Las Vegas/Now mass murder in Texas

[Norm]

Just so you know, I'm not defending gun ownership, just living with it - it's a fact of life here and anyone who wants to commit an atrocity has the freedom so to do. On the other hand, many law-abiding citizens may be alive today because they had the weapons to take down armed intruders. There are always two sides to a story. The US standard viewpoint is that, if you ban guns, then only the criminals will have them. I don't necessarily agree with that but it explains the viewpoint.

[gessa]

Watched a programme on BBC news last week, frightening how mucj gun crime is on the rise here, no surprise the majority is connected to drug gangs.

[Norm]

gessa wrote:

Watched a programme on BBC news last week, frightening how mucj gun crime is on the rise here, no surprise the majority is connected to drug gangs.

- and guns are outlawed in the UK. That's part of my point. For home protection there's nothing wrong with gun ownership, but how the hell do you regulate usage for other, nefarious, purposes?
It's OK people mouthing off about the US and guns but, unfortunately, gun ownership isn't the problem - it;s gun usage which is the problem, and I don't see a solution.

[Ronan]

- and guns are outlawed in the UK. That's part of my point. For home protection there's nothing wrong with gun ownership, but how the hell do you regulate usage for other, nefarious, purposes?
It's OK people mouthing off about the US and guns but, unfortunately, gun ownership isn't the problem - it;s gun usage which is the problem, and I don't see a solution.

The problem with your argument Norm is that just in these last 2 atrocities there is no link to home protection or defence...they were just out and out murder.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with this :

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I disagree with you....Gun ownership is far far too easy in the United States and it is this and this alone that has caused the problem.

You can say you need protection but do you not have a police force for that ??

In these 2 atrocities nearly 100 dead for what ? The security of your free state ??

Repeal the Act now.

[Gandalf]

According to data from the Gun Violence Archive, a total of 307 mass shooting incidents (defined as 4 or more people shot in the same place at the same time) have occurred in the US in 2017, as of November 5 . That is more than one a day. If you also consider that in 2017, American gun-related deaths included 21,175 suicides, 13,203 homicides and 1,074 deaths caused by an accidental discharge, I think it is fairly obvious, even to a moron like Trump, that there is a gun problem in the US.

[1964white]

According to data from the Gun Violence Archive, a total of 307 mass shooting incidents (defined as 4 or more people shot in the same place at the same time) have occurred in the US in 2017, as of November 5 . That is more than one a day. If you also consider that in 2017, American gun-related deaths included 21,175 suicides, 13,203 homicides and 1,074 deaths caused by an accidental discharge, I think it is fairly obvious, even to a moron like Trump, that there is a gun problem in the US.

Unbelievable Gandi, even more so is that the majority of Americans support the clown in the White House on his stance !

As I said early they are gun-happy or crazy maybe the appropriate description

[BobHirst]

The problem with your argument Norm is that just in these last 2 atrocities there is no link to home protection or defence...they were just out and out murder.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with this :

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I disagree with you....Gun ownership is far far too easy in the United States and it is this and this alone that has caused the problem.

You can say you need protection but do you not have a police force for that ??

In these 2 atrocities nearly 100 dead for what ? The security of your free state ??

Repeal the Act now.

This is the standard reply of the gun supporters......
The police can't be everywhere, so we need guns to protect ourselves!

[Ronan]

This is the standard reply of the gun supporters......
The police can't be everywhere, so we need guns to protect ourselves!

Are you for real ?? Is it really the Wild West over there ?

And i wonder where it has emanated from.....mmmm....the 2nd Amendment....you really don't help yourselves.

[BobHirst]

Unbelievable Gandi, even more so is that the majority of Americans support the clown in the White House on his stance !

As I said early they are gun-happy or crazy maybe the appropriate description

I've given up trying to understand it.
It seems so obvious to you and me but for a large number of Americans it is a 'right' so ingrained in their psyche that reason and logic don't seem to count.
Around half of the US population voted in the presidential election. About half of the half voted for Trump. From the articles I have read, most of them still approve of Trump and would vote for him again. They probably also own guns.

[BobHirst]

Are you for real ?? Is it really the Wild West over there ?

And i wonder where it has emanated from.....mmmm....the 2nd Amendment....you really don't help yourselves.

As I keep saying, it makes no sense to us. It is a totally different mindset.
I was watching the news last night and someone from Sutherland Springs was being interviewed and trotted out one of the all time gun supporters favorite lines " guns don't kill people, people kill people".
These are some of the standard arguments you hear.
If guns are banned, then only the bad guys will have guns.
I have to protect my house and family.
Its my right to own a gun. (and currently it is).
We have to be armed to be able to prevent a tyrannical government.
I need one to go hunting.
More people are killed by cars and you don't try to ban them.
And on and on.........

[Ronan]

As I keep saying, it makes no sense to us. It is a totally different mindset.
I was watching the news last night and someone from Sutherland Springs was being interviewed and trotted out one of the all time gun supporters favorite lines " guns don't kill people, people kill people".
These are some of the standard arguments you hear.
If guns are banned, then only the bad guys will have guns.
I have to protect my house and family.
Its my right to own a gun. (and currently it is).
We have to be armed to be able to prevent a tyrannical government.
I need one to go hunting.
More people are killed by cars and you don't try to ban them.
And on and on.........

"We have to be armed to be able to prevent a tyrannical government."

Bob, I find this statement hard to fathom and ultimately very sad.

[BobHirst]

"We have to be armed to be able to prevent a tyrannical government."

Bob, I find this statement hard to fathom and ultimately very sad.

The 'logic' behind this one is that if the citizens are not armed then what's to stop the socialists/commies taking over. The 2nd amendment indeed was enacted to help stop the British taking over again.
Freedom is a big part of the American culture, and having a gun is perceived as helping to maintain that freedom.
For example, a lot of Americans want to be free NOT to have healthcare, at least healthcare imposed on them by a commie like Obama.
I know...........but I don't make this stuff up, I'm just reporting.
And yes, it is sad.

[Ronan]

The 'logic' behind this one is that if the citizens are not armed then what's to stop the socialists/commies taking over. The 2nd amendment indeed was enacted to help stop the British taking over again.
Freedom is a big part of the American culture, and having a gun is perceived as helping to maintain that freedom.
For example, a lot of Americans want to be free NOT to have healthcare, at least healthcare imposed on them by a commie like Obama.
I know...........but I don't make this stuff up, I'm just reporting.
And yes, it is sad.

Indeed...you are sad.

[BobHirst]

Indeed...you are sad.

So what's that supposed to mean?

[BobHirst]

Indeed...you are sad.

Oh, I think I get it. You think that I think Obama is a communist. Yes?
I DO NOT.
I am trying to convey to you what a lot of the Trump supporting, pro-gun people are thinking and saying.
They don't want the government imposing programs on them, even something beneficial like universal healthcare, because it is a "socialist" program.

That was the purpose of "I know...........but I don't make this stuff up, I'm just reporting".

[Norm]

We live in the country, fairly rural, and 2 of my wife's brothers live next to us, one either side. The older one was in the Navy for 20 years and has all kinds of guns. He's not a nutter, just likes guns and target practice and so on. Every day he takes his dog for a walk at least twice and always takes a pistol with him in case a poisonous snake crosses his path. We don't have a horde of snakes but they do occasionally come to light, especially if you walk through the woods. Pygmy rattlers, Copperheads and Water Moccasins are the poisonous ones around here.
His pistol fires shotgun shells and can kill a snake or a rabid animal. He doesn't want to kill, but it's for defence that he carries a gun.
Another use is for protection against rabid wildlife - fairly rare but rabid animals are dangerous. Lastly, we get the occasional Black Bear or Puma in the area for a while. A bear or puma will not normally seek confrontation with a human, but examples have occurred and you can't fight one off with a pea-shooter.
Lastly in this tale, the most dangerous animal - man. Fortunately, methamphetamine users or 'methheads' don't normally burgle, but if they are short of cash and need their fix they will resort to robbery and/or burglary to get cash or something of value to sell or pawn, and people have been injured and occasionally even killed if they resist. Killing is not the norm here but it has happened.
So, we don't have a shotgun, but I was tempted when someone who lives about a mile away was raped and robbed in her own home.
Call the police? Don't make me laugh - we have a Sheriff and 7 Deputies to police our county, which occupies 755 square miles, 24/7. OK the Missouri Highway Patrol will help if they are available and not trying to catch drunk drivers, but by the time someone gets to you it's too late, so you have to have some defence mechanism of your own.
Where I take exception to the gun laws is that anyone can legally own a rifle without a licence. To own a handgun, you do need a licence but I don't know how strict the system is. What shouldn't be allowed imo is the ownership by Joe Public of assault weapons.
We have a simple .22 rifle, but for a while there we had an AR15 which, whilst only using .223 ammo, is a deadly weapon (yes I’m aware that anything that shoots bullets is deadly)- we didn't need it but my wife wanted one after the incident I mentioned earlier about the rape and robbery not far from us.
So, on the side of common sense, having guns available increases the tendency to use them, as a baseball bat is not nearly so effective in scaring off a potential intruder/attacker/rapist. Maybe there is a tendency to overstate the possibility of that threat at times, but if you've ever witnessed the devastation and horror of a rape/robbery, especially if there are injuries, you would wish the perpetrators ill.
I’m not trying to sway anyone’s opinion on guns – just relating a simple tale of circumstances where I live. If you still think I shouldn’t own a gun, then that’s what you think.

[liggy]

Norm a couple of Jack Russell terriers would take care of the snakes.
Only coppers should be allowed to carry guns,USA would get used to it after just one generation .
In the meantime if you still feel the need to bear arms yous could have catapults

[liggy]

Ps
I glad I'm not your neighbour you and them redneck brother in laws's
With your big red checky shirts after a session on the moonshine
Might start shooting at me pigeons

[rab_rant]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
.

When the constitution was written you have to remember that America had just gained independence
from Britain. As such American did not have an army and they employed guerrilla hit and run tactics.
The right to carry arms was seen as a safeguard against a foreign country ever usurping power ever
again, or in the worst case scenario that your own government should become so draconian that it
would need to be overthrown. It was a measure aimed at countries and governments, but somehow
it has evolved and now the belief is that it is for the protection of the individual.

[Norm]

Never at your pigeons liggy. My brother-in-law would probably try to protect them against the vultures and buzzards too. Besides, d'you think I'd wear a RED-checked shirt? Only blue/yellow mate.
In seriousness, I respect your views.