I've realised something about US gun control, and I'd like to share it....

a reply to: mazzroth

Yes that is why 99% of people choose guns to cause massive death and damage, because there are SOOO many other options that are as accessible and easy to use.......

No one is banning all the guns but that’s insane logic..

By that logic nothing should really be illegal because it isn’t the (fill the blank) , its the person ..

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Kryties

NOT here.
Soju isn't like it was in Korea and Ouzo contains opium(I found THAT out during REFORGER 85, but STILL won a German shooting medal)
,the EKU 28 was too sweet.
TOO sick to travel now.
WE just use Everclear anyway, if one is really blasting off.

None of the cheap brands of Ouzo I've ever had here (A LOT) and none of the Greek Ouzo either, contained opium.

Did you mean perhaps, absinthe? It has connections with illicit drugs, albeit without any valid correlation.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

I was going to give your thread a thoughtful reply, but then I realized that your condescending attitude, presupposed assumptions and false dilemma/dichotomy argument - you really didn't want to hear views and opinions.

That this is just another ill disguised insult thread.

a reply to: badw0lf

I had some in Germany it has FLAKES floating around in it.
THEN after getting four down my neck, I WAS INFORMED it's illegal and shut up about it,the next morning(It tasted like licorice) ...so NOW a government cover up...

a reply to: cavtrooper7

WE are going to get jumped for thread drift.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly it's not so much that we think we are "safer"
With guns although we do know that people with guns have been known to deter criminals. It's that our Founding Fathers knew it was a deterrent to a tyrannical government, as the Revolutionary War proved. Unfortunately the PTB have amassed hugely more advanced weaponry than the populace. I'm sure that was the plan.

a reply to: Kryties


I don't know, seemed like it did OK in the M/E. Especially since U.S. military would never follow illegal orders to engage Citizens. Have you even read the oath? So, whatever paramilitary merc force they'd use would be demoralized rather quickly.

Nothing crushes souls like seeing your illegal-paramilitary-invader buddy lose his gray matter to an unseen pea shooter from a half mile out.

Or a .50 BMG/20mm against that rogue entities drones/tanks/aircraft/vehicles from unknown positions

Or when those moderately defended weapons caches (even just a handful) are taken control of by a town of pissed off patriots?

Furthermore, this hypothetical paramilitary invasion force has to sleep at some point. I'd imagine such a troop wouldn't be safe anywhere in CONUS, unless of course they enjoyed 3am raids/seiges/fires/collective punishment.

Best part of this? The military forces (loyal to the Constitution - not any politician or political agenda) and LE would most likely be the ones leading and organizing these actions.

a reply to: JBurns

I’m jumping into this late but if your speculating that the government could merc out their tyrannical work then your crazy..

The military wouldn’t allow a merc army to take power in the first place and even if they did, that still leaves the present military ready and able to counter attack.

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: chr0naut

Just replying to congratulate you on an excellent post. I agree with everything you said.

Thank you. Hopefully revolution in government can be bloodless in the 21st century.

A re-analysis of the track of "for the people, by the people", to re-establish the lofty goals of the founders but nuanced for a different world.

For every one evil person that has a gun in the greatest country in the world....jolly old England....BAAHAAHAAHAA...J/k....The USA, there are a million law abiding, good folks.
Let me clarify, I don't hunt, it most certainly is for person protection. Also, while you are doing your in depth, 20 year study of my country, look up Well Regulated American Militia and its purpose designed by our founding fathers.
Along with all the political option threads that exist here, there are no shortages on the conspiracies on our (and most) government. For example, if you believe the narrative on the Las Vegas Shooting, then i have nothing else to add.

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
...
Most other countries, (including the UK and Australia), believe that a society with less guns is safer, seems like common sense...
...
PA

I agree with you in other topics, but in this one we disagree. If it was true that "less guns more safety" then why is it that the cities and states with more strict gun control laws in the U.S. are the cities that have more crimes with guns?

Even England and Wales have continued to see an increase in gun crimes despite your strict gun control laws. The same is happening in Mexico, Argentina, and dozens and dozens of other nations which have strict gun control laws yet have seen increases in gun crime.

Thursday 20 July 2017 07.49 EDT

Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show

Police record 10% rise in crime in England and Wales, with 18% increase in violent crime and significant rise in murder rate.

olice-recorded crime has risen by 10% across England and Wales – the largest annual rise for a decade – according to the Office for National Statistics.

The latest crime figures for the 12 months to March also show an 18% rise in violent crime, including a 20% surge in gun and knife crime. The official figures also show a 26% rise to 723 in the homicide rate, which includes the 96 cases of manslaughter at Hillsborough in 1989.

More alarmingly, the statisticians say the rise in crime is accelerating, with a 3% increase recorded in the year to March 2015, followed by an 8% rise in the following year, and now a 10% increase in the 12 months to this March.
...

www.theguardian.com...

Once Again There Are Calls for Gun Control, but How are England/Wales Doing With Gun Control?

a reply to: RoScoLaz5

NOW if there WERE 300 MILLION of YOU and only 65 million of us...

a reply to: FauxMulder

I've had mine for over 10years and kinda same as you no crazy stories

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

And if a few criminals get their hands on guns,they can take over a city,this makes people dependant on others the US was set up so you learn an existance,now the government has taken that away,they control everything,socialist's love being taken care of,real americans would rather fend for themselves,they have self esteem,something a socialist lacks

a reply to: olaru12

Guns aren't the problem. Mental health is. But we constantly see our government cutting healthcare, while simultaneously spending more on "defense" budgets. It's really a case of "assimilate or die."

BTW don't be a bigot. We have 50 states. Not all are Texas. Only roughly 5 are in love with cowboy hats.

I love how countries that have banned guns brag about it like no harm can befall them. Remember Norway. You know, Russia used to brag that they had no serial killers. Then, Andrei Chikatilo. Just because you've had a blessed life so far, is no guarantee that it will last.

Guns are not the problem criminals are.

That is such an old, misleading statement. Let's take it up a few notches. The criminals now have access to small tactical nukes that can obliterate 10 square blocks. If they used them, it would be what.. "It's not the small tactical nukes, the problem is the people that use them!"

The problem is that they had access to small tactical nukes. Don't have them.. can't use them.

I don't advocate removal of guns - I advocate better vetting. I think it's hilariously ironic that Trump says harsh vetting of immigrants is critical because.. terrorists! He also just said that harsher vetting of guns wouldn't fix anything. So let me get this straight...

Since 9/11, 0 deaths due to foreign terrorists who were allowed to fly into this country. Unless you count this latest nutcase who ran over bikers.

Since the 1960s when they started tracking gun deaths, more people in America have died to guns than in ALL WARS COMBINED. Mind you.. 2/3rds of those are suicides.. but one has to wonder if suicides would dramatically be cut down if such easy access to a way out was not as readily available.

Let's remove all suicides - still have over 500,000 gun deaths. That's a lot lot lot lot lot more than deaths from terrorist attacks in the U.S. - but... immigrants need vetting, not gun buyers. The biggest threat to U.S. citizens are other U.S. citizens. Kids can get guns and shoot up schools. Mentally ill and criminals can get guns and shoot up churches. But.. ain't no problem says Trump!

You should be much more worried about going to church or school or a mall and having a fellow citizen kill you.. than from any terrorist attack. But apparently the "fix" is.. more guns! Everyone should be packing heat. Let's go old west! Clearly that is better than better vetting.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

The reason the second amnt was adopted is because of the UK.

a reply to: fleabit


What? That isn't true at all. There have absolutely been deaths caused by people who have "flow in" to this country (not that their arrival mode matters)

www.latimes.com...

Regardless, terrorism is just as overplayed as the mass shooting hysteria. The overall number dead from terrorism AND mass shootings together is still far less than heart disease, cancer, smoking, poverty/starvation, other types of murder/violence, etc.

Nothing needs done, save for allowing private non-FFL holding Citizens access to FBI's NICS system for private sale background checks.

If we really want to make a difference, lets look at outlawing McDonalds and regulating cell phones/alcohol/cigs/spending money on cell phone vs food/etc. Guns would be quite far down on that list of things needed to regulate, looking at overall impact/number of lives saved annually.

originally posted by: fleabit

That is such an old, misleading statement. Let's take it up a few notches. The criminals now have access to small tactical nukes that can obliterate 10 square blocks. If they used them, it would be what.. "It's not the small tactical nukes, the problem is the people that use them!"
...

You want to talk about misleading statements yet you want to claim having nukes is the same as having an ar15?... You are insane...

originally posted by: fleabit
The problem is that they had access to small tactical nukes. Don't have them.. can't use them.

Really?... Chicago has very strict gun control laws yet Chicago is the most violent city in the U.S. Criminals have access to guns because criminals fon't abide by laws and they buy guns in the black market, and the black market cannot be regulated

Really?... Chicago has very strict gun control laws yet Chicago is the most violent city in the U.S. Criminals have access to guns because criminals fon't abide by laws and they buy guns in the black market, and the black market cannot be regulated

The U.S. has more gun deaths since the mid 1960s, than deaths from all wars the U.S. has been involved in combined. You can spin it however it makes you feel better, but that's a fact. Who cares if one city has strict gun laws. There are over 19 thousand other cities where people can get guns. Do you think the latest massacre deterred the gunman from getting guns? He couldn't in one state.. he simply went to another and got what he needed. Didn't help, did it.

But hey whatever.. it's too much effort to fix it. Trump said it wouldn't help at all! Vetting immigrants? Priority one!! Vetting U.S. buying gun owners? Pffft.. not a big deal. I mean aside from the fact that over 99% + of gun deaths have been from U.S. citizens, I guess it makes perfect sense to concentrate all your efforts on stopping immigrants from coming into the U.S. - pay not mind to the silly fact if solid gun vetting was in place, immigrants would have just as much difficulty as getting guns as citizens. You could even slap on extra loopholes for actual immigrants. They couldn't care at all.

Omg you can't get guns easily in Chicago! lol.. that's hilarious.