we should in the states. It shouldn't be national news when a gunmen kills a group of people. That's like giving serial killers fame, all it does is increase the probability it will happen again. That said, even in London, a place where guns are illegal, people still walk down the street shooting at random people, and guess what? There is no armed response because even your police can't carry -- so now any cops present have to turn and run, and then call into the station, in which case a guy has to go report what's happening, go to an armory, sign out the gun, then travel out to site.

In the US a guy can't just walk down the street with a 12 gauge and hope to live for more than 5 minutes, in London he has about 25-40 minutes to just kill anybody he wants.

That's better?

Pass, I don't want to go there or anywhere like that.

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo
a reply to: SRPrime

Thing is that word "accident", an accident is a lot different from intentional.
Accidents happen, mass murder is planned. People drown let's ban oceans.
Seriously apples to oranges.

accident
ˈaksɪd(ə)nt/
noun
noun: accident; plural noun: accidents

1.
an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
"he had an accident at the factory"

I was responding to the statement that "600 kids are killed accidentally per year by guns."

And yes -- people intentionally murder people by holding them under the surface of the ocean, so again -- no matter how you choose to come at this argument, it's exactly the same.

Ban guns, a mass murderer will either make them like a gun smith, print them like a tech smith, or use something else entirely.

In the 90's in Staten island, there was a mass murder on the Staten island ferry. Did the guy use a gun? No -- he used a Katana Sword -- people had to jump off the boat miles from the coast just to attempt to survive.

What is your point? He had more bodies by sword than most do when they plan a mass murder by gun.

Guns don't make it easier, it's easy without guns -- it's more probable you'll get caught before the mass murder if you plan it using guns than if you planed it using home made stuff.

And yes -- you can build your own AR-15 without a whole lot of skill as long as you have any kind of familiarity with machines in a machine shop. I have friends that don't even buy bullets, they just press them in their own shops. The point is, no legislation will ever stop mass murder, you just seen two cases of 20+ dead people using Trucks to run over crowds. Get it yet? Mass murder is easy, getting away with it is impossible, no laws will stop people from doing it, since laws only punish those who survive, and none of them plan on surviving.

A law doesn't prevent crime, it punishes it. The act of punishment acts as the deterrent. When an actor decides he's gonna be long dead before punishment -- please explain to me how laws prevent him from carrying out his plan?

You can also very easily make bombs. You could make 45 bombs big enough to blow up a store front, then just go around all day dropping them off in the garbage cans and have them all set to blow at the same time. Bombs are EASY to make, absolutely easy. If you needed to learn how to make one -- one trip to your local library would do it. Bombs are made of common house hold material, what are you gonna ban Drain-O next?

I mean come on.

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: RazorV66

The logistics of confiscating guns from everyone in the USA would be a nightmare of epic proportions, let alone the gun owners that would fight back.
There would be standoffs in every city, town and area of the country.

It seems to have worked well in Australia (at least for the automatic/semi-automatic weapons). It seemed like people just handed them in without any fight. - National Firearms Agreement

They confiscated 650,000 firearms but the owners were paid for them.

That's fine and all, but there are over 300,000,000 guns in the united states. How big would the cost be? 650k isn't even 1%. You think Australia got their illegal guns that weren't serialized too? You think they took the knowledge of how to build a firearm out of the books in the library?

Banning the SALE of guns doesn't diminish their actual presence or prevent them from being produced by a metal smith or by a tech smith. The schematics for pretty much every single popular fire arm are open source on the internet, anybody can download them and build their own with a little elbow grease. These would be NON serialized ghost guns with no ballistics on record. It's absolutely not difficult at all, all you do is machine parts, the same as making a boat lift or a car, or any custom metal work that you can get at any custom metal shop. Notice the one thing that is common? Metal workers.

All a firearms ban does is take law abiding citizens right to defend themselves away, you do not take the criminals right -- it's already against the law to murder, has that succeeded in stopping people from committing murder?

The only people who can support a firearms ban are people who don't know how to defend themselves and know nothing about actual defense -- ironically, it's these people who pick up the phone to call a guy with a gun when someone attacks them. By then, it's always too late.

The idea that gun bans stop mass shootings is ridiculous. Just look at England. June 2nd 2010, Cumbria Shootings, 12 dead, 11 more injured. Shooter -- Derrick Bird.

The idea that stopping mass shootings stops mass murder is equally ridiculous, again -- look at England. March 22, 2017 in Westminster, a man used his vehicle to run over a crowd, then got out and started stabbing random people, he killed 6, but injured 49. May 22nd 2017, Manchester, at an Ariana Grande concert, a man made a HOMEMADE shrapnel bomb that killed 23+ and injured 250+. June 3rd, 2017, London Bridge, again, another mass murder -- a guy drove his vehicle into a crowd and then got out and proceeded to stab random people, he killed 8 and injured 48. In 2016, Brixton, there was a shotgun attack where a guy just walked down the street shooting anyone he passed, he proceeded get on a peddle bike and just ride away once his gun jammed. He totally got away and didn't even have to try because even the unarmed police ran.

The people who lost their lives to the knife attacks might not have if they had the right to carry. You can say then the killer might have had a gun, true -- but without a gun he still committed an act of mass murder and his victims had no way to defend themselves. As you can see the legislation did NOT stop it from happening, it only stopped the victims from being able to defend themselves. The legislation did not stop Derrick Bird from obtaining firearms and shooting up innocents, what the legislation DID stop was the victims chance to defend themselves with return fire.

Gun Control doesn't stop gun violence or mass murder, all it stops is victims from defending themselves. You're taking away the victims guns, so now the force multiplier is firmly in the hands of the criminal.

a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

So you haven't read the thread, or my replies? No wonder you're not learning anything. Go back to the beginning, read, with an open mind, then we'll talk again.

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo
a reply to: SRPrime

Thing is that word "accident", an accident is a lot different from intentional.
Accidents happen, mass murder is planned. People drown let's ban oceans.
Seriously apples to oranges.

accident
ˈaksɪd(ə)nt/
noun
noun: accident; plural noun: accidents

1.
an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
"he had an accident at the factory"

The fact that we kill more people accidentally with cars than we do on purpose with guns, when guns were designed to kill and cars weren't, is pretty damning for cars. Just imagine if we banned guns and people turned to cars as their #1 murder tool. Because, unlike in your fantasy land, if you banned guns, people wouldn't just decide they really don't wanna kill anymore. They would just kill with something else.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo
a reply to: SRPrime

Thing is that word "accident", an accident is a lot different from intentional.
Accidents happen, mass murder is planned. People drown let's ban oceans.
Seriously apples to oranges.

accident
ˈaksɪd(ə)nt/
noun
noun: accident; plural noun: accidents

1.
an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
"he had an accident at the factory"

The fact that we kill more people accidentally with cars than we do on purpose with guns, when guns were designed to kill and cars weren't, is pretty damning for cars. Just imagine if we banned guns and people turned to cars as their #1 murder tool. Because, unlike in your fantasy land, if you banned guns, people wouldn't just decide they really don't wanna kill anymore. They would just kill with something else.

Absolutely accurate. And we can see in all places that ban guns, knife murders raise. Empty handed murders raise. Explosive murders raise.

It's almost as if, the type of person who would commit murder is not mentally well. They are determined to kill, and killing is actually quite easy. If I was not mentally well, I literally could kill someone with a newspaper -- when I say this to people when I teach defense, they always go "impossible!" and then I roll up a news paper or a high times magazine and proceed to break cinderblocks with it. A cinderblock is tougher than your head. Can you ban rocks? Pool balls? Pool cues? I just watched a video of a guy in a bar who got into a fight with a dude, picked up a pool cue and killed the guy he was arguing with, WITH ONE POKE. He just jabbed it at the guy and it hit him in the eye and went straight into his brain.

Murder is super, super, super easy. Getting away with it -- INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT and every day getting closer to impossible. People are getting murdered daily despite the fact that it's virtually impossible to get away with, despite the fact that there is legislation that prohibits it. BANS don't STOP anything. Look at prohibition, what happened? Speak Easys. Look at the further prohibition of drugs, if bans worked -- why is the country full of Meth? Meth is harder to make than a gun is.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

we were fortunate that there were still some people in congress that know and protect our rights.

I'd have to say it was more that they knew what the reaction would be, rather than any altruistic thoughts on their part. As it stands now, there will likely never be enough votes in either house to pass confiscation legislation.

However, on the off chance that something may change, I will continue to give a little of my money to the dreaded, and they're dreaded for a reason, NRA.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

All because the you guys have this irrational fear that the redcoats are going to turn up and ensalve you all or your government is going to turn against you all.

I'm pretty sure there's a lot of examples through history of Governments taking over and even killing people. So no, its not that far fetched at all.

a reply to: SRPrime

FUNNY I see AR15s in Colorado Springs all the time AND THEY SMILE at you ,the INSIDIOUS MONSTERS!
DON'T know what type of method YOU are using for data assessment on this ,but its excrement.
I HAVE MANY lib idiots who I chew on and get chewed back ,WHO ALREADY know how screwed up I am.
They ALL TO A PERSON laugh when shooting a semi auto rifle under CAREFUL tutelage.
I DON'T need to attack BERKELEY because they are not American based education,ALL will pass,IT BETTER OR ELSE WE pass things FOR them, as a collective,or the world palpates your ideas with its reality as we as older victims of it can FULLY attest.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
If they wanted to take your guns why did they not do it after Sandy Hook???

sandy hook failed as a false flag, too many mistakes. They had to shut that whole conversation down fast because it would've become what this Vegas fiasco. notice they don't use it as the story of the century to take away guns because that would redraw attention to the hoax. So many mistakes in that one, people would surely go down if the mistakes were really brought to the public.
In my shop this last week, every Janet, Suzie and Sally thinks Vegas was an FBI transaction gone wrong and most think stephan wasnt even the shooter. And no one believes the news at all.

And thank God everyone is finally awake, even kids. They can't take 12 billion guns away, not without a war .

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Do you even hear yourself type?

The highest crime rates in the country are concentrated in the inner city areas. They are *not* the people rushing out to vote for W or Trump. In fact, those counties often vote near 100% for people like Obama or Hillary.

The UK is one of the biggest and most intrusive police states in the Western world. Anyone from the UK is hardly in a position to lecture us.

However, ketsuko is correct in that areas with gang/crime problems tend to be the inner cities which typically do not vote Republican.