Today's shooting in America thread

I don't know if this is the case at all NRA events, but at the one in Houston at the end of May last year, in the interests of security, the following items were banned;

Firearms
Firearm accessories
Knives
Backpacks
Selfie sticks.

Magnetometers were employed to enforce these regulations.

What do I derive from this?
For everyone to be safe people are actively discouraged from taking all the above into the event. (Surely for everyone to be safe, everyone should carry at least one firearm?!)
If, in the remote chance, the venue is attacked by native Red Indians , terrorist group, random nutcase etc. Where is the 'well regulated militia' to protect them?
The irony in the above is that for everyone to be safe, peoples freedoms are taken away by authority.

Another question?
Why have the anti NRA people not got their heads together and formed a group to attack these events, as the attendees would have no means of protecting themselves?
This is all very perplexing to me.
Is it safer for everyone to have guns, or no-one to have them?
When such (potential) weapons are banned from NRA events by the NRA themselves, what do readers think is the correct position to adopt?

Meanwhile I'm off to change my identity in case some NRA tool gets wind of my comments and decides to come and kill me because my questions are too big for his/her tiny mind to absorb and respond to.

Sayonara...
 
Grassland Blue said:
I don't know if this is the case at all NRA events, but at the one in Houston at the end of May last year, in the interests of security, the following items were banned;

Firearms
Firearm accessories
Knives
Backpacks
Selfie sticks.

Magnetometers were employed to enforce these regulations.

What do I derive from this?
For everyone to be safe people are actively discouraged from taking all the above into the event. (Surely for everyone to be safe, everyone should carry at least one firearm?!)
If, in the remote chance, the venue is attacked by native Red Indians , terrorist group, random nutcase etc. Where is the 'well regulated militia' to protect them?
The irony in the above is that for everyone to be safe, peoples freedoms are taken away by authority.

Another question?
Why have the anti NRA people not got their heads together and formed a group to attack these events, as the attendees would have no means of protecting themselves?
This is all very perplexing to me.
Is it safer for everyone to have guns, or no-one to have them?
When such (potential) weapons are banned from NRA events by the NRA themselves, what do readers think is the correct position to adopt?

Meanwhile I'm off to change my identity in case some NRA tool gets wind of my comments and decides to come and kill me because my questions are too big for his/her tiny mind to absorb and respond to.

Sayonara...
Click to expand...
RIP Grasslands Blue.
 
Grassland Blue said:
I don't know if this is the case at all NRA events, but at the one in Houston at the end of May last year, in the interests of security, the following items were banned;

Firearms
Firearm accessories
Knives
Backpacks
Selfie sticks.

Magnetometers were employed to enforce these regulations.

What do I derive from this?
For everyone to be safe people are actively discouraged from taking all the above into the event. (Surely for everyone to be safe, everyone should carry at least one firearm?!)
If, in the remote chance, the venue is attacked by native Red Indians , terrorist group, random nutcase etc. Where is the 'well regulated militia' to protect them?
The irony in the above is that for everyone to be safe, peoples freedoms are taken away by authority.

Another question?
Why have the anti NRA people not got their heads together and formed a group to attack these events, as the attendees would have no means of protecting themselves?
This is all very perplexing to me.
Is it safer for everyone to have guns, or no-one to have them?
When such (potential) weapons are banned from NRA events by the NRA themselves, what do readers think is the correct position to adopt?

Meanwhile I'm off to change my identity in case some NRA tool gets wind of my comments and decides to come and kill me because my questions are too big for his/her tiny mind to absorb and respond to.

Sayonara...
Click to expand...
The argument against everyone handing their guns in, is the good guys would do it but the bad guys wouldn't.
Therefore yes it is safer for everyone to have one. It's like nuclear weapons. No one has yet pressed the red button because they known they'll get 3 fired back at them. Having them deters their use.
 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
The argument against everyone handing their guns in, is the good guys would do it but the bad guys wouldn't.
Therefore yes it is safer for everyone to have one. It's like nuclear weapons. No one has yet pressed the red button because they known they'll get 3 fired back at them. Having them deters their use.
Click to expand...
It's working well in the states so.
 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
The argument against everyone handing their guns in, is the good guys would do it but the bad guys wouldn't.
Therefore yes it is safer for everyone to have one. It's like nuclear weapons. No one has yet pressed the red button because they known they'll get 3 fired back at them. Having them deters their use.
Click to expand...
A fallacious argument which would mean there should be no law against any criminal offences.
 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
Care to expand?
Click to expand...
Once upon a time there were no criminal laws at all. Murder, rape and theft were commonplace.
Then a nasty Tory suggested passing a few laws. The highly moral Labour Party opposed these laws on the grounds that the bad guys would just ignore them, while the good guys did not do these acts anyway. So we passed no statute outlawing murder.
(Note: Most of this is made up, apart from the last sentence which is true.)
Think drink driving.
 
KS55 said:
Once upon a time there were no criminal laws at all. Murder, rape and theft were commonplace.
Then a nasty Tory suggested passing a few laws. The highly moral Labour Party opposed these laws on the grounds that the bad guys would just ignore them, while the good guys did not do these acts anyway. So we passed no statute outlawing murder.
(Note: Most of this is made up, apart from the last sentence which is true.)
Think drink driving.
Click to expand...
It's not as straightforward as that KS55, it's a huge cultural thing with guns.

I'm pro guns, in so far as having one for a means, not just to carry around everywhere I go or have them lying in drawers at home.

We have a fair number of guns in this country, but a fraction of the issues they have south of the border. All but a small number of shootings here are drug/gang related.

Unlike south of the border, we can't simply walk into Walmart, show some ID and then leave with a military grade weapon, besides, they are banned here.

For a shotgun/rifle we are required to take a day long course in the use and safety of a firearm and then if that is passed, an application is made to the RCMP who then run a check on you. If everything is good, then a licence is issued.

I need this licence before I can purchase a gun and every time I buy ammunition, I need to show my licence and what I purchase is recorded.

If I want a restricted firearm like a pistol, then I have to take a different course/test and apply for a separate licence. The use and transportation of a restricted firearm is even more strict than an unrestricted like a shotgun.

Recently our beloved leader Prince Trudeau decided to ban the sale of handguns to reduce gun violence and subsequent deaths. It's a worthless law, because all it would do is stop somebody like me purchasing a handgun, the people who use these weapons for crime don't go through the licencing/vetting process.

Their weapons are smuggled through a porous border by the thousands. If Trudeau, really, really wanted to do something about reducing the use of guns in crime, then that would be a good place to make a start. That's a statement supported by the police, as they have even said that it won't make any difference to gun crime.

If a law was put in place forcing people to hand in their guns, besides causing uproar, the bad guys, the guys that are being targeting, wouldn't comply at all. Why would they, nobody knows they have them.

They won't/can't remove guns from American life, but they could make an effort to keep them out of the hands of people who may endanger others.

They have gone too far down the road to eliminate guns, but a proper vetting/licencing system would be a start and then move on from there.

That said, I'm not sure what the response would be if they tried to make automatic rifles illegal..........pretty unsettling I suspect.
 
Slipper One said:
It's not as straightforward as that KS55, it's a huge cultural thing with guns.

I'm pro guns, in so far as having one for a means, not just to carry around everywhere I go or have them lying in drawers at home.

We have a fair number of guns in this country, but a fraction of the issues they have south of the border. All but a small number of shootings here are drug/gang related.

Unlike south of the border, we can't simply walk into Walmart, show some ID and then leave with a military grade weapon, besides, they are banned here.

For a shotgun/rifle we are required to take a day long course in the use and safety of a firearm and then if that is passed, an application is made to the RCMP who then run a check on you. If everything is good, then a licence is issued.

I need this licence before I can purchase a gun and every time I buy ammunition, I need to show my licence and what I purchase is recorded.

If I want a restricted firearm like a pistol, then I have to take a different course/test and apply for a separate licence. The use and transportation of a restricted firearm is even more strict than an unrestricted like a shotgun.

Recently our beloved leader Prince Trudeau decided to ban the sale of handguns to reduce gun violence and subsequent deaths. It's a worthless law, because all it would do is stop somebody like me purchasing a handgun, the people who use these weapons for crime don't go through the licencing/vetting process.

Their weapons are smuggled through a porous border by the thousands. If Trudeau, really, really wanted to do something about reducing the use of guns in crime, then that would be a good place to make a start. That's a statement supported by the police, as they have even said that it won't make any difference to gun crime.

If a law was put in place forcing people to hand in their guns, besides causing uproar, the bad guys, the guys that are being targeting, wouldn't comply at all. Why would they, nobody knows they have them.

They won't/can't remove guns from American life, but they could make an effort to keep them out of the hands of people who may endanger others.

They have gone too far down the road to eliminate guns, but a proper vetting/licencing system would be a start and then move on from there.

That said, I'm not sure what the response would be if they tried to make automatic rifles illegal..........pretty unsettling I suspect.
Click to expand...
Soft northern fairies
 
Slipper One said:
It's not as straightforward as that KS55, it's a huge cultural thing with guns.

I'm pro guns, in so far as having one for a means, not just to carry around everywhere I go or have them lying in drawers at home.

We have a fair number of guns in this country, but a fraction of the issues they have south of the border. All but a small number of shootings here are drug/gang related.

Unlike south of the border, we can't simply walk into Walmart, show some ID and then leave with a military grade weapon, besides, they are banned here.

For a shotgun/rifle we are required to take a day long course in the use and safety of a firearm and then if that is passed, an application is made to the RCMP who then run a check on you. If everything is good, then a licence is issued.

I need this licence before I can purchase a gun and every time I buy ammunition, I need to show my licence and what I purchase is recorded.

If I want a restricted firearm like a pistol, then I have to take a different course/test and apply for a separate licence. The use and transportation of a restricted firearm is even more strict than an unrestricted like a shotgun.

Recently our beloved leader Prince Trudeau decided to ban the sale of handguns to reduce gun violence and subsequent deaths. It's a worthless law, because all it would do is stop somebody like me purchasing a handgun, the people who use these weapons for crime don't go through the licencing/vetting process.

Their weapons are smuggled through a porous border by the thousands. If Trudeau, really, really wanted to do something about reducing the use of guns in crime, then that would be a good place to make a start. That's a statement supported by the police, as they have even said that it won't make any difference to gun crime.

If a law was put in place forcing people to hand in their guns, besides causing uproar, the bad guys, the guys that are being targeting, wouldn't comply at all. Why would they, nobody knows they have them.

They won't/can't remove guns from American life, but they could make an effort to keep them out of the hands of people who may endanger others.

They have gone too far down the road to eliminate guns, but a proper vetting/licencing system would be a start and then move on from there.

That said, I'm not sure what the response would be if they tried to make automatic rifles illegal..........pretty unsettling I suspect.
Click to expand...
The issue is:
What should a government do about a moral hazard, if relevant legislation is likely to cause serious social disruption?
Not an easy question but my post was about that issue, not gun law per se.
The implication of your post is:
The answer is to do nothing because the reaction to legislation would be unsettling. Well, it’s an answer, but not one holding out much hope for innocent victims of the moral hazard.
Purely in terms of US gun law, I believe about 75% of the electorate favour legislation, even in Southern states. Should potential disruption by a minority hold the rest hostage?
 
Last edited:
Slipper One said:
It's not as straightforward as that KS55, it's a huge cultural thing with guns.

I'm pro guns, in so far as having one for a means, not just to carry around everywhere I go or have them lying in drawers at home.

We have a fair number of guns in this country, but a fraction of the issues they have south of the border. All but a small number of shootings here are drug/gang related.

Unlike south of the border, we can't simply walk into Walmart, show some ID and then leave with a military grade weapon, besides, they are banned here.

For a shotgun/rifle we are required to take a day long course in the use and safety of a firearm and then if that is passed, an application is made to the RCMP who then run a check on you. If everything is good, then a licence is issued.

I need this licence before I can purchase a gun and every time I buy ammunition, I need to show my licence and what I purchase is recorded.

If I want a restricted firearm like a pistol, then I have to take a different course/test and apply for a separate licence. The use and transportation of a restricted firearm is even more strict than an unrestricted like a shotgun.

Recently our beloved leader Prince Trudeau decided to ban the sale of handguns to reduce gun violence and subsequent deaths. It's a worthless law, because all it would do is stop somebody like me purchasing a handgun, the people who use these weapons for crime don't go through the licencing/vetting process.

Their weapons are smuggled through a porous border by the thousands. If Trudeau, really, really wanted to do something about reducing the use of guns in crime, then that would be a good place to make a start. That's a statement supported by the police, as they have even said that it won't make any difference to gun crime.

If a law was put in place forcing people to hand in their guns, besides causing uproar, the bad guys, the guys that are being targeting, wouldn't comply at all. Why would they, nobody knows they have them.

They won't/can't remove guns from American life, but they could make an effort to keep them out of the hands of people who may endanger others.

They have gone too far down the road to eliminate guns, but a proper vetting/licencing system would be a start and then move on from there.

That said, I'm not sure what the response would be if they tried to make automatic rifles illegal..........pretty unsettling I suspect.
Click to expand...
The problem isn’t that you can’t purchase a handgun. The problem is that you think that it’s a problem if you can’t purchase one. Because you’re a “good guy.”

Until you aren’t.

And that’s what I freak out about. Those non-criminals who become mass murderers because they fool the system into thinking they’re “good guys” and obtain guns.

Those of us who aren’t armed have to trust those who are armed legally to obey the law. That’s what you ask, right? But over and over and over again, every day, that trust is broken. And the consequences are hundreds — thousands — of dead innocents.

But gunowners don’t give a fuck. Not one single fuck. As always the argument is, “Fuck it. Let’s not have a law. The bad guys won’t comply anyway.” It is literally the stupidest argument in the universe of possible arguments regarding law. ANY law.

Until gun owners demand the harshest possible sentences for gun crimes, demand the strictest possible regulations for ownership, demand the highest taxes paid on the product, demand random spot checks on licensed owners to make certain storage and carrying are done precisely with legal bounds, their perspectives on this topic are pointless.

And the reason guns deserve this special treatment is because they have no societal utility whatsoever except to deliver lethal or near-lethal force. No other consumer good should be regulated as strongly because no other consumer good has such a singular, solely destructive purpose. The “good feelings” — safety, security, protection — derive from the fundamental purpose of the good, which is to harm its target.

Anyhow, I am a believer in the fundamental right to own a weapon. I am also a believer in the fundamental power of the legislature to regulate ownership. The problem is the latter, and the core of that problem is gun owners themselves whose freedom is more important than the lives of the innocent, and who, more cynically, simply don’t want to be bothered to be part of the solution because it inconveniences them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top