Mass Killings at Virginia Walmart

punishing thousands of law abiding British handgun owners (including your olympic shooters who cannot practice in England) because of the actions of one nutcase is the sign of an impotent and decadent government.

 

ever heard of cancer? How can a government issues firearms to civilian employees for use in a civilian environment and then pretend such weapons have no valid use when owned by other civilians?

 

I didn't mention federal government!!
My point was not about federal government!!..
It was about the ability to wriggle around laws.
Sigh.

 

Nonsense.
They merely got a licence as requested.
Now can we return to this century?

 

you are not being truthful. those handguns were BANNED. You claim you are from England and you do not even know that licensed handguns were banned?

 

Now your argument has totally derailed. I don't even see the logic of your arguments now. Have you ever considered what materials, chemicals, at in use by civilians in hospitals, vet clinics, universities, factories, research labs, etc... Just because some civilians are authorized and trained to use something does not imply everyone should. I don't even understand how you would want to make that connection.

 

You don't understand that each state is sovereign in many aspects. Don't like it? stay in England

 

so you think a gun ban will stop someone intending mass murder

 

It's either outright confiscation of all privately owned guns or nothing. There is no middle ground, and the left knows that. No matter how they dress up their gun control bullshit, an outright ban is their endgame. That will never happen here, so it's the same old same old: standard issue kabuki from both sides of the aisle. Sound & fury signifying nothing.

 

Yeah, ones you call when you need help but cannot defend yourself!

I spent 10 years doing that job, I’ve forgotten more about it than you’ve ever known.
Waiting on the cops to save you when they’re 30 min away seems like a French thing to do. Give in, is what I mean.

 

Now you are changing our discussion. I would not support such a total ban because that would be unconstitutional but it is possible proper restrictions can make a difference. It would totally come down to what was proposed. Minor tweaks in the law will have little impact IMO and I don't think our country is ready for a major change. I guess it is up to them to prove me wrong but I am willing to listen. I think the real issues extends beyond guns but I have no clue how that can be fixed. I simply think these comparison to other laws is an ignorant whataboutism argument that make no sense whatsoever.

 

Oh yes, the two biggest weapons in the world.

 

It's also an American thing do to after Uvalde. Time to update the old bumper sticker: When seconds count, the police are 78 minutes away. Even when they're onsite.

I wonder how many of those families wish there had been trained & armed staff on campus that day, and how many lefties are horrified by that idea. Ditto today's carnage in Virginia.

 

what Proper restrictions? Everyone of the anti gunners I meet are more about harassing lawful gun owners rather than actually doing something to diminish crime. Every one of the anti gunners I meet on this and other boards lean left and almost every one of them supported Biden (if they can vote-many are foreigners) .

 

I am not going to come up with the restrictions for them. Propose a plan that makes sense and I may support it. It is up to them to show a plan and back it with projections on the impact those policies will have. Then we weigh the pros and cons and decide. I just will not pre judge a plan before I see it.

 

I have no duty to propose worthless laws when we have more than enough as it is. You're the one who appears upset with gun rights in the USA not me. If I ran things, I'd get rid of many gun laws that are wastes of time and law enforcement resources

 

This one Walmart manager was 6 times more effective than the Palestinian militants that set off two bombs and only killed one person. They are going to have to step up their game.

Seriously, the guy used a pistol. I'm not sure what the anti-gun nuts are going to want to do about that. Probably ban AR-15s or something. It's sad that these idiots are so fu&ked up that they think that they have to kill people. I don't get it.

 

Where did you get the idea that I am upset with gun laws? My only involvement in this thread was to point out the flawed whataboutism to illegal drugs coming across the border. You got involved by repling to ME using your logically flawed comparisons to other laws and Latin phrases. I am curious on how you came to the conclusion that I was UPSET with US gun rights? Was it the fact that I don't live in a walled off tribal shell and am willing to listens to proposals from others? Would you prefer I instantly denounce any ideas before even hearing them resorting to my side is always right idealism and I don't want to hear anything you have to say?

 

well what additional gun laws do you want

what current laws would you get rid of?

 

I told you this before. I am a firm supporter of the 2A. People like me have less incentive to create new laws or restrictions because that is not where my passion are. It is up to those that believe restrictions are necessary to make their case. The difference is I am willing to listen. If after looking at their proposal and data it makes sense I would support it. That is how progress works. It is not up to me to come up with every innovation or new system at work and I head up R&D. Others who have ideas they are passionate about propose new ideas and solutions. The only guarantee people get is people like myself will listen and hear it out.

 

I have told you what I would do

 

I you are referring to getting rid of many gun laws that may have merit. Often we have way to many laws that are either redundant or no longer necessary. It all comes down to specifics.

 

totally accurate, that’s why we need our own personal protection. Lefties want big gov, which means turning over personal protection responsibilities to a gov who according to the SCOTUS rule the police have no duty to protect us.

 

they don't have merit. the ones I want to get rid of are malum prohibitum statutes.

 

That is a very broad brush and as I said before there are many laws that restrict ownership based on potential harm. Even you tried to preface it with things like having a good reason to have, or quantity. All those restrictions were subjective by you and last I saw we are no longer a monarchy. If you go by the essence of those ideals things like rocket launchers, dirty bombs, even the mother of all bombs etc... should not be illegal because they are only unlawful by statute and not conduct. What harm has a dirty bomb or rocket launcher done on its own? If you stay true to that belief no weapon even biological ones would be illegal to own. No drugs would be illegal to own. etc... because the ownership of existence of the item is not evil and we have laws in place already that punishes the individual for evil conduct using those items. No nation in the world, I know of, supports such a belief and I really don't think you would choose to live in a nation that adopts it.