it gives context to the US constitution.
Another school shooting in the US
- Thread starter .Griff.
- Start date
it gives context to the US constitution.
Because local gun clubs aren't well secured and monitored places on the whole? (The local gun club certainly doesn't look like Fort Knox that's for sure).
Not a really convenient solution for a lot of people. Any cleaning and maintenance would need to be at the club, competitions would require you to visit the club to get out your weapon, etc, etc. Seems to be massively inconvenient for no real gain.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Not that I'm convinced by that but why can't we just say to them "It's a boring hobby, find something else to do"?
I'm sure back in the day people used to enjoy **** fighting and badger baiting but sometimes humans need to learn that the small enjoyment they get from standing in a room shooting in the same direction at a target that doesn't shoot back for hours on end (kind think of anything less I'd want to do personally) aren't worth the wider problems they cause.
What's wrong with laser quest?
Soldato
They could be?
Well, how did we cope in the UK with the gradual until almost blanket restrictions?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
If you need proof that the NRA are propaganda merchants just look at this video....
They are using footage and soundbites from the protests over the ban on Fox Hunting and pretending they are marching for gun rights (you can see by their signs it's about hunting and not guns).
Who's running the NRA, Joseph Goebbels?
They are using footage and soundbites from the protests over the ban on Fox Hunting and pretending they are marching for gun rights (you can see by their signs it's about hunting and not guns).
Who's running the NRA, Joseph Goebbels?
Because they probably don't think it is a boring hobby? There are a ton of things I find tedious but that doesn't mean they should be banned.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
But as soon as we (by that I mean people who favour strong gun controls) come up with solutions that allow people to shoot targets in a controlled environment whilst mitigating the risk of those firearms being used outside you keep coming back with excuses as to why it wouldn't be possible.
So if you're saying it's impracticable for gun clubs to exist in a manner where they hold and control the guns then the only solution left is to close them.
But of course I suspect your real motivation is to maintain the status quo of a gun free for all.
You haven't really given any decent reasons as to why such restrictions should be placed on people and what problem they would solve.
If you want to either ban or massively restrict a hobby then you are going to have to come up with a better reason than you find the sport boring.
Not that it really matters as the shooting happened in the US where "hunting" and "self defence" are also considered valid reasons to own a gun and you would need to address those too as well as target shooting.
Nope. I don't own a gun and have never owned a gun.
Soldato
I think the obvious way to look at it is some people think sitting at a computer playing games/having access to vast amounts of porn is wrong. See 'some people' just don't know what they are talking about.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
There are 27 very good reasons lying in a Newton mortuary.
Do hunters need semi-automatic weapons though? Are there super deers walking around the States that laugh off bullets from what I'd consider a standard hunting rifle?
Not too long ago the State of Texas legislated so it was legal to use a silencer on a hunting rifle, what 'problem' is that solving? Do deers have body guards that need to be taken out first? How much more of an advantage does a hunter need?
As for the self defence argument is a circular argument and easily shot down.
It's going to be pretty expensive to make them like that, not sure if most gun clubs would be able to afford it. Even if they could I am not sure why they should.
Because the restrictions on a FAC and gun clubs are nowhere near as restrictive as you want them to be? For handguns however people were forced to give up their hobby when they were banned.
Ah, we are doing the appeal to emotion then. Rather than any sort of evidence. Fair enough. Not really going to be able to argue against that sort "logic".
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
You implied I wanted to ban guns solely to stop a few people doing their 'hobby'.
I don't, I want them banned because having a gun culture (combined with other social and economic factors) leads to the events mentioned above.
Not wanting kids to die in order to support a "right" is not an emotional argument. It is rational and sensible one.
Soldato
Haha, that is what this debate is about!
On one side we have people saying massacres are an inevitability of loose gun control laws in america. You're trying to refute that.
Why would you use "Increasing gun control will lead to annoyed hobbyists" as an argument? No one is disagreeing with you on that point. But that's a consequence of what needs to be done (in my opinion) to save lives.
Instead, tell us why tighter gun laws would not stop/slow down the massacres please. Lets get it back on track.
Associate
Could swing both ways on the gun issue. On one had, if you go the way of egypt, its probably pretty good if all your citizens are armed to the teath. On the other hand, you're also arming nutjobs.
I actually agree with the other side of the argument though. The problem with the US is the uncaring attitude to ones fellow man. This is reflected in their attitude towards mental health issues, health care (and insurance requirments) in general, their corporations and their 80 hours work weeks until burnout, massive financial disparity, etc.
I don't think guns are the problem, but making it harder to get one would probably lower the death toll, regardless if its only treating a symptom of the problem itself. Part of me is in favour of banning them because I honestly don't think the US is capable of actually dealing with their issues.
I actually agree with the other side of the argument though. The problem with the US is the uncaring attitude to ones fellow man. This is reflected in their attitude towards mental health issues, health care (and insurance requirments) in general, their corporations and their 80 hours work weeks until burnout, massive financial disparity, etc.
I don't think guns are the problem, but making it harder to get one would probably lower the death toll, regardless if its only treating a symptom of the problem itself. Part of me is in favour of banning them because I honestly don't think the US is capable of actually dealing with their issues.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Quite.
Unfortunately a lot of Americans are so obsessed with their individual rights, they forget they also have social responsibility and the two don't often go hand in hand.
I would argue the latter trumps the former but sadly this isn't the case in many a US mind.
Associate
I think it's more greed and being sold the lie that if you work real hard you can class jump and when you're rich you won't want to being taxes to all those lazy bums. Of course, for the most part thats a lie, but they buy into it anyway.
Course, even if it were true, this is shortsighted because the only end result of capitalism appears to be the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and ultimately the country becoming a less safe place. History is filled with people whos money didn't save em.
Ideally I actually stand with the americans on their civil rights. Free speech and due process has been trampled and thats a damn shame, but I'm not sure letting the country go to the pigs because people with wealth don't want to pay their fair share has anything to do with those rights.
I'm not sure the trillions spent of "defense" couldn't be put to better use.
Soldato
On the contrary, I see it you haven't given any decent reasons why there shouldn't be heavy restrictions. Wait what, is it because the poor hobby boys who want to play soldier might not have as good a time?
Though this isn't directed at me I thought I should point out that an assault rifle isn't a particularly suitable choice for a civilian for hunting or self defence (unless you live in a mansion with thick walls and no neighbours in the immediate vicinity).
conducting a massacre such as this with a bolt action rifle or a shotgun would be a lot harder to do and likely would lead to less deaths at least....
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 2,950
IMO there are too many guns in the US to be able to ban large varieties of firearms, it would just end up with loads and loads of illegally held guns. Assault type weapons should be banned regardless.
Perhaps very strict rules on the storage and purchase of ammunition could be bought in based on requirement. I.e 10rnds pistol only for home defence defence of a nominated caliber of the owners choice, or 50rnds rifle for hunting purposes with a 50rnd per month buy limit. For range shooting rounds are purchased on site and cases handed back in for reuse/count out count in.
Slightly off topic but some people may not know but it is perfectly legal to own a magazine fed semi auto rifle in England more than capable of killing a person from range further than most people can.shoot, Infact it's one of the easiest types of rifle to get cleared for (.22lr).
Perhaps very strict rules on the storage and purchase of ammunition could be bought in based on requirement. I.e 10rnds pistol only for home defence defence of a nominated caliber of the owners choice, or 50rnds rifle for hunting purposes with a 50rnd per month buy limit. For range shooting rounds are purchased on site and cases handed back in for reuse/count out count in.
Slightly off topic but some people may not know but it is perfectly legal to own a magazine fed semi auto rifle in England more than capable of killing a person from range further than most people can.shoot, Infact it's one of the easiest types of rifle to get cleared for (.22lr).