3 hours ago, bazza73 said:

Sometimes, I have trouble comprehending a post on Thai Visa. This is one of those times.

What the hell has population deaths from snake and spider bites have to do with the issue of gun control? Or are you suggesting if Australians had more guns, we could go out and shoot all the snakes and spiders?

 

I'm sorry if my attempt to bring a little levity to this rather heavy topic went over your head. As you made an argument for how dangerous you perceived America to be due to gun deaths, I brought up the number of people injured/killed in Australia by these poisonous creepy-crawlies,for which your fine country is also known for, and could be perceived as a danger as well.

As I've already said, less than 100 people per year on average are killed in mass-shooting incidents in the United States. Therefore, I don't agree with Democrat politicians who use these admitted tragedies to call for stricter "gun control" laws or regulations. 

1 hour ago, Blue Muton said:

You are being obtuse. Fortunately most people in this discussion can see straight through your attempts to divert from the reality of the insane situation that America and many of its innocent citizens find itself in.

The "insane" reality being less than 100 people are killed in mass shooting incidents annually?

It should give allot of guys a chance to dry-out.

5 minutes ago, Blue Muton said:

The previous post was entirely relevant to the topic and to this thread. Your reply is the spam.

The topic is Democrat proposals for new gun laws...not muslim terrorist attacks.

On 10/3/2017 at 10:36 AM, bazza73 said:

What's so wrong with living in Australia?

 

Fact 1. We have not had a single gun massacre in Australia since Port Arthur in 1996.

 

Fact 2. You can legally own firearms in Australia. Just not semi-automatic weapons whose sole purpose is to kill people quickly and efficiently.

 

Fact 3. The gun-related deaths per 100,000 of population in Australia is one-twentieth of that in the USA.

 

Fact 4. Of those gun-related deaths, about three-quarters of them are suicide. It would appear gun-owners in Australia, when they decide to check out, at least have the consideration to avoid taking innocent people with them.

 

If you want to talk about good faith, the most sickening thing about Las Vegas is Trump sending condolences, after campaigning for total removal of the limited gun reforms of the Obama administration. Psychopath is an inadequate description.

 

The USA is captive to an armaments industry and NRA which has the power to make and unmake elected officers - even Presidents.

 

Sadly, I can't see any end to these mass murders. Santayana said those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. America has mass amnesia.

I never said anything was "wrong" with living in Oz...what I said is that if the "gun control" proposals of many on the left were adopted then America would be like Australia in this respect. As to gun-related deaths per population, it may be lower in Oz but what about population deaths from snake and spider bites :)

5 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Funny how people fear Islamic terrorists attacking them, when the risk is so much lower than the minuscule risk of being killed by an American.

You might want to re-read the thread topic heading...might stop you from spamming the topic.

27 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, actually if Republicans already are enacting background checks on voters and licensing.

And I'm going to go out on a very short limb here and say that your contention about large majorites of democrats in favor of no private ownership of firearms is a lie.

Not a lawyer are you...did you know that the individual right to vote IS NOT stated anywhere in the Constitution...only that the states shall set for the manner and requirements for the election of Federal office holders.  Voter ID laws and such are the States carrying out their Constitutional duty.

On 10/3/2017 at 9:45 AM, newnative said:

Oh, my.  You really are naive if you think the politicians in America are doing what their constituents want.  If that was the case, America would have universal health care and stronger gun control laws, among other things favored by a majority of Americans.  It's an unfortunate fact that these days American politicians spend more time raising the vast amounts of money they need for their next election campaign than doing anything else.  Big Pharma, the NRA, and many other lobby groups are rich and powerful and have enough politicians in their pockets to block what Americans want. 

What's right and in accord with the Constitution has not always been popular...at one time, slavery was supported by the majority of Americans, as was Jim Crow, no votes for women, ban on inter-racial marriage, ban on gay marriage, etc. I wouldn't necessarily use a majoritarian argument to support your position.

14 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Can you explain why it matters whether I get killed in a mass shooting or in a drive-by shooting on the street?  Exactly what perspective are you trying to paint?

 

Any why the scare quotes for 'mass shooting'?  You don't think they exist?

 

 

Can we see the dictionary you're getting your definitions from?  Because that's simply untrue.  From my earlier cite:

 

 

Back to you:

 

 

Even if we accept your unsourced numbers, one-third of eleven thousand murders is not what I call a nonexistent problem.  Maybe you're using that weird dictionary again.

I'm more interested how you can cross the street...as you seem to fear such miniscule risk.

If you care to read posts without hyperventilating, you would have comprehended that I said the 2/3rds of handgun deaths wouldn't be affected (i.e., wouldn't go down) by gun confiscation advocates' call for an "assault weapons [usually defined as high-capacity semi-automatic rifles]" ban.

22 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Note, all the 'red states' are in the upper right.  'Blue states' are lower left.  Red = blood color. Appropriate.

 

I agree that suicides are going to happen, whether a person has a gun or not, though with a gun, it's more likely a successful kill.

 

Even if it's less than 3% of gun-related deaths are due to rifles (if we're to believe the stats), it's still a significant number.  That's like saying, 'less than 3% of car crashes are cause by failing brakes, so we should not be concerned about fixing brakes.'   3% of 40,000 is 1,200.

You're padding your statistics (like in the election)...it's 34k not 40...and it's three percent of 11k not "40k."

On 10/3/2017 at 2:31 PM, heybruce said:

I'm a gun owner.  I think guns and people using guns should be regulated similarly to autos and people who drive.  Regulating drivers in the US doesn't keep all nutcases from driving, but it does make it harder for them.

 

"The basic problem is that "gun control" is code for gun confiscation by Democrats and others of their ilk."

 

That is NRA propaganda.

You think it's propaganda...take a poll of Democrat voters and other liberals and you will find large majorities in favor of no private ownership of firearms.

How about people exercising their First Amendment right to free speech...should one need a background check and a license for that...how about women exercising their 19th Amendment right to vote...background check and license too?

Just to add some perspective...

Of the approximately 34k gun deaths per year in the United States...LESS than 100 are caused by "mass shooting" incidents like what happened in Las Vegas...

Two-thirds of the deaths are suicides (which by definition are going to happen whatever the nation's gun laws)...

Of the approximately 11k deaths remaining, 2/3rd of these are by handguns, which would be unaffected by the gun confiscation advocates call for an "assault weapons" ban...and less than 3 percent of these 11k gun deaths are caused by a rifle of any sort.

Looks to me like many are looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

6 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

NV does have very lax gun laws.  It's an open carry state.  I was in a Walmart one time when a guy behind me started talking about his new purchase.  Some big looking handgun strapped to his waist.  Right there in the checkout line.  He made comments like "nobody will mess with me now that I've got this".  Scared the hell out of me.

That's why crime is low in NV, and other "lax" states; and why its highest is states and cities with strict gun control like Chicago, Wash. D.C, and California.

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

Because the politicians are afraid to make a stand for what's right thinking they might not be reelected.  Sad commentary on the state of affairs for the Republican party.  Who currently has about a 20% approval rating.

In other words, they're doing what their constituents want...I'm sorry if democracy is distasteful to you. I'm also sorry you were triggered by the sight of a gun.

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

Hand guns are guns and would fall under gun control.  As being proposed by many currently in office.  Though sadly, most proposals related to gun control fail.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-gun-control-proposals-have-been-offered-since-2011/

Why more than 100 gun control proposals in Congress since 2011 have failed

Why...bcause the people don't support them obviously. It's also the reason the NRA endorsed candidate won the presidency in the most recent election.

3 hours ago, joecoolfrog said:

The problem is that too many people are being literal , the guns are good / bad arguments are not working , there needs to be some form of concensus or these slaughters will just keep happening.

I agree. The basic problem is that "gun control" is code for gun confiscation by Democrats and others of their ilk. That is why Second Amendment supporters can't give an inch on this issue...because then they'll find themselves living in Australia. There is no good faith on the Democrat side.

3 hours ago, julietx said:

makes you wonder how bad it has to get before the USA will actually consider gun control.......my guess is never.

Gun ownership and use is already heavily controlled in the U.S. 

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Still, that pales in comparison to the many killed by fellow Americans with guns.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/02/opinions/america-lethal-nation-opinion-bergen/index.html

 

 

And 90% of those shootings are commited with HANDGUNS by gangbangers and hood-rats fighting over turf so not really a concern for ordinary law abiding citizens. Unless you advocate for confiscation of handguns, "gun control" will do little to reduce gun deaths.

25 minutes ago, bazza73 said:

Oh? Why not?

Because guns are already highly regulated.

30 minutes ago, bazza73 said:

I'm fine. Australia set the example for you when we banned semi-automatic weapons after Port Arthur over 20 years ago. We haven't had a gun massacre since.

If we want to hunt, we get along fine with bolt-action rifles - which are still permitted in Australia, contrary to the propaganda ravings of your NRA.

Semi-automatic weapons have only one purpose - to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible.It's tragic that innocent people get killed on the altar of the Second Amendment. You guys have gone beyond slow learners, to being incapable of learning.

 

I rest my case.

9 hours ago, bazza73 said:

Strange, I don't see the dedicated defenders of the Second Amendment on this thread. But then, what could they say?

That would be because this is a very pro-gun confiscation forum, maybe due to the prevalence of European and Australian members, and views/posts to the contrary are not appreciated nor allowed.

30 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Watch the video. Several hundred bullets in a very short time.

I doubt very much it was only 3 minutes...for the police to locate the source of fire, reach the hotel, and secure the perimeter  (several floors both above and below the 32nd floor were cleared) must have taken 20-30 minutes before they blew open the door to the shooter's room and took him out.

Unfortunately, my moobaan is located along this road. If they buried all the trash to be found around Pattaya, we could be the new SE Asia methane gas hub. 

31 minutes ago, trogers said:

Actually, a few banks had to be sold to foreign banks, thus, you now have banks like UOB and DBS.

I don't recall the reason being that they were in danger of failure from the financial crisis...I think it had more to do with foreign banks wanting to enter the Thai banking market (Thailand had liberalized entry of foreign banks) and the easiest way to do it was to buy an existing Thai bank.

All I know is Thai banks sailed through the 2008-2010 financial crisis without a hitch, while banks in the United States and Europe were dropping like flies.