God Bless America

[Jacob]

The 'what' is really easy - restrict access to one of the most popular means of committing mass murder i.e. guns.

I think most people agree with that, certainly most shooters do. I assume you know the difference between 'restrict' and 'ban'.........

When I said 'restrict' I meant ban.
Any 'shooter' is a liability. He may kill by accident, do it deliberately, have his gun stolen by somebody else who does it.
A 'shooter' is by definition someone with an unhealthy interest in guns and should be banned from owning them.
They may feel insulted' by this but the fact is we don't want them, we don't trust them and we certainly wouldn't want them as neighbours any more than we would want paedophiles.

 

[RogerS]

they want a gun so they can go out and shoot something that bleeds and dies, it has everything to do with the mentality of the people who own a gun

Andy

I'm not quite clear if you're referring to Americans or all shooters. Should I feel shocked at the generalisation or insulted ?

All shooters obviously. Nobody wants them. They play with tools which are designed for one thing only i.e. killing things (including people).

Clearly a townie then, Jacob. Ever seen a chicken coop after the foxes have had a bit if fun? No, thought not. So what's your solution? Nice bit of poison and a slow long lingering painful death?

Culling deer? Absolutely not...mustn't have anyone to shoot them.

It's the man behind the gun. Guns don't shoot themselves.

 

[RogerS]

The 'what' is really easy - restrict access to one of the most popular means of committing mass murder i.e. guns.

I think most people agree with that, certainly most shooters do. I assume you know the difference between 'restrict' and 'ban'.........

When I said 'restrict' I meant ban.
Any 'shooter' is a liability. He may kill by accident, do it deliberately, have his gun stolen by somebody else who does it.
A 'shooter' is by definition someone with an unhealthy interest in guns and should be banned from owning them.
They may feel insulted' by this but the fact is we don't want them, we don't trust them and we certainly wouldn't want them as neighbours any more than we would want paedophiles.

In two words....

Utter bol*ocks

We've been round and round this argument before and it goes nowhere. So I'm out.

 

[monkeybiter]

This is why there should be a minimum I.Q. to vote. Everyone is equally entitled to their opinions, but some people's argument becomes more muddled and error ridden the more they say and must surely be an embarrasment to their cohorts as they reveal their shortcomings.
I'll stand my ground but I wouldn't wrestle a pygmy.

 

[Jacob]

..

Clearly a townie then, Jacob.

Not

Ever seen a chicken coop after the foxes have had a bit if fun?

Yes. My own in fact. I have never seen a classroom of children shot up though.

.... So what's your solution? Nice bit of poison and a slow long lingering painful death?

Better fencing. Cheaper and more practical than anything else. Also dog is good deterrent in the daytime. Wouldn't work for schools though. Neither would the bizarre suggestion of armed guards and arming all the staff, which wouldn't work for chickens either.

It's the man behind the gun. Guns don't shoot themselves.

Stupid comment. It's the sheer power of the gun which turns a malevolent loony into a mass murderer.
It wouldn't matter so much if shooters just shot at one another as in a good old cowboy film but they go for easy targets - children in a class room - fish in a barrel!

We've been round and round this argument before and it goes nowhere. .....

It does go somewhere in general - it leads to tighter gun control and reduced deaths. It may even do this in America where the majority are anti gun and don't own them. It may deter individuals from becoming shooters too, especially if enough people dare stick their heads above the parapets and speak out.

 

[Jacob]

.......... I wouldn't wrestle a pygmy.

Wouldn't expect you to. Surely you'd get him in the back, with an assault rifle from a safe distance?

 

[riclepp]

Heres my 2 peeny worth.

Gus in america are as normal as tea is to the english. They are part of thier society, get rid of guns there and they lose their rights (or so some would say).

I have used guns for the one purpose and opne purpose only, but there was a reason for that. I don't agree with people have heavy calibre weapons like barret .50 or any form of assult weapon, in my eyes they are for the armed forces. But, considering the number of weapons that armys have left behind or can be bought for as much as a case of beer in some countries weapons will always be available.

As for banning them, you may ban the honset person for holding a weapon but not a criminal so this is a failed argument. I have reservations for people owning shotguns, however I am happy that landowners, farmers and gamkeeers have them. Handguns can be just as potent as some rifles and assult weapons.

So what is the answer to the gun issue, If there is one I don't know it and I don't think it will ever be answred. As long as man has the ability to draw breath it will have some form of weapon; at the moment it is guns, but what will it be tomorrow. After all most american's are pertty odd in my opinion, but there is always 1 person in the us that has the ability to destroy this world many times over, as do the russians and here we are moaning about guns, when there are more pressing worries out there when it comes to weapons. Before anyone jumps up and down, I don't condone what happened to the school in the us ast week. I grant you, it is a good argument from removing weapons from people!

 

[Jacob]

.....As for banning them, you may ban the honset person for holding a weapon but not a criminal so this is a failed argument.

No.
Fewer guns in circulation as a whole and fewer are available for criminals.
ALL the guns used by criminals, even if illegally owned, originated quite legally (except those they made themselves) and many of the notable mass murderers owned their guns quite legally.

 

[orchard]

I think it's important for a human to be able to hunt for food and appreciate what's involved in satisfying a basic need, not just get a vended slab of protein encased in plastic. So I'm against a ban, it is after all the individual who acts, and to a lesser extent, the particular society at large. Saying that, I've always found it odd that people want a firearm as an end in itself.

 

[Jacob]

Interesting fact from Alistair Cooke in 1993 talking about guns post Kennedy etc. -
The presence of a gun in a household approximately triples the likelihood of someone in the household being shot dead.

 

[monkeybiter]

I think it's important for a human to be able to hunt for food and appreciate what's involved in satisfying a basic need, not just get a vended slab of protein encased in plastic. So I'm against a ban, it is after all the individual who acts, and to a lesser extent, the particular society at large. Saying that, I've always found it odd that people want a firearm as an end in itself.

Up to the handgun ban I owned 6 pistols which I shot regularly, some competitively. My interest is primarily in the design, both the ergonomics and also [mainly] the mechanical variations within. I thought I was in the early stages of building and refining a collection of significant designs. One of my first jobs was at a gunsmith's shop.

I can fully understand that you would wonder why anyone would be interested in firearms themselves, I feel the same way about cars, motorbikes and [whispers] planes. But I also respect other peoples different interests without casting aspersions with regard to illogically extrapolated motives such as blood lust, cowardice or murderous intent.

Sorry about the last sentence, more venting than as a reply to your post.

 

[riclepp]

.....As for banning them, you may ban the honset person for holding a weapon but not a criminal so this is a failed argument.

No. Yes it is.

You will never get rid of guns, replica's and deactivated wpns can all be re-enginered to fire live rounds again...........Just go a visit war and peace, there are hundreds of deactivated fire arms which anyone on this site can go and buy and then hey presto, if you have the knowledge and tools you can in some cases reactivate them.......it is easy to do (depending on when it was deactivated in the first place).

So to an end Jacob you may ban wpns, but it wont get rid of them...ever.



Fewer guns in circulation as a whole and fewer are available for criminals.
ALL the guns used by criminals, even if illegally owned, originated quite legally (except those they made themselves) and many of the notable mass murderers owned their guns quite legally.

Have you never heard of smuggling, hundreds if not thousands are smuggled into the uk every year that end up on the streets maybe used in armed robbery's or even murder. Look at the wars going on around the world and there is your ready supply of wpns, waiting for someone to buy them and sell them on. The Russians are very good at this.

 

[orchard]

I think it's important for a human to be able to hunt for food and appreciate what's involved in satisfying a basic need, not just get a vended slab of protein encased in plastic. So I'm against a ban, it is after all the individual who acts, and to a lesser extent, the particular society at large. Saying that, I've always found it odd that people want a firearm as an end in itself.

Up to the handgun ban I owned 6 pistols which I shot regularly, some competitively. My interest is primarily in the design, both the ergonomics and also [mainly] the mechanical variations within. I thought I was in the early stages of building and refining a collection of significant designs. One of my first jobs was at a gunsmith's shop.

I can fully understand that you would wonder why anyone would be interested in firearms themselves, I feel the same way about cars, motorbikes and [whispers] planes. But I also respect other peoples different interests without casting aspersions with regard to illogically extrapolated motives such as blood lust, cowardice or murderous intent.

Sorry about the last sentence, more venting than as a reply to your post.

Hahaha, hope you feel better for it!
Yea, it was quite a general statement mate, and I respect your interest in the technology, per se (I found it interesting yonks ago in the Navy when we built a simpe SMG). Reflecting further, although I've come across a few with (what I deem) an unhealthy appetite for weaponry, I've also been suspicious of a few people who use them to hunt too. I think my old man had taught me well bless him.
The Germans have a good protracted liscensing system don't they??

 

[riclepp]

..

Clearly a townie then, Jacob.

Not

Ever seen a chicken coop after the foxes have had a bit if fun?

Yes. My own in fact. I have never seen a classroom of children shot up though.

.... So what's your solution? Nice bit of poison and a slow long lingering painful death?

Better fencing. Cheaper and more practical than anything else. Also dog is good deterrent in the daytime. Wouldn't work for schools though. Neither would the bizarre suggestion of armed guards and arming all the staff, which wouldn't work for chickens either.

It's the man behind the gun. Guns don't shoot themselves.

Stupid comment. It's the sheer power of the gun which turns a malevolent loony into a mass murderer.
It wouldn't matter so much if shooters just shot at one another as in a good old cowboy film but they go for easy targets - children in a class room - fish in a barrel!

We've been round and round this argument before and it goes nowhere. .....

It does go somewhere in general - it leads to tighter gun control and reduced deaths. It may even do this in America where the majority are anti gun and don't own them. It may deter individuals from becoming shooters too, especially if enough people dare stick their heads above the parapets and speak out.

Sorry Jacob, I agree with Roger S, guns don't shoot themselves or people, it is the person that carries out the act. Fact, if a wpn with a full mag is laying on the floor, it won't ever jump up and shoot anything, for it to do that it needs a person to pull the trigger. I assume the you are a psychatric Dorctor then , by you statement "It's the sheer power of the gun which turns a malevolent loony into a mass murderer." A mass murder will use whatever method they can aquire, in the US it happens to be wpns because there is so many of them and they are esay to get legally.

 

[Jacob]

Unbelievable!
Yes we know that 'guns don't kill people'. But people with guns do. If they can't get the guns they can't kill people (at all easily at any rate).
Dos anybody really need to have this explained? Ridiculous.

 

[mailee]

I agree it is not the guns that kill but the person behind them. Take away all the guns and they will find something else to kill with....vehicles, you could kill a lot of people with one of those. The bigger the vehicle the more could be killed in one fell swoop, should we also ban those too? :roll:

 

[Jacob]

Right. So we don't need to arm the armed forces they could just run over the enemy in their vehicles?
This 'it's not the guns' argument is childish nonsense.

In fact it's astonishing that so many people can confuse themselves with this idiotic little phrase.
How about 'golf clubs don't play golf'. What are the implications for golf club suppliers? Do golfers even need them?

 

[bugbear]

The 'what' is really easy - restrict access to one of the most popular means of committing mass murder i.e. guns.

I think most people agree with that, certainly most shooters do. I assume you know the difference between 'restrict' and 'ban'.........

When I said 'restrict' I meant ban.
Any 'shooter' is a liability. He may kill by accident, do it deliberately, have his gun stolen by somebody else who does it.
A 'shooter' is by definition someone with an unhealthy interest in guns and should be banned from owning them.
They may feel insulted' by this but the fact is we don't want them, we don't trust them and we certainly wouldn't want them as neighbours any more than we would want paedophiles.

Who is this "we" who elected you spokesman Jacob? And which dictionary did your "definition" of shooter come from? I suspect the Jacob dictionary of "words mean what I say they may" has reared its ugly head again.

It's evident you enjoy arguing on almost any subject where you have an opinion, but a little less heat and little more light would be helpful.

BugBear

 

[revwayne]

As an American participant on this board reading the thread ‘God bless America’ I found some consolation that God and America were once again used in the same breath. As a pastor, a former U.S. Army Ranger from the Vietnam War and a gun owner I have much to say about God, gun ownership and our behaviors in this world.

As an American I stand with liberty praying for peace while preparing for the worst condition that prince of darkness and his minions can generate – I’ve seen it firsthand. Our nation was founded in response to tyranny and oppression. Our Declaration of Independence described the circumstances of separation from the crown. Our Constitution and its Bill of rights describe in detail what we hold as foundational rights. Our citizenry grew out of the tyranny of empire and our 2nd Amendment which is routinely under attack from tyrants scares tyrants because the tyrant can’t control an armed citizenry. If you’re worried about mass murder then fix the societal ills. Adolf Hitler murdered 6 million Jews and others using techniques that didn’t include handguns or machine guns – he had all sorts of opportunities to murder, maim and destroy. Josef Stalin murdered nearly twice as many of his own people as Hitler and Pol Pot nearly twice the number as well. We don’t know how many Saddam Hussein murdered nor Bashir Assad. The point is not the means but the desire to control and destroy those who won’t yield.

I’ve seen firsthand a population that is disarmed and murdered – it’s heartbreaking. I watched my men hold Vietnamese and Montagnard babies in their arms for protection and comfort, their weapons slung across their backs, tears streaming down their faces at the Bolshevik destruction of those who wouldn’t yield to their evil. I am reminded of what John Stuart Mill wrote, “But war, in a good cause, is not the greatest evil which a nation can suffer. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice – a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice – is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.” John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), “The Contest in America.” Harper's New Monthly Magazine, Volume 24, Issue 143, page 683-684. Harper & Bros., New York, April 1862.

I hate war, I hate violence, I preach against it. As Jesus said, “Be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove.” At some point we have to be intelligent enough not to destroy our bodies with alcohol, tobacco and drugs. This weekend 65 people died innocently due to alcohol and drug addled drivers on the highway – no cries for the ban of autos or the booze and drugs. 435,000 people die annually from smoking, 58,000 from second hand smoke – yet guns are far more dangerous. Over 58,000 men and women from America died in combat in Vietnam from 1961 until 1975 and 58,000 innocent lives are taken each year by second hand smoke – let’s discuss mass murder.

If you intend to give a blessing to God for America we gladly accept it – if you seek to criticize please also recognize our history and stance against tyranny – the world routinely turned to us to come to its aid – a part of me hopes that we stop doing that and let those in trouble solve their problems – the other part wants to scoop up the children like we did in Vietnam and keep them from harm. I’ve learned in my few years on this orb that we get the governance we deserve. I’ve traveled the globe, walked the streets, rail stations and byways wherever I was - seeing police armed with weapons of war – why? My greatest feeling or sense of safety was in Switzerland and Israel. I’ll let you sort it out.

Every Sunday and every day in my sent prayers I pray for peace and calm. God hears those prayers. Every day, every hour, every second the prince of darkness works his evil. Semper vigilans.

For those of you who disagree - that's okay; seek first to understand...

 

[Jacob]

For those of you who disagree with what exactly? Your point was not clear. Are saying american school slayings are the price we have to pay?
We haven't had any in Britain since Dunblane was followed by very tight hand gun controls. I'm sure it'd work in USA.
Were Adam Lanza and his mum fighting Satan? Who won?

if you seek to criticize please also recognize our history and stance against tyranny

Er, what? :shock:
USA is widely regarded as terrorist nation No 1, dealing death and destruction world wide, even as we speak, with every lethal USA adventure since WW2 being an abject failure.