NCA raid suspected gun factory in south London

These dogs are trained for this and you noticed they hunt in a group?

 

A South Florida swamp buggy hunt. If you have never been on one of these machines are very fun. My brother and a couple of my friends have one.

You got to have a little bit of money to play with one. Not only does the machine run around $30,000 easily but you need about a $10,000 flatbed to tow it around..... Not to mention a good real size truck in order to tow it

You might find it cheaper if you look around but it would be well used

 

The problem remains no-one has to use your or any other qualified instructors services and while you and most firearm reasonable firearm owners might think basic safety/shooting instruction are a 'must' for the first time gun owner the Supreme Court in it's wisdom has deigned to disagree!

 

When I was growing up your parents got you a BB gun and they explained why you needed to use it in a safe manner.

Then eventually when you grew up a little bit a lot of boys got a single shot bolt action 22.

So when you grow up with them you know how to use them safely.

It really is common sense.

There are four basic firearm rules that would prevent the overwhelming majority of accidents.

Can you name them? Probably not but they're burned into the consciousness of every American boy

 

Most of us think people ought to be able to read and comprehend the written word before voting as well

 

Absolutism again? One more time for the willfully blind and repeat after me.

It is not the job of the Police to 'save' people from violent crime. It is their job to reduce the levels of violent crime to the absolute lowest level possible in conjunction with other government agencies agencies such as the courts, correctional agencies, parole boards, and social services etc etc.

It is not the job of fire departments to 'save' people from burning to death or property being destroyed. It their job to the reduce the death and property toll to the lowest level possible in conjunction with other government initiatives like good building codes, and public education etc.

It is not the job of every hospital to 'save' the life or limb or every patient that comes through their door. It is to reduce the level of death and suffering to the absolute lowest level possible.

To make it even easier. You live in whats called the real world. And in the real world no State has the physical and financial resources to wrap every one of its citizens in a protective bubble of near 100% perfect public services which is what your argument implies i.e 'The State can't protect us for violent criminals.' Its a BS argument thats just used as an excuse by the desperate to justify gun ownership. And here's a couple of reason why.

Firstly to even attempt such a strategy would require a level of taxation that would bankrupt any society that tried to deliver it. And even if it was possible to deliver the first people to decry the States inability to protect them (like you) are also the ones most opposed to paying the taxes needed to deliver the services you also criticize the state for not delivering! So how about you advocate for higher taxes and then maybe the State can 'protect' you more, not perfectly BTW just 'better' than now.

Secondly even if the State could provide the level of public services you erroneously demand gun owners like yourself who most loudly proclaim the need for private citizens to own firearms because the State cant protect them will also be the first object if the State ever even tried to deliver you the high levels of public safety and protection your supposedly demanding. This is because it would require a level of State intervention in the lives of it's citizens and the right to impose laws, regulations and security infrastructure guns owners would never accept in the first place since obviously they would infringe on your rights as a 'freedom loving patriot'.

You don't think so? Fine. China has a murder rate less than 10% of the US one. I promise you if you move there that the State will 'protect' you from harm far better than any US one ever will. End point? You can't have it both ways more protection equals less rights. It's a fine balance, take you pick.

Thirdly (and illogically) your argument is based on the claim that the Sate can't protect you from violent criminals? OK, lets look at that claim. The thing is it arbitrarily divides the population of the US into two groups 'them' (the violent criminals) and 'us' (the law abiding citizens). The first problem is that there's no way to determine who is 'them' and who is us' until after a violent crime is committed. And everybody including you is an 'us' until they commit a violent crime. The driver in the next car, a co-worker, the person in the to pay for their groceries? None of them have a magic tattoo on their forehead that identifies them as a former or potential 'them'. The next issue is that vast majority of 'them' are also US citizens and have exactly the same constitutional rights as 'us' both prior to committing a violent crime and afterwards once released from jail/parole. That means they have every right to go about their business in public and there's nothing you can do about it until or unless you witness a violent crime which outside the home is unlikely. Which of course brings me to my final point (for now). If your prime concern really is violent crime then I suggest you'll have to be armed at home at all times because that's where the the large majority of violent crimes in the US occur i.e. domestic violence. And since I presume your all in favor of your partner (assuming you have one) being armed I'd give the same advice to him or her.

The real point of all this. Just stop with the pointless rationalizations. Advocates for the status quo re; firearm ownership on this forum do so because they want to own firearms, end of story. So just say that, because as the law stands no-one can stop you from doing so. No need to invent lame rationalizations or use absurd (and tired) logical facilities based on absolutism etc.

You like guns, your allowed to own them, no one can stop you. That's all that needs to be said on any of these threads by US gun owners. After that there's no need for the debate to continue. In fact the only reason I ever even visit these debates any more is to point out the logical inconsistencies, skewed statistics and false narratives that US members of this thread keep bringing up to justify owning guns.

Repeat after me: 'You like guns, your allowed to own them, no one can stop you.' End of story.

 

I don't know, I can see the benefit to others owning firearms.

Or what are cops for?

Then again, if you want something done right you got to do it yourself. The police have no legal obligation to act in anyone's defense.

 

adults understand that personal safety is an individual duty: children want to outsource that duty to the government-and make the government assume the risks

 

The police can best be thought of as criminal archaeologist who show up after the fact to examine the scene and gather evidence. And as a bonus if they can identify the suspect in transport him to jail, so much the better.

Most of the time when they are called the situation has already occurred and very rarely do they actually witness and stop crimes.

A person's own personal safety is their own responsibility.

 

1) I did military service, worked in law enforcement and at one point hunted so yes.
2) If 'every American boy' learns them there A) why is there a need for private firearm instructors and B) why is the rate of accidental firearm accidents so high?
Answer? The highly urbanized population of modern America is not 'every American boy'.

 

That probably should have been included in the Constitution then. Might have meant the US Public school system wouldn't have descended into the CF it is in too many poor school districts. But then even illiterate citizens could have trained 'instructors' read the names on the ballot papers out aloud to them in private before they voted.

 

This country has at least 320 million people.
If you wanted to express the rate of accidents you would need a decimal followed by many digits after it.

 

The why complain that (and I quote) "Professional police are not able to protect the public from violent criminals." as was stated by the poster I responded to. Everything in life is a risk assessment. And even in the US the chances of being violently assaulted outside the home during your lifetime is very low. So if you want to use that argument as justification for carrying a firearm you would reduce your level of potential 'risk far more by carrying one inside your house than you would be carrying one outside.

 

I have a great idea-do what you think is best for you and I will do what i think is best for me

 

1) Recorded accidents. How meany 'near misses' that didn't get reported but should never have happened in the first place do you think there are every year? (Think back over the years you've moved in the firearm owning community and be honest. )
2) In any event I was responding to the comment that 'every American boy i.e. the average citizen grows up knowing how to handle a firearm safely. That's just wrong! And that's the point I was responding to, not anything else. Best stats I can find show that 30-40% of American own a firearm or live in homes where there is at least one firearm. That leaves the other 60% without firearms. 'Every American boy' is therefore patently not an argument for the absence of public firearms training. Yet mandating such training is illegal. Ask yourself would you go shooting with someone who hadn't been properly trained?
3) From one source about 1% of firearm injuries in hospitals are apparently accidental i.e result from someone being hurt who was not intended by the shooter to be hurt.

 

Perhaps I should have been more specific. I grew up in the '80s in Small Town Florida where almost every boy growing up learned to shoot. We also rode around on ATVs without adult supervision and somehow we managed to survive.

And it wasn't for lack of guns because if anything they were more commonly available for young boys to have back then even unsupervised.

 

You see here you have illustrated the quintessential difference between the conservative mindset and the progressive liberal mindset.

We could care less if they were to carry or not but they have decided not to carry ( except for the hypocrites amongst them )

And in their mind it's not enough just to make their own choice..... To them, your choice is supposed to be their choice also.

This is why I laugh when progressives tried to call conservatism somehow fascist or authoritarian.

 

The temptation to post “that would exclude most republicans” is almost overwhelming. Can you refrain from tempting me with statements like this?

 

And if you have to rely on a gun for self defence you might as well hand the undertaker his shovel and go lie down in a grave. Unless you are storing that gun in some anatomical hideaway chances are you will not have it accessible the one time you need it. Bravely confronting a mass shooter armed with a high powered rifle covered in body armour is a pipe dream.

Rambo ain’t real

 

Err, slight problem in logic jumping off the page in that statement. i.e. in almost all situations the decision to not carry a firearm isn't going to represent potential risk to the citizen who does decide to carry a firearm. Alternately however the decision to carry one represents small but non-zero risk to the citizen who doesn't. This is not an argument BTW against gun ownership I'm just pointing out a fallacy in the logic being used i.e that the decision involved has equal potential outcomes no matter which choice you make and therefore both are equal in terms of risk.

For the rest all politcal beliefs lie on a spectrum, progressives are not automatically radical leftists and conservatives are not automatically fascist. Conservatives can drift towards fascism (or away form it) in exactly the same way progressives can 'drift' towards anarchic political belief systems. The fact that a progressive' (or some small number) have commented as you've stated doesn't mean all progressives believe the same thing and of course vice versa. Implying it does tend to lead people into the trap of thinking in terms of them and us. In reality? We're all 'us' and it's just a small % of radicals on either end of the spectrum who yell so loudly they make themselves appear more influential than they actually are.

 

How many ended up in ER?

https://www.bradyunited.org/key-statistics

At the moment the world is watching the republicans trying to hold the debt hostage but have these “pro-gun” people ever considered the addition medical cost of guns on the Deficit?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/918... gunshot wounds cost an,, and work-loss costs.

 

And it still is a truism that Murphy was an optimist. The second you need that gun it will not be available



If guns were truly the answer that graph should be more equal

 

Not one single kid I grew up with ever got shot.

 

You do realize you're posting what amounts to a meme from an extremely biased source that is highly suspect, for its veracity and accuracy right?

 

Same here mate!
The Aussie comedian Jim Jeffries has it right - a criminal wanting to get a gun here can’t exactly wander the docks yelling “Gun! I wanna get me a gun!”