Sujo

Just now, robblok said:

I am Dutch like you I don't want American situations in my country. However for the US like you said there are no easy answers. To remove a lot of guns is going to be really hard. Also like you said criminals are usually killing criminals. Its not as if criminals go after normal people all the time with guns. So the I need a gun to protect me from criminals is not really a good argument.

 

But no easy answers at all, it would need a mentality change. The US already has really tough laws and still a lot of crime. So tough laws are already in place. I think its cultural a large portion over there is a bit "crazy". Macho culture and love of guns.

 

Not all of course otherwise there would not be so many against guns.

The mentality change is pretty much there. I think its over 70% want something done.

Its just the repub politicians that are, well, mental.

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Are arsonists deprived of matches and flammables? I think most anyone can buy matches and gasoline, yes?

 

This is just more of your defection, we are not talking about arson, we are talking about mass shootings.

Says the poster who has deflected all over the place.

2 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

 

It all just comes down to practice! ???? The more you shoot the better you get! 

That certainly does not interest me. Im ok with doing that as a one off but no way would i want it as a habit.

Never will i keep a gun at home, i couldnt fathom someone getting it and killing someone.

Nope, not for this little duck.

1 hour ago, findlay13 said:

They think It saves the battery 

Batteries are different in thailand

Well thats a pretty easy poll. They cant exactly ask the dead riders who was at fault. So it must be them to blame, especially if you ask those that ran into them and caused the death.

4 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

I‘m not American, so, I do not have a gun permit. Obviously if I was living there and I had one registered in my name I’d have to give it up because they knew I have it, but I would probably get one on the black market afterwards. 
 

I live in Germany and the only way to get a permit to legally own a gun as a regular citizen is to join a gun club. You’ll have to do a psychological evaluation before they issue the permit if you want anything beyond .22 and the permit merely allows you to own the gun and to transport it directly from your place to the club house and back. You’re not allowed to stop on the way to go do some shopping for example and you’re not allowed to carry the gun in public. While you transport the gun it has to be in a lockable container, by lockable I mean it has to be locked in a case that has a key or a numeric lock either built in or the case must be lockable with an external padlock, the gun must be transported out of reach, I.e. in the trunk of the car separated from the ammo. In your house the gun has to be kept in a gun safe, what I don’t know is if that has to be the case while you’re at home or if that’s only while you’re not. My guess is, even if they were to ban guns in the US, you’d still be allowed to go sport shooting, like you are in Germany. Therefore I wouldn’t have to give up my gun and to be honest, I don’t think they’ll do away with the right to bear arms in the US ever. 

Pretty much the same in australia. I had a promotion day for sport, i mean oz institute of sport, day at a firing range.

I had never seen or touched a gun. We did clay shooting, .22 target and hand gun target.

How anyone can hit anything they aim at with a handgun is beyond me.

Was a good day, at the end all guns locked and ammo taken to another place. The gun owners mostly prefered to leave them all there, those that took them home had a ritual of how to transport them without easy access to use them. 

Very strict in oz, but after the port arthur killings people saw they didnt want to be like the US gun culture.

For that, i am eternally grateful.

Not sure. But the jab does come with a free meat pie.

Dont wait until you are thirsty to drink. Some drink more than that, some less.

Up to you.

11 minutes ago, rwill said:

Let's not forget a vehicle ban too.  Without checking I would guess they kill more than knives and guns combined.

Which you have restrictions before you can use.

The sun must be up in a few places in the US by now. Any mass murders yet?

Maybe they got sidetracked by using their guns for their other uses like hitting in a nail, stirring the soup, cutting the steak, maybe even riding it to work.

Well you are talking about girls that are too ld to be at school anyway, so no chance of you doing a student at your own school.

If you wait until they are in mid/late 20s they may already have a kid.

i would go for the early 20s. Nothing wrong with it.

Of course you can.

 But i dont want o be married or stuck. I have never been married, no kids, never had a house. I love my freedom. But i do have a gf i live with. She also does not want to be married.

im 58, she is 33 also never married and no kids. Been together 7 years. Though she hated me riding a scooter and after 2 small falls she bought me a car.

she does her thing, i do mine. Thats love for me.

only annoying thing is that she insists on cooking and cleaning, just wont let me do it.

1 minute ago, pacovl46 said:

Yes, but there is already a black market in the country and banning legal guns won’t accomplish anything because of the illegal guns used by criminals! Again, look at drugs! They’re illegal and available everywhere because of the demand and the huge profits that can be made with them, same goes for guns! 

Same for drugs. Death penalty. No issue when enforced.

Thought repubs where law and order types.

3 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

JVS  

I guess it depends on what you consider a "shooting"  62% of all deaths by Firearm are a suicide. 3% are accidental and 35% are homicides.  The homicide figure includes both justifiable homicides by police and civilians as well as true killings.  Of those the vast majority of deaths occur from handguns  As you can see from the attached, more people are killed using knives, other weapons, blunt objects like hammers and fists and feet than rifles.  

So does that mean you "regulate hammers" or have a limited size to knives as well.   Again, to beat a dead horse, focusing on the weapon used and not focusing on how to identify and take action against those who is bent on doing harm is a fools journey.  At best it will force those who wish to do harm to others to choose a different instrument of death. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

 

 

So get rid of guns. More lives saved. Winning.

2 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

No, it’s you who’s missing my point, that’s a good thing, though, by the way, because you don’t think like a criminal. So, let me lay it out for you. If you were a member of a gang you sure as hell wouldn’t use a legally bought gun to do your drive-by because that gun could be traced back to you, if the cops get their hands on it or if you were to use the same gun for multiple crimes and they cops could catch you with the gun and get their hands on the bullets fired from your gun during said crimes. That’s why the shooters with brain use a gun only once and then throw it away and get another one, which they buy on the black market. Again, private sales and stolen guns don’t cover the demand of the criminal world. Trust me, there is a massive black market for guns in the US! 

Which is why you get harsh penalties for even caught carrying one. The numbers soon drop when you get death penalty for having one.

Just now, Yellowtail said:

 

Told ya

Told me what? That guns are the reason for more mass murders than tennis rackets?

Doesnt take an einstein to work that out.

6 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Once again, plinking and target shooting and varmint hunting do not require an assault rifle.  These seem to be the only legitimate purposes you can find for assault rifles, and there are better guns for these purposes.

 

I'm sure some people would enjoy using a flame thrower, and they could probably think of 'legitimate uses', such as clearing brush and rodent infestations.  However that doesn't mean it's a good idea to make flame throwers legal and available to the general public, does it?

Bazookas and tanks. Let everyone have them. They would do whats needed. Sarcasm alert.

And you have reasonable restrictions opposed. Repubs are seriously demented.

https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-says-biden-is-prepared-to-issue-executive-orders-on-guns-180754699.html

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I don't think plinking and varmint shooting are any more important than golfing, fishing or tennis. Now you can argue no one is killed with a tennis racket and then I can find someone that has.

 

I think it safe to assume anything you do not participate you consider trivial. Not my thing, but it is a big deal to a lot of families. I have a few friends that enjoy shooting and I occasionally go the the range with them when I'm in the US. It's really no different than playing darts or pool.

 

I would not object to banning the sale of thirty round clips if the suppliers and manufactures were treated fairly. But again, I do not see how this will result in any significant saving of lives. The ONLY way you say that it will is to say that if it saves even one life it will be worth it. That is the only argument, and you will only make that argument for things you don't like. For things you do like, the loss of lives is acceptable, it's just the price we pay. 

 

If I believed for a moment, that the banning and confiscation all  firearms and ammo that meet the criterial you have outlined would reduce gun related deaths by 10% I would absolutely support it.

More deflection.

When people commit mass murder with tennis rackets on a scale like guns then get back to me.

Bats and knives and cars etc have an everyday use. Guns do not.

You just will not support anything to try reduce people getting guns that shouldnt.

Own it.

37 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I understand that completely. 

 

Your position seems to be that the laws you agree with should be obeyed, while the rules you disagree with should be disregarded. 

 

Had they not brought the suit, there would be a hundred city councils making similar rules until some of them started making rules that you don't like and then you'd start howling. 

 

The Times does a poll and calls 1,000 people and askes them if they support common sense gun laws, and most everyone says yes, because most everyone does. No need for self seeking politicians to start making rules they have no authority to make. If so many people support it, why put it on a ballot?

 

What if the city council made a rule that no one in the county was allowed to drink on Sunday?

Its very simple.

Do you like what is happening.

If yes, do nothing.

If no, do something about it.

Something needs to be done, anything. If you are against anything being done then you are ok with mass murderers and all other gun related crimes.

Stop looking for excuses and look for remedies. One bit at a time.

Australia remembers its mass murderer. US remembers if there is a day without one.

1 hour ago, Thomas J said:

So does that mean we put all American's in prison because As of 2016, 2.3 million people were incarcerated in the United States, at a rate of 698 people per 100,000. Total US incarceration peaked in 2008. Total correctional population (prison, jail, probation, parole) peaked in 2007. In 2008 the US had around 24.7% of the world's 9.8 million prisoners.

Does it mean that we prohibit alcohol because some abuse it Excessive alcohol use is responsible for more than 95,000 deaths in the United States each year, or 261 deaths per day. These deaths shorten the lives of those who die by an average of almost 29 years, for a total of 2.8 million years of potential life lost.

Excessive alcohol use is responsible for more than 95,000 deaths in the United States each year, or 261 deaths per day. These deaths shorten the lives of those who die by an average of almost 29 years, for a total of 2.8 million years of potential life lost.

Or do those lives not count because they were not killed with a gun?  I guess in your mind. getting killed by a drunk driver is a less egregious death than one by a gun. 
 

https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-deaths.html#:~:text=Excessive alcohol use is responsible,years of potential life lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#:~:text=As of 2016%2C 2.3 million,the world's 9.8 million prisoners.
 

 

I get it. You prefer more guns because its working so well.

And these morons dont help.

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/americas-broken-gun-culture-doesnt-just-tolerate-deadly-weapons-it-celebrates-them/news-story/61b9f744deee7e0853d65d3d4967fd45

6 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

No but the premise does.  It is punishing the innocent for the crimes and actions of the guilty.  It was suggested that the lack of American's higher level of disregard for the law was the premise for confiscatory gun policy.  If you embark down that path, I rightfully pointed out the same would apply to other situations as well.  As to unintentional homicide, negligent homicide, or wanton disregard for human life.  All of those would apply to someone who knowingly drives and kills another person while driving a vehicle.  The punishment is to THE PERSON and not the alcohol. 

Why do you think there are speed limits.

Of course biden will say he will run again. But thst doesnt mean another dem candidate wont run against him either.

It wont matter who the repubs put up, they shot themselves in the foot with trump that will last at least a decade.

Unless they can rig elections which they are trying to do.

24 minutes ago, simon43 said:

To be honest, right now, it is pretty much an enjoyable routine, because I need to put some money into the bank before I start to get my pension (in 4 years from now).  I will still keep teaching online after that, but will decrease the number of lessons.

 

However, I've structured my working day so that I take most of Friday off as a break, and I don't teach between 9am-2pm during the week.  So I have lots of spare time.  I usually go off-road riding in the nearby hills.  Yesterday (Friday), I gathered up my ham radio gear and rode to the top of a high hill/small mountain to send out television pictures to other radio hams (thus combining my hobbies of ham radio and off-road biking).

 

The events in my diary tend to be concerning my hobbies, for example - some special dates when the International Space Station transmits pictures and offers an award to any radio hams that manage to receive them (I did!).  As the only radio ham in the country, I'm inundated with calls from other hams eager for a contact with me so they can get various awards,  Since there is a distinct lack of electronic shops here, and the postal system is 'down' due to Covid, I have to make/DIY a lot of my equipment - that's a challenge that keeps me very busy ????

 

Now if I were the kind of chap who loves to drink alcohol to excess, party wildly every night and sex-monger (is that a verb?), LP is probably not the place to be! ????

 

 

You sound like a very interesting person with a hobby like that.

Good on you.