News The Latest Gun Control Speech (usa)

[seedling]

And he calls it an accident - it was a negligent discharge. There's a big difference.
Geez, and they all stay in the room with him.

 

[Anarchy]

Here's an example of safe gun handling [not] from Britain a few years ago. The cops were supposedly searching for a former body builder and nightclub bouncer, who had just got out of prison, had shot his former gf for going with someone else and had then gone cop hunting. The guy weighed something like 18 stone.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48288000/jpg/_48288511_search_getty.jpg

It's obvious from the car suspension that the guy they are looking for is not in it, but still our blue clad Only One, is aiming at an old lady's head, and he has his finger, very definitely on that trigger.

His situational awareness and field of view are virtually zero. It's summer time, and I dread to think what the result of a decent sized insect buzzing him would have been for the two ladies.

I've seen at least one photo of the same being done to the occupants of another car, the Only One, must really like aiming a loaded gun at the heads of people who can not conceivably be a threat to him.
____________________________________
here he is doing it to another couple of drivers
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos...illage-of-rothbury-as-the-picture-id102640670

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images...78446113821/Armed-police-stop-vehicle-006.jpg

 

[Anarchy]

If only they'd just do a real background check.

For Pistols and rifles in Britain, the local county chief constable has had to be satisfied that there is no risk to the peace, and that there is good reason for each gun... since 1920 or 21

the make, serial number, calibre and action type (eg bolt action) of each gun is recorded, and there are stated max quantities for ammunition to be bought at one time and held in total. Ammunition purchases have to be recorded too.

Shotguns were brought under similar though slightly looser controls in 1968 (after 2 cops were murdered by pistol toting robbers - logic really doesn't apply), those have been tightened subsequently

Interestingly, there was less armed crime in Britain in a whole year, when those regs were brought in in 1920/21, than there is now in an average single day in London.

Similarly, we didn't get a mass shooting until 1987, with subsequent ones in 96 and around 2008.

The one in 96, absolutely stunk. Files related to the perp were placed under a 100 year closure order. some have subsequently been released, but I think that some may remain closed or sanitized...
______________________________

which is a long way of saying that even with supposedly ultra stringent checks on license applicants (a category that crooks don't fall into) people who go on to commit mass shootings, still get through.

For anyone who wants to add two and two together and get five with three left over...

We haven't had a mass shooting with illegally held guns, even though both the UN Small Arms Project, and academic researchers, estimate the population of unlicensed firearms to exceed the population of licensed ones in Britain.

Seemingly the (by definition criminal) holders of unlicensed firearms in Britain are less likely to engage in mass shootings, than those who've successfully ticked the boxes and jumped through the hoops to get a license :woot:W:woot:T:woot:F:woot:H:woot:?

 

[EveHarrington]

Ahhh due process! (@Justmehere)

Because we cannot infringe upon the second amendment in the eensiest teensiest tiny way, we must resort to infringing upon the fifth and fourteenth amendments for the ne'er do wells of society (those with mental illness).

Ahh. I don't believe that a therapist should have the power to strip someone of a right granted by a constitutional amendment without some sort of formal legal procedure.

 

[Ed Norton]

It's just a little insurance...I don't get the mass shooting thing, I agree with you Anarchy. A motivated person will get a gun or something else to do it. Comparitively..it's rare but all crime is rare until you're the victim

 

[Anarchy]

I don't know that it is an insurance

Boiling down what I put in the previous post

There's an unfounded assumption that a control will have the desired effect.

Britain has had laws requiring extremely stringent background checks on legal gun owners for over 90 years (which you'd think would be sufficient time for the allegedly best and brightest minds to get it right - if it is capable of being got right).

On the basis of several estimates, including the small arms survey, There is a larger pool of illegally held firearms in Britain than legally held ones.

Mass public shootings are extremely rare, so the statistical significance of any empirical conclusions drawn from the available evidence is extremely dubious.

Britain's first mass public shooting was in 1987 (Hungerford). 66 or 67 years after the regs came in. subsequent mass shootings have occured approximately once a decade since then (Britain's population is c55M increasing to c60M from 1987 to present).

the interesting part is, that despite an estimated larger and uncontrolled pool of illegally held firearms

all of the mass shootings have been carried out by license holders who have been subject to background checks every time their license is renewed (renewal interval has varied over that time period from every three years to every five years)

None of the mass shootings has been carried out by the (estimated to be) more numerous illegal firearms owners who are not subject to any checks (ok, IIRC both Ryan and Hamilton did have unlicensed guns as well as licensed ones).

On the basis of these extremely rare events, the proposition that "background checks will provide some protection" does not appear to be supported.

 

[Ed Norton]

I agree..put another way..it will give the liberals a bone. Actually, in most cases I'm pretty liberal minded.

 

[Anarchy]

Actually, in most cases I'm pretty liberal minded.

Do you mean libertarian?

The difference between a libertarian and an anarchist is

Spoiler

usually about 3 months

 

[Ed Norton]

I can't say that I want anarchy, as the dictionary defines it. It would be a blood bath considering the amount of hatred there is.

 

[Anarchy]

I can't say that I want anarchy, as the dictionary defines it. It would be a blood bath considering the amount of hatred there is.

The word does get conflated with chaos, and used as a description of riotous dis order.
Taken from the Greek, an archos, is simply "without rulers", it doesn't mean "without rules"

Divide and conquer, and divide and rule are the usual techniques of government, groups are set at each others throats and grievences are stoked, so that the rulers can present themselves as the peace keepers, while robbing both of the sides that they have polarised. Like any other abusive bullies, they claim that their bullying is to protect us from worse abuse.

I know that I'm preaching to the best chorister when it comes to state sector cops...

Even now, there are about three times as many private protectors of person and property as there are state sector donut snorters.

The private guys don't strut about above the law, or if they try to, they don't last long. If a mall security company starts abusing customers, the perp will face prosecution and if the company doesn't mend its ways, it will get fired and a better provider will be hired.

When the state's privileged chubby guys aren't covering the ground (or guarding the donut stores), the market takes over, and we start seeing all sorts of peaceful innovation. This example is from Detroit, and among other things, they do charitable work teaching poor kids to get out of harms way
http://www.freedominourtime.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/call-anti-police-ending-states-security.html

This one is a classic from 1979, Anderson & Hill's "Not So Wild Wild West", which explores the institutions employed by settlers and miners, living beyond the "frontier" in the American west https://mises.org/system/tdf/3_1_2_0.pdf?file=1&type=document
another example of the workings of a stateless rule of law, is the book of Judges in the old testament. It's anceint but it is in a widely available book...

Certainly, the current assumption that some have a legal right to prey on others with impunity, and that the prey are committing an offence if they object - has stoked up tensions,animosities and big senses of entitlement.

are those ill effects a reason to continue the system that creates them.

 

[Ronin]

The word does get conflated with chaos, and used as a description of riotous dis order.

But here's the problem: Practical results vs. theoretical understanding.

We could argue days on end about things that aren't 'supposed to mean' one thing, but that they do in lives when implemented still doesn't stop being.

Renders the arguments bit pointless.

 

[asadafagahajakal]

I had to shut it off. When the lips move, the more I disbelieve.

We don't need more gun control. Not en...

Britain has already done this. They almost started banning certain kitchen knives. And there's a legit law banning "zombie knives". You know, those knives with bright green and red graphics? Because apparently a few thugs used them in muggings. If people could protect themselves, a quarter of the people on this forum wouldn't need to be here. But the government never really cared for our safety.