stevewool Posted October 4, 2017 Author Posted October 4, 2017 Today on the news I watched, yes I am in England so far away from the rules and the laws of your land and I have no ideas about most of them. This chap was walking into a shopping mall holding his handgun in his right hand and in the other hand was paperwork, when asked why he was carrying it, his answer was why not, A crazy law in my eyes but again I am not a us citizen who lives by these laws again where is the common sense in all this. We was planning our trip to Vargas this December and it is worrying not just what has happened but how many people do carry guns without you knowing, it's not just bad men who carry these things it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hounddriver Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 8 minutes ago, stevewool said: We was planning our trip to Vargas this December If you mean Vegas, that's what got my dander up too. If the Americans want a second amendment and if they want to kill each other its none of my business but when Canadians go to Vegas for a little holiday and get killed . . . . well it gets the same kind of response as when foreigners come to Philippines and get killed. We tourists don't care for it much and suddenly its our business too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reboot Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 (edited) 11 hours ago, Dave Hounddriver said: Yes I am saying you should not legally be able to carry or use or transport a gun anywhere (other than having it delivered to your own property) until you have taken and passed a test to show you are trained and responsible. Will that stop some of these gun deaths? Only if the police have the same power they do with the motorcyclist in the US. That means they can stop anyone to check if they have the license and registration for any gun they are carrying and can stop and check people on suspicion they are concealing an unlicensed gun. That's somewhat the case in most of the country. Only a few states have completely unrestricted carry in public, and they tend to be thinly populated wilderness type areas like Alaska. Here in Florida, to carry in public requires a background check and a course. This is how it is in most of the country. Whenever I get stopped by law enforcement, I am asked for my permit. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.06.html Edited October 4, 2017 by Reboot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewool Posted October 4, 2017 Author Posted October 4, 2017 2 minutes ago, Dave Hounddriver said: If you mean Vegas, that's what got my dander up too. If the Americans want a second amendment and if they want to kill each other its none of my business but when Canadians go to Vegas for a little holiday and get killed . . . . well it gets the same kind of response as when foreigners come to Philippines and get killed. We tourists don't care for it much and suddenly its our business too. Sorry tapping away on the mobile is hard with fat fingers, Vegas is what I ment to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reboot Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 10 hours ago, Snowy79 said: Maybe one day governments can crack down on weapon manufacturers like they do with car manufacturers. They can pass laws making them spend millions sorting out emissions so maybe they can force the weapon manufacturers implement finger print recognition. With GPS tracking they could identify the gun man in seconds and if someone goes to buy a weapon if their fingerprints show up on a data base then they don't get the weapon. Bring in an amnesty to hand over conventional weapons and compensate the owners. The weapons can be offloaded to our so called friendly forces overseas. It won't rid all of the weapons but it'll get rid of a lot. Nobody is going to want to own an overcomplicated piece of kit. It will not be reliable and could easily fail the owner in a life or death situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowy79 Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 3 minutes ago, Reboot said: Nobody is going to want to own an overcomplicated piece of kit. It will not be reliable and could easily fail the owner in a life or death situation. It would be interesting if there was statistics to show how many people were saved by their own gun. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewool Posted October 4, 2017 Author Posted October 4, 2017 2 minutes ago, Reboot said: Nobody is going to want to own an overcomplicated piece of kit. It will not be reliable and could easily fail the owner in a life or death situation. Can I ask any of our members here. If you own a gun have you ever had to use it , maybe not to fire it but to use it to protect yourself from being killed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewool Posted October 4, 2017 Author Posted October 4, 2017 Just now, Snowy79 said: It would be interesting if there was statistics to show how many people were saved by their own gun. Great minds think alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reboot Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, Jollygoodfellow said: Here's a bit of math and a chart to show what is going on. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/oct/02/america-mass-shootings-gun-violence 9 hours ago, OnMyWay said: There seems to be a lot of "mass shooting" definitions out there. The stats in your link are for 4 or more injured. Generally speaking, the accepted standard is 4 or more killed but Obama and U.S. Congress changed it to 3 killed. For historical purposes, most use 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting Still interesting to look at the "injured" view. What jumps out at me are the cities. Many are poor areas which leads me to think those are gang and drug related. My mind separates mass shootings into a few groups. 1. Totally insane person looking to kill as many as possible (like Vegas, probably) 2. Terrorism. Killing with a political goal. 3. Gangs and drugs. I think the majority of that "injury" based list would fall into this category. 4. Domestic violence. As for the killers, I think they are all insane, some temporary, some permanent. (I don't mean to insinuate that they should get off due to insanity). Temporary insanity might be in the form of say a husband who finds out his wife is cheating and kills his whole family, etc. Permanent might be appear to be normal on the outside but a ticking time bomb on the inside, like Vegas. I'm not a gun owner or advocate, but logic tells me that someone who wants to kill a lot of people is going to find tools to do it. Guns can be obtained illegally and / or modified illegally. Adding more gun laws will not change that. Criminals will always find a way just like they do with drugs. And the Vegas guy had explosives he might have used if the guns didn't work out. As Lou said, terrorists will adapt methods, and without any morals to guide them, soft targets will be the wave of the future. Same for the lone wolf crazy person that the Vegas guy might be. I think there are some deep societal issues behind the rise in mental illness and the related rise in shootings, but I am not going to go there now. I agree, and I recall that the new definition includes the shooter himself! In other words, if a murder shoots two victims, and is then shot dead by police, it falls under the new definition of a mass shooting. And many of these shootings on the list aren't like what happened in Vegas. They are the resulted of gang warfare in bad neighborhoods. This is where the majority of shootings takes place. Many of these places already have such restrictive gun laws it practically amounts to a ban....places like Chicago, where last year there were 762 murders, 3,550 shooting incidents, and 4,331 shooting victims. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/01/us/chicago-murders-2016/index.html In other parts of the country, the shooting rates are far lower, despite far more liberal gun laws, and most people there owning firearms. Edited October 4, 2017 by Reboot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reboot Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Dave Hounddriver said: You can say that again: The Second Amendment Where does it say that you can carry those arm off your private property? Where does it say this amendment is cast in stone and cannot be changed? Where does it define arms? (Which it cannot possible do as the kind of armaments we have today did not even exist when this was written). Where is this "well regulated Militia" these days? The right must include transport off your private property or it is meaningless. It must generally include any place you have a legal right to be. It exists as a defense against tyranny and a means of enabling personal defense...what was once considered to be the historic right of free Englishmen for centuries. "Which it cannot possible do as the kind of armaments we have today did not even exist when this was written" Let's apply that logic to the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... The first amendment includes freedom of speech and the press--however high speed printing presses, radio, television, and the internet (all used as part of the press and as a means to engage in speech) did not exist back then either...but to ban these rights through these newer means of dissemination is still an abridgement and therefore unconstitutional. Edited October 4, 2017 by Reboot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts