4 hours ago, RayC said:

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that gun ownership is of more concern than - if true - that an increasing number of lunatics want to kill kids,

It seems we are told incessantly that the number of “mass” shootings is increasing. That is either true, or it isn’t.

 

4 hours ago, RayC said:

however, there is no getting away from the fact that a gun is the preferred tool in these killings. 

Guns are the preferred tool in shootings, by definition. 

 

We in the US abort about a million babies a year. 

 

At least five times as many kids die of drug overdoses as murdered. 

 

Kids are committing suicide at higher rates than old people. 

 

I think the diminishing value for human life and growing disregard for rule of law should be our greatest concerns.

 

Thousands killed by criminals with handguns every year, but the focus is on “assault” rifles, that represent less than 3% of gun deaths, but that are very popular with law abiding gun enthusiasts. 

 

Guns are nothing but a political issue being dragged out for the next election. So many high crime cities fighting tooth and nail to stop any federal help with law enforcement makes clear what the priorities are, and reducing the number of dead children is not high on the list.

 

Incidentally, I do not remember any call for greater gun control when Trump was shot. 

41 minutes ago, mogandave said:

It seems we are told incessantly that the number of “mass” shootings is increasing. That is either true, or it isn’t.

 

Guns are the preferred tool in shootings, by definition. 

 

We in the US abort about a million babies a year. 

 

At least five times as many kids die of drug overdoses as murdered. 

 

Kids are committing suicide at higher rates than old people. 

 

I think the diminishing value for human life and growing disregard for rule of law should be our greatest concerns.

 

Thousands killed by criminals with handguns every year, but the focus is on “assault” rifles, that represent less than 3% of gun deaths, but that are very popular with law abiding gun enthusiasts. 

 

Guns are nothing but a political issue being dragged out for the next election. So many high crime cities fighting tooth and nail to stop any federal help with law enforcement makes clear what the priorities are, and reducing the number of dead children is not high on the list.

 

Incidentally, I do not remember any call for greater gun control when Trump was shot. 

I know you know this but people dying is not what they care about at all.

If they did care about people then they'd be equally upset by ever other death, but they aren't. Its just more manufactured outrage.

Here's the list of dying from the CDC:

 

Heart disease: 680,981

Cancer: 613,352

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 222,698

Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 162,639

Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 145,357

Alzheimer’s disease: 114,034

Diabetes: 95,190

Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 55,253

Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis: 52,222

COVID-19: 49,932. they got sick. lol

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Cameroni said:

but it's all avail;able online.

Indeed.

 

parts-dispensed has everything I would need if I ever attempted the FGC-9 project.

 

https://parts-dispensed.com/10-fgc-9

9 hours ago, mogandave said:

It seems we are told incessantly that the number of “mass” shootings is increasing. That is either true, or it isn’t.

 

Guns are the preferred tool in shootings, by definition. 

 

We in the US abort about a million babies a year. 

 

At least five times as many kids die of drug overdoses as murdered. 

 

Kids are committing suicide at higher rates than old people. 

 

I think the diminishing value for human life and growing disregard for rule of law should be our greatest concerns.

 

Thousands killed by criminals with handguns every year, but the focus is on “assault” rifles, that represent less than 3% of gun deaths, but that are very popular with law abiding gun enthusiasts. 

 

Guns are nothing but a political issue being dragged out for the next election. So many high crime cities fighting tooth and nail to stop any federal help with law enforcement makes clear what the priorities are, and reducing the number of dead children is not high on the list.

 

Incidentally, I do not remember any call for greater gun control when Trump was shot. 

 

That may all be true but the undeniable fact remains, guns kill (and maim), and the data shows that in the overwhelming majority of nations where gun ownership is more restricted there are fewer gun related deaths and injuries: It really is as simple as that.

 

I remain completely unconvinced by anything posted in this thread which supposedly purports to show that  greater gun ownership amongst the general public is somehow beneficial to a society. I'm equally unconvinced by the 'freedom' argument.

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

That may all be true but the undeniable fact remains, guns kill (and maim), and the data shows that in the overwhelming majority of nations where gun ownership is more restricted there are fewer gun related deaths and injuries: It really is as simple as that.

 

I remain completely unconvinced by anything posted in this thread which supposedly purports to show that  greater gun ownership amongst the general public is somehow beneficial to a society. I'm equally unconvinced by the 'freedom' argument.

It's irrefutable, Ray. So then, pro gun zealots start saying, well, the police will never get able to stop these 3 D guns! Lol 

The problem is a considerable portion of US citizens seem to be addicted to them. 

Personally I hate guns. At school in the CCF we used to shoot guns with . 22 bullets indoors, and then outside . 303 bullets. The smell of cordite, the kickback on the shoulder, the devastation a .303 bullet could cause someone, the whole thing repulsed me.

Somehow the States has to go a whole generation without guns, cold turkey as it were, to free themselves from their addiction. And then they'll realise how much better life is without guns!

Smelling roses in the morning, not cordite.

 

2 hours ago, RayC said:

 

That may all be true but the undeniable fact remains, guns kill (and maim), and the data shows that in the overwhelming majority of nations where gun ownership is more restricted there are fewer gun related deaths and injuries: It really is as simple as that.

 

I remain completely unconvinced by anything posted in this thread which supposedly purports to show that  greater gun ownership amongst the general public is somehow beneficial to a society. I'm equally unconvinced by the 'freedom' argument.

I would like to see the data you are referencing,

On 9/7/2025 at 10:20 AM, RayC said:

 

So an individual instructing and advising others how to kill and maim others just needs to play the "I was merely exercising my right to absolute freedom of speech" card to avoid bearing any responsibility or accountability when others act on that advice. 

 

Maybe you need to reconsider your priorities.

Freedom is scary to people like you.  Deal with it. 

33 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

Freedom is scary to people like you.  Deal with it. 

No, he doesn't need a gun to feel ' free'.

11 minutes ago, bannork said:

No, he doesn't need a gun to feel ' free'.

But he does seem to need to take guns away from others.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I would like to see the data you are referencing,

 

There is plenty of data to be found within this thread but if you want additional ready material try some of the following links:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/5504#:~:text=A higher number of firearm,As ou …

 

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons#:~:text=Japan,see no need for firearms.

 

10 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

There is plenty of data to be found within this thread but if you want additional ready material try some of the following links:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/5504#:~:text=A higher number of firearm,As ou …

 

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons#:~:text=Japan,see no need for firearms.

 

Your claim was that: "...the data shows that in the overwhelming majority of nations where gun ownership is more restricted there are fewer gun related deaths and injuries..." which neither of your links support. 

 

The first link has to do with US states and "mass shootings" the second only compares seven nations, hardly an "overwhelming majority".

 

The data you provide, does not support your claim. To be clear, I do not doubt that countless articles that make similar claims. 

48 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

Freedom is scary to people like you.  Deal with it. 

 

I don't have to as - fortunately - we don't have that many people wandering around London taking potshots at passerbys.

 

Strange kind of freedom: Freedom to blow some one's brains out

 

14 minutes ago, bannork said:

No, he doesn't need a gun to feel ' free'.

 

Normally, I don't like people putting words into my mouth, but on this occasion I couldn't have put it better myself. Thanks.

 

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

But he does seem to need to take guns away from others.

 

No I do not. Perhaps you should read all the preceding posts before commenting. If you had done so, you would have seen that I made the following comment in reply to Mike Hunt: "If you want to re-enact 'Gunfight at the OK Corral' with an enlarged cast of millions, you crack on with it".

 

No matter how deeply you bury your head in the sand, two facts remain: 1) A majority of your compatriots favour tighter restrictions on gun ownership (see previous post in this thread for links) and 2) there is a correlation between the laws governing gun ownership and the number of deaths/ injuries resulting from gunshot i.e. the looser the restrictions, the higher the number the number of deaths/ injuries from firearms.

 

To repeat (yet again), if you want to cling to the belief that this correlation is coincidental - and not causal - that's up you.

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

I don't have to as - fortunately - we don't have that many people wandering around London taking potshots at passerbys.

 

Strange kind of freedom: Freedom to blow some one's brains out

 

 

Normally, I don't like people putting words into my mouth, but on this occasion I couldn't have put it better myself. Thanks.

 

 

No I do not. Perhaps you should read all the preceding posts before commenting. If you had done so, you would have seen that I made the following comment in reply to Mike Hunt: "If you want to re-enact 'Gunfight at the OK Corral' with an enlarged cast of millions, you crack on with it".

 

No matter how deeply you bury your head in the sand, two facts remain: 1) A majority of your compatriots favour tighter restrictions on gun ownership (see previous post in this thread for links) and 2) there is a correlation between the laws governing gun ownership and the number of deaths/ injuries resulting from gunshot i.e. the looser the restrictions, the higher the number the number of deaths/ injuries from firearms.

 

To repeat (yet again), if you want to cling to the belief that this correlation is coincidental - and not causal - that's up you.

You open by claiming you do not want to take guns away, and them go on to explain how you do want to take guns away.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Your claim was that: "...the data shows that in the overwhelming majority of nations where gun ownership is more restricted there are fewer gun related deaths and injuries..." which neither of your links support. 

 

The first link has to do with US states and "mass shootings" the second only compares seven nations, hardly an "overwhelming majority".

 

The data you provide, does not support your claim. To be clear, I do not doubt that countless articles that make similar claims. 

 

The first link has embedded articles which show the link between gun ownership and gun mortality rates.

 

There are +/-200 nations in the world. I am not going to search for data on each and every one just to satisfy you. I would say that data from seven comparable developed nations was reasonably compelling evidence.

 

You win, although quite what you think that you've achieved I don't know. As I have said on more occasions than I care to remember, if you want to believe that the inverse relationship between the ease of legally obtaining a gun and the number of deaths/ injuries from firearms is purely coincidental that's up to you.

11 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

I don't have to as - fortunately - we don't have that many people wandering around London taking potshots at passerbys.

 

Strange kind of freedom: Freedom to blow some one's brains out

 

 

Normally, I don't like people putting words into my mouth, but on this occasion I couldn't have put it better myself. Thanks.

 

 

No I do not. Perhaps you should read all the preceding posts before commenting. If you had done so, you would have seen that I made the following comment in reply to Mike Hunt: "If you want to re-enact 'Gunfight at the OK Corral' with an enlarged cast of millions, you crack on with it".

 

No matter how deeply you bury your head in the sand, two facts remain: 1) A majority of your compatriots favour tighter restrictions on gun ownership (see previous post in this thread for links) and 2) there is a correlation between the laws governing gun ownership and the number of deaths/ injuries resulting from gunshot i.e. the looser the restrictions, the higher the number the number of deaths/ injuries from firearms.

 

To repeat (yet again), if you want to cling to the belief that this correlation is coincidental - and not causal - that's up you.

You've done a grand job Ray, using evidence to reach a logical conclusion .

Unfortunately logic sometimes fails to dent the beliefs of those relying on ' blind' faith. 

Even the killings of innocent children doesn't change their minds 

 

 

1 minute ago, RayC said:

 

The first link has embedded articles which show the link between gun ownership and gun mortality rates.

 

There are +/-200 nations in the world. I am not going to search for data on each and every one just to satisfy you. I would say that data from seven comparable developed nations was reasonably compelling evidence.

 

You win, although quite what you think that you've achieved I don't know. As I have said on more occasions than I care to remember, if you want to believe that the inverse relationship between the ease of legally obtaining a gun and the number of deaths/ injuries from firearms is purely coincidental that's up to you.

I never claimed nor meant to imply there was an "...inverse relationship between the ease of legally obtaining a gun and the number of deaths/ injuries from firearms...", that just something you made up. I have not lied about you, why lie about me?

 

 

1 minute ago, bannork said:

You've done a grand job Ray, using evidence to reach a logical conclusion .

Unfortunately logic sometimes fails to dent the beliefs of those relying on ' blind' faith. 

Even the killings of innocent children doesn't change their minds 

 

 

He made unsupported claims that may or may not be true, nothing more. 

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You open by claiming you do not want to take guns away, and them go on to explain how you do want to take guns away.

 

No I do not.

 

For the umpteenth time, what I - and others - have done throughout is offer evidence which shows the relationship between looser gun ownership laws and the incident of gun related deaths/ injuries.

 

Now personally I think that reducing the number of deaths/ injuries would be a good thing. You may disagree. I also think that - given the correlation outlined above - maybe, just maybe, tighter gun ownership laws might reduce the number of gun-related deaths/ injuries. Again, I think that this would be a good thing. You may disagree.

14 hours ago, Slowhand225 said:

I know you know this but people dying is not what they care about at all.

If they did care about people then they'd be equally upset by ever other death, but they aren't. Its just more manufactured outrage.

Here's the list of dying from the CDC:

 

Heart disease: 680,981

Cancer: 613,352

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 222,698

Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 162,639

Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 145,357

Alzheimer’s disease: 114,034

Diabetes: 95,190

Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 55,253

Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis: 52,222

COVID-19: 49,932. they got sick. lol

 

I haven't seen many people with heart disease knowingly going out and kill innocent people., though I guess the occasional one picks up a gun and says,  'Why should I die alone?' 

Your logic here is confused, the proposal is to ban guns to stop person A from killing innocent persons B,C, etc.

But you're talking about person A or persons B,C, etc  getting sick and then you claim because we're not including or referring to their condition in the discussion, so we are oblivious to their eventual death.

Perhaps we need to widen the field .

Guns should be banned to prevent shooters killing innocent people whether they ( the victims) are well or are suffering from any potentially terminal illness known to man. 

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I never claimed nor meant to imply there was an "...inverse relationship between the ease of legally obtaining a gun and the number of deaths/ injuries from firearms...", that just something you made up. I have not lied about you, why lie about me?

 

 

 

What does that even mean?

Where - and how - have I lied about you?

 

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

He made unsupported claims that may or may not be true, nothing more. 

 

You are either trolling, being pedantic or both. 

15 hours ago, mogandave said:

It seems we are told incessantly that the number of “mass” shootings is increasing. That is either true, or it isn’t.

 

Guns are the preferred tool in shootings, by definition. 

 

We in the US abort about a million babies a year. 

 

At least five times as many kids die of drug overdoses as murdered. 

 

Kids are committing suicide at higher rates than old people. 

 

I think the diminishing value for human life and growing disregard for rule of law should be our greatest concerns.

 

Thousands killed by criminals with handguns every year, but the focus is on “assault” rifles, that represent less than 3% of gun deaths, but that are very popular with law abiding gun enthusiasts. 

 

Guns are nothing but a political issue being dragged out for the next election. So many high crime cities fighting tooth and nail to stop any federal help with law enforcement makes clear what the priorities are, and reducing the number of dead children is not high on the list.

 

Incidentally, I do not remember any call for greater gun control when Trump was shot. 

Post of the Year on this issue.

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

No I do not.

Will tighter gun laws not take some people's guns away?

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

For the umpteenth time, what I - and others - have done throughout is offer evidence which shows the relationship between looser gun ownership laws and the incident of gun related deaths/ injuries.

You and others have shown a correlation in limited examples, but no one has shown causation. 

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Now personally I think that reducing the number of deaths/ injuries would be a good thing. You may disagree. I also think that - given the correlation outlined above - maybe, just maybe, tighter gun ownership laws might reduce the number of gun-related deaths/ injuries. Again, I think that this would be a good thing. You may disagree.

So now you're your seem to be claiming that if we disagree, that I do not want fewer deaths, nice. 

 

It is quite possible limiting gun ownership would reduce the number of gun-related deaths/injuries. 

36 minutes ago, RayC said:

there is a correlation between the laws governing gun ownership and the number of deaths/ injuries resulting from gunshot i.e. the looser the restrictions, the higher the number the number of deaths/ injuries from firearms.

Do you agree there is a correlation between strict gun laws/bans and the murder of innocent citzens by governments, like Socialist countrys such as China, Russia and Germany? 

 

Do you agree there is a correlation between the race and gun offenders?

 

Do you agree there is a correlation between age and gun offenders?

 

Do you agree that the number of firearms used in any crime in the USA is minimal compared to the number of lawfully owned firearms?

13 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

What does that even mean?

Where - and how - have I lied about you?

My mistake, I apologize 

13 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

 

You are either trolling, being pedantic or both. 

You are making broad, sweeping claims based on a limited amount of data. Your assumptions are popular among the no-guns crowd, and may be true, but no one has presented any comprehensive study here that supports your claims.

 

Sure, you can link to countless articles that agree with you. 

43 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Will tighter gun laws not take some people's guns away?

 

Almost certainly I would imagine. However, that is a by-product not the objective; the objective would be to save lives. The law should be made in such a way that individuals who can prove that they need a gun can obtain one 

 

(Before you ask. I am not going to produce a draft law here. Refer to the UK laws (link previously supplied) for an outline template if needs be).

 

43 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You and others have shown a correlation in limited examples, but no one has shown causation. 

 

Agreed and I have stressed the use of the word correlation and not causation. It is extremely difficult to prove causation when researching societal issues.

 

As I said numerous times, if you wish to dismiss this correlation as coincidental that's up to you. 

 

43 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So now you're your seem to be claiming that if we disagree, that I do not want fewer deaths, nice. 

 

No I'm not. It was my turn to be pedantic which it is why I deliberately chose the word, 'may'.

 

43 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

It is quite possible limiting gun ownership would reduce the number of gun-related deaths/injuries. 

 

Good then at least we agree about that.

On 8/27/2025 at 11:55 PM, fredwiggy said:

Yes, many shouldn't have access to guns, but there are background checks. How else can you restrict who owns them? Most gun owners are legitimate, used for hunting, target shooting and self defense against those who have them illegally and are criminals. Suicides are most of the gun crimes and that'll happen whether a person has a gun or not. Gangs also have them, many illegal, so they'll have them anyway. I sold guns, and am fully aware there is a problem, but you don't take guns away from legitimate owners. The only things that might curtail gun crimes is having a psychological done before ownership and a higher age limit,  21 for all guns, but people will still steal and take other's legitimate guns for crimes.

I agree with you 100%.. 

Crimes happen so it's good to be prepared, owning a gun is like having insurance, you may never use it but it's good to have if/when needed.

 

I just bought a new hand gun last week.

I had to do a back ground check before I could pay for the gun.  I passed the background check and then had to wait 3 business days to pick it up.

 

I bet someone looking to break into houses will pass by my house with signs such as "this house is protected by Ruger" 

or "Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again" I'm sure they will think twice, if not they were warned!

 

I've owned guns since I was 14 and I have never shot anyone.  I have several Thai friends (and my brother-in-law) that own guns, they never shot anyone either.

Some people on here will think I'm a bad person for owning and wanting to own a gun. 

For those people I hope you're never in a position that you wish you had a gun protect yourself. 

 

 

55 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Do you agree there is a correlation between strict gun laws/bans and the murder of innocent citzens by governments, like Socialist countrys such as China, Russia and Germany? 

 

I've no idea. Link to some data on the subject.

 

55 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Do you agree there is a correlation between the race and gun offenders?

 

Off the top of my head, I'd say that was probable (especially in the US).

 

55 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Do you agree there is a correlation between age and gun offenders?

 

I don't know but there may well be.

 

55 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Do you agree that the number of firearms used in any crime in the USA is minimal compared to the number of lawfully owned firearms?

 

Depends what you define as minimal but, for sale of argument, I'll say 'Yes'.

 

Right now that I have answered your questions what was the point that you were trying to make?

55 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

My mistake, I apologize 

You are making broad, sweeping claims based on a limited amount of data. Your assumptions are popular among the no-guns crowd, and may be true, but no one has presented any comprehensive study here that supports your claims.

 

Sure, you can link to countless articles that agree with you. 

 

There's a wealth of data which shows correlation but not causation. So - as I have said repeatedly - currently it comes down to a value judgement: Does an individual believe that this correlation is coincidental? I don't.

 

On the other side of the coin. I find the argument that freedom can be (partially, at least) defined by the ability to own a gun, frankly ridiculous.

13 minutes ago, RayC said:

Right now that I have answered your questions what was the point that you were trying to make?

That your view of Guns and Crime in the USA is wrong.

14 minutes ago, RayC said:

I've no idea. Link to some data on the subject.

Got it. So you ignore the death toll of National Socialist Germany, Socialist China and Russia.