America.. You so silly

[Harleyman 12]

Are you really that dumb?

 

The toddler reached into the mothers bag, found a firearm, which presumably had no safety set, and a round in the chamber, and fired it - killing the MOTHER.

 

Not the toddler.

 

The mother died of her own incompetence in not carrying a firearm safely, and letting it in reach of the most curious and grabby feely thing in the world - a two year old....

 

Okay I made a mistake. Big deal, but the thread title still sounds like ALL America is silly or more accurately completely irresponsible where firearms are concerned

 

I lived in Idaho for a couple of years. Lovely place, wonderfully underpopulated, state capital Boise a very pleasantly serene well laid out university town. I would feel safer walking anywhere round that State than in Kensington, London even.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Harleyman

[gimp27 10]

Okay I made a mistake. Big deal

 

And you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself Harleyman. Did you not know that only real true facts are spoken here on the forum? Go and stand in the corner young man! :hihi:

[Obelix 11]

Okay I made a mistake. Big deal, but the thread title still sounds like ALL America is silly or more accurately completely irresponsible where firearms are concerned

 

I lived in Idaho for a couple of years. Lovely place, wonderfully underpopulated, state capital Boise a very pleasantly serene well laid out university town. I would feel safer walking anywhere round that State than in Kensington, London even.

 

Well until the 2nd amendment is removed then yes I think it's reasonable to assume that they are silly and completely irresponsible yes..

[roosterboost 10]

Okay I made a mistake. Big deal, but the thread title still sounds like ALL America is silly or more accurately completely irresponsible where firearms are concerned

 

I lived in Idaho for a couple of years. Lovely place, wonderfully underpopulated, state capital Boise a very pleasantly serene well laid out university town. I would feel safer walking anywhere round that State than in Kensington, London even.

 

Isn't it odd that the ones starting these threads have origins in countries that are such cesspits the population there are desperately trying to eascape and get to live in the USA. Just be careful because some of them want to turn your country into the cesspit they spent their life savings trying to escape from.

[Harleyman 12]

It is a reference to a Youtube guy who happens to love America (and guns). I realise it is rather obscure, but in this case I have no qualms about using it.

 

This sort of incident simply doesn't happen in most of the world, you can try and ignore that fact all you want, but it isn't going to help. one in every 300,000 citizens in the States was killed by unintentional use of fire-arms.

 

One in every 300,000? I'm lazy so you now go tell me how many in 300,000 unintentionally killed by drunk drivers or how many died of drug OD, alcohol abuse, cancer caused by smoking. Others, so many of them, suicide caused by depression or loneliness

 

If saving lives is what it's all about lets bring back prohibition and this time make it work, abolish all tobacco products and throw every drug dealer in jail for a hundred years, require all persons who have emotional and mental problems to seek suicide prevention counseling and treatment

 

Then we'll be really doing what counts.. saving lives and in a big, big way.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Harleyman

[tinfoilhat 11]

I say in order to own a gun, you should serve at least 4 years in the military in order to handle one. Everyone I knew who had served and saw the true scenes of war, always knew how to store and handle guns. The majority didnt even think of using them as defense against intruders (Most kept an iron pipe or a louisville slugger under the bed)

 

Considering how many ex forces are on streets and/or have ptsd I'd say it's a decent enough reason not to let them have a gun! Washington sniper was ex marine if memory serves. I bet he isn't the only spree killer to be ex forces either. But some states insist on range time others (I think) stop people with drug or alcohol problems owning guns. It varies massively from state to state.

[Harleyman 12]

I say in order to own a gun, you should serve at least 4 years in the military in order to handle one. Everyone I knew who had served and saw the true scenes of war, always knew how to store and handle guns. The majority didnt even think of using them as defense against intruders (Most kept an iron pipe or a louisville slugger under the bed)

 

But how many people actually serve 4 years in the military? That would deny many millions more who never served in the military their rights under the 2nd amendment. Also I wouldn't necessarily completely trust a military veteran any more than a civilian who never served to be more responsible with firearms. These days and since Vietnam there must be thousands of vets walking around who are living on a mental knife edge.

 

My idea is to require every potential buyer to undergo a course in firearm safety and handling by an accredited and trained firearms instructor and provide proof in the form of a certificate to be presented at his or her local police department who will then counter sign after verifying authenticity which will then be produced for inspection at time of purchase.

 

I would also like to see it mandatory that all gun owners purchase a gun storage safe to be kept in the home but that wouldn't be fool proof probably and very likely illegal and unenforceable since it infringes on the rights of privacy of domain

 

---------- Post added 02-01-2015 at 01:18 ----------

 

Considering how many ex forces are on streets and/or have ptsd I'd say it's a decent enough reason not to let them have a gun! Washington sniper was ex marine if memory serves. I bet he isn't the only spree killer to be ex forces either. But some states insist on range time others (I think) stop people with drug or alcohol problems owning guns. It varies massively from state to state.

 

Well lets not deny all veterans guns. If they served honorably, were discharged honorably and had no record of unstable behavior while in the military they have the right along with the rest.

 

Suffering from PTSD does in no way mean that the person is liable to commit acts of violence either

Edited January 2, 2015 by Harleyman

[tinfoilhat 11]

But how many people actually serve 4 years in the military? That would deny many millions more who never served in the military their rights under the 2nd amendment. Also I wouldn't necessarily completely trust a military veteran any more than a civilian who never served to be more responsible with firearms. These days and since Vietnam there must be thousands of vets walking around who are living on a mental knife edge.

 

My idea is to require every potential buyer to undergo a course in firearm safety and handling by an accredited and trained firearms instructor and provide proof in the form of a certificate to be presented at his or her local police department who will then counter sign after verifying authenticity which will then be produced for inspection at time of purchase.

 

I would also like to see it mandatory that all gun owners purchase a gun storage safe to be kept in the home but that wouldn't be fool proof probably and very likely illegal and unenforceable since it infringes on the rights of privacy of domain

 

---------- Post added 02-01-2015 at 01:18 ----------

 

 

Well lets not deny all veterans guns. If they served honorably, were discharged honorably and had no record of unstable behavior while in the military they have the right along with the rest.

 

Suffering from PTSD does in no way mean that the person is liable to commit acts of violence either

 

I'm not saying that ex forces should be banned from owning guns but I wouldnt give them all a free pass either. Just assess them like anyone else. Thing is, the Americans are more concerned with the right to bear arms than anything else. As I said from the get go, there's more chance of them banning drink that guns.

[cardoor 10]

But how many people actually serve 4 years in the military? That would deny many millions more who never served in the military their rights under the 2nd amendment. Also I wouldn't necessarily completely trust a military veteran any more than a civilian who never served to be more responsible with firearms. These days and since Vietnam there must be thousands of vets walking around who are living on a mental knife edge.

 

My idea is to require every potential buyer to undergo a course in firearm safety and handling by an accredited and trained firearms instructor and provide proof in the form of a certificate to be presented at his or her local police department who will then counter sign after verifying authenticity which will then be produced for inspection at time of purchase.

 

I would also like to see it mandatory that all gun owners purchase a gun storage safe to be kept in the home but that wouldn't be fool proof probably and very likely illegal and unenforceable since it infringes on the rights of privacy of domain

 

How does a gun registration list stop shootings?

 

If I kill someone with a registered firearm, will they know from the bullet which gun I've used? If it does then how will it prove the registered owner did the crime?

 

Can you look at a bullet and know which gun its come from?

 

Have any of the shooting massacre perpetrators ever planned on getting away with it, even living afterwards?

 

---------- Post added 02-01-2015 at 02:28 ----------

 

I'm not saying that ex forces should be banned from owning guns but I wouldnt give them all a free pass either. Just assess them like anyone else. Thing is, the Americans are more concerned with the right to bear arms than anything else. As I said from the get go, there's more chance of them banning drink that guns.

 

I'm ex- forces and would not trust myself or other people with severe PTSD with a gun.

[Harleyman 12]

How does a gun registration list stop shootings?

 

If I kill someone with a registered firearm, will they know from the bullet which gun I've used? If it does then how will it prove the registered owner did the crime?

 

Can you look at a bullet and know which gun its come from?

 

Have any of the shooting massacre perpetrators ever planned on getting away with it, even living afterwards?

 

---------- Post added 02-01-2015 at 02:28 ----------

 

 

I'm ex- forces and would not trust myself or other people with severe PTSD with a gun.

 

 

A firearms expert could match a spent bullet to a particular gun quite easily.

 

If you owned a registered weapon and it was stolen during a burglary at your home you'd better report it to the police very fast, describing the weapon and supplying the serial number stamped on the weapon. I'm not enough of a dope not to have the serial numbers of my weapons recorded and filed away somewhere where they can easily be found in such a situation

 

If the gun is later used by the thief in a crime your action in reporting it's theft will get you off the hook

 

---------- Post added 02-01-2015 at 02:10 ----------

 

I'm not saying that ex forces should be banned from owning guns but I wouldnt give them all a free pass either. Just assess them like anyone else. Thing is, the Americans are more concerned with the right to bear arms than anything else. As I said from the get go, there's more chance of them banning drink that guns.

 

I've experience a period in my life when I diagnosed myself with PTSD. I never felt any psychotic urges in the slightest but some things can sometimes trigger a reaction. In my case it was the sound of a chopper in the dead of night, maybe a police chopper or something. I would awake break out in a muck sweat along with a panicky feeling and have to take a shot of something a bit stronger than beer.

 

It seemed to have gone away after many years because that thing no longer bothers me

 

---------- Post added 02-01-2015 at 02:16 ----------

 

Well until the 2nd amendment is removed then yes I think it's reasonable to assume that they are silly and completely irresponsible yes..

 

Whose going to remove the 2nd amendment? The Supreme Court? It wont be removed, possibly modified in some way in the distant future, but removing amendments from the Constitution just doesn't happen.

 

Now maybe if there was to be a coup d'état of some sort and some other form of govt was to take over than maybe it could be removed but let's just leave that imaginary crap to Hollywood as subject matter for yet another third rate movie.

 

---------- Post added 02-01-2015 at 02:28 ----------

 

I'm not saying that ex forces should be banned from owning guns but I wouldnt give them all a free pass either. Just assess them like anyone else. Thing is, the Americans are more concerned with the right to bear arms than anything else. As I said from the get go, there's more chance of them banning drink that guns.

 

I don't believe in banning anything that is given as a right in the Constitution. That would be a bad idea for this country and it's system of democracy which I say is one of the best in the world and aped by many nations which have appeared on the scene in the last 70 odd years.

 

Banning things which are established given rights only causes major social upheavals , divisiveness, discontent and rage in a society and from what I know of Yanks they do not take kindly at all to anyone attempting to mess around with their rights and quite rightly so.

 

Crimes with the use of firearm will continue here and there just as drunk drivers will kill or maim while others will off themselves for one reason or another and the rest of us of the 95 percent majority will just continue to plod quietly along. That's life

Edited January 2, 2015 by Harleyman

[cardoor 10]

A firearms expert could match a spent bullet to a particular gun quite easily.

 

If you owned a registered weapon and it was stolen during a burglary at your home you'd better report it to the police very fast, describing the weapon and supplying the registration number issued at time of purchase.

 

If the gun is later used by the thief in a crime your action in reporting it's theft will get you off the hook

 

 

A registration doesn't prevent or help catch the perpetrators. A spent bullet can only be matched if the pattern of impressions found on the particular bullet match the pattern of the rifle.

 

How many criminals use their own registered gun and leave it at the scene of a crime?

 

Do people not report firearm theft already?

 

A registration of gun owners for a criminal is brilliant, they would know exactly which homes to steal their firearms from. You become a target.

 

How am off the hook anyway if a register exists? Don't you have to prove who fired the bullet?

 

---------- Post added 02-01-2015 at 03:46 ----------

 

 

Banning things which are established given rights only causes major social upheavals , divisiveness, discontent and rage in a society and from what I know of Yanks they do not take kindly at all to anyone attempting to mess around with their rights and quite rightly so.

 

Crimes with the use of firearm will continue here and there just as drunk drivers will kill or maim while others will off themselves for one reason or another and the rest of us of the 95 percent majority will just continue to plod quietly along. That's life

 

For once I strongly agree with you!

[Harleyman 12]

A registration doesn't prevent or help catch the perpetrators. A spent bullet can only be matched if the pattern of impressions found on the particular bullet match the pattern of the rifle.

 

How many criminals use their own registered gun and leave it at the scene of a crime?

 

Do people not report firearm theft already?

 

A registration of gun owners for a criminal is brilliant, they would know exactly which homes to steal their firearms from. You become a target.

 

How am off the hook anyway if a register exists? Don't you have to prove who fired the bullet?

 

---------- Post added 02-01-2015 at 03:46 ----------

 

 

For once I strongly agree with you!

 

 

What source would provide a criminal with details of who owns what weapons?

The local police through the FBI could access that information were it necessary to do so but the FBI don't make public such info otherwise.

 

A criminal doesn't necessarily have to raid someone's home to obtain a firearm does he? In this country he could get hold of an unregistered weapon by going to places where guns are sold illegally under the table, a point which I bring up in any argument about the workability of a gun control program.