New York Times puts gun control editorial on Page 1

[Chicog]

Britain banned guns in 1997. Britain now has a knife attack every 4 minutes. That's about 130,000 a year. Please don't sign on with all this anti-gun nonsense, otherwise we could end up like Britain.

Britain did not ban guns in 1997, and frankly it's lies like that that make anything else you post look implausible too.

Certain types of gun are banned for the majority, but for example hunters are still permitted to use handguns to euthanise animals.

The police get to decide who gets a firearms license, and generally the system works very well.

Of course we don't live in a society where the police execute more than 1,000 people a year (or, pro rata, a couple of hundred).

[CMNightRider]

Britain banned guns in 1997. Britain now has a knife attack every 4 minutes. That's about 130,000 a year. Please don't sign on with all this anti-gun nonsense, otherwise we could end up like Britain.

Britain did not ban guns in 1997, and frankly it's lies like that that make anything else you post look implausible too.

Certain types of gun are banned for the majority, but for example hunters are still permitted to use handguns to euthanise animals.

The police get to decide who gets a firearms license, and generally the system works very well.

Of course we don't live in a society where the police execute more than 1,000 people a year (or, pro rata, a couple of hundred).

You were one of the posters I was referring to in post #239.

[CMNightRider]

I saw a comment on the news before.

The 2nd amendment is just that... An Amendment.

Whats to stop it being amended again?

About 300 million legal gun owners.

[Chicog]

I saw a comment on the news before.

The 2nd amendment is just that... An Amendment.

Whats to stop it being amended again?

About 300 million legal gun owners.

Do you just make stuff up?

[jpinx]

I saw a comment on the news before.

The 2nd amendment is just that... An Amendment.

Whats to stop it being amended again?

About 300 million legal gun owners.

Do you just make stuff up?

This kind of blatant untruth is not an invention of people's minds -- it actually passes as fact in many communities and forms the basis of their voting selections.

[Chicog]

Britain banned guns in 1997. Britain now has a knife attack every 4 minutes. That's about 130,000 a year. Please don't sign on with all this anti-gun nonsense, otherwise we could end up like Britain.

Britain did not ban guns in 1997, and frankly it's lies like that that make anything else you post look implausible too.

Certain types of gun are banned for the majority, but for example hunters are still permitted to use handguns to euthanise animals.

The police get to decide who gets a firearms license, and generally the system works very well.

Of course we don't live in a society where the police execute more than 1,000 people a year (or, pro rata, a couple of hundred).

You were one of the posters I was referring to in post #239.

And you're clearly one of the people that tells lies in an attempt to win an argument.

[SgtRock]

Chicog, on 19 Dec 2015 - 13:57, said:

CMNightRider, on 18 Dec 2015 - 10:40, said:

Britain banned guns in 1997. Britain now has a knife attack every 4 minutes. That's about 130,000 a year. Please don't sign on with all this anti-gun nonsense, otherwise we could end up like Britain.

Britain did not ban guns in 1997, and frankly it's lies like that that make anything else you post look implausible too.

Certain types of gun are banned for the majority, but for example hunters are still permitted to use handguns to euthanise animals.

The police get to decide who gets a firearms license, and generally the system works very well.

Of course we don't live in a society where the police execute more than 1,000 people a year (or, pro rata, a couple of hundred).

True. But they would love to.

[Chicog]

Who is 'they'?

[OMGImInPattaya]

New York Times puts gun control editorial on Page 1...and nothing happens

[chuckd]

New York Times puts gun control editorial on Page 1...and nothing happens

...other than ten pages of gun control drivel from our European and Australian friends.

[buji]

Seems more about gov then guns & coming from a (government controlled) media source, just in place to stir the stupid people. Funny since Colorado is 1 of the most stupid people making factories in the country, think Missouri is no.2.

[Chicog]

New York Times puts gun control editorial on Page 1...and nothing happens

They're going to have to learn to pay for their legislation like everyone else.

[rice555]

Americans need gun laws, the more draconian, the better. The NRA owns the Republican party thus we have ridiculous gun laws.

I think your paint brush is too wide! I first registered to the Peace and

Freedom Party and also voted Dem. I owned GUNS, I think you are

spouting pre-compost.

rice555

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

[jpinx]

America has this problem because it is a very recently formed body of widely disparate peoples. There are so many americans who hang onto the various bits of the constitution that compensate for the lack of collective confidence. Banning things doesn't work -- they tried it with alcohol. The logical step is to make every state do *proper* background checks on all guns and gun owners within their jurisdiction, and then make that data available to the feds for "national security". Unfortunately logic went out the window faster than a speeding bullet, and the knee-jerk rhetoric rules totally, fuelled by big business bucks.

Who was it that said there is no such thing as a right without responsibility? Nowhere does this apply more than in the question of lethal weapons like guns.

[OMGImInPattaya]

America has this problem because it is a very recently formed body of widely disparate peoples. There are so many americans who hang onto the various bits of the constitution that compensate for the lack of collective confidence. Banning things doesn't work -- they tried it with alcohol. The logical step is to make every state do *proper* background checks on all guns and gun owners within their jurisdiction, and then make that data available to the feds for "national security". Unfortunately logic went out the window faster than a speeding bullet, and the knee-jerk rhetoric rules totally, fuelled by big business bucks.

Who was it that said there is no such thing as a right without responsibility? Nowhere does this apply more than in the question of lethal weapons like guns.

California has the strictest "gun control" laws in the country...didn't stop the San Berdoo massecre. Guns don't kill people...terrorists kill people. Leave the innocent guns alone.

[jpinx]

America has this problem because it is a very recently formed body of widely disparate peoples. There are so many americans who hang onto the various bits of the constitution that compensate for the lack of collective confidence. Banning things doesn't work -- they tried it with alcohol. The logical step is to make every state do *proper* background checks on all guns and gun owners within their jurisdiction, and then make that data available to the feds for "national security". Unfortunately logic went out the window faster than a speeding bullet, and the knee-jerk rhetoric rules totally, fuelled by big business bucks.

Who was it that said there is no such thing as a right without responsibility? Nowhere does this apply more than in the question of lethal weapons like guns.

California has the strictest "gun control" laws in the country...didn't stop the San Berdoo massecre. Guns don't kill people...terrorists kill people. Leave the innocent guns alone.

Nicely mis-construed