Are the NRA right?

PC CDROM

Like when loads of countries got nukes there was a lot of sabre rattling but no one launched one.

If we all had guns would we all be a bit more careful?

No more road rage super tooting of the horn willy nilly.

People who want to go mental and kill always will. Dunblane etc.

I think the NRA might actually be right. I don't think people need military grade weapons, like they do, but just a basic gun under a well thought out licence procedure.

Like the one we should have before people are allowed to have pets/kids.

Pilotdude5

No. Guns are designed to kill people. They don't perform any other fuction.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

computers are designed to add 1's and 0's but they facilitate child pornography

ban computers

Pherekydes

The GPMG I have comes in handy at Hallowe'en.

For Forks Sake

I think they've done a great job of improving the national road network in the last few years/

sheesh

countries even the crazy ones are usually more rational than individuals.

I don't mind the idea of people having guns as you might need one for protection but everyone? all the time?

I don't think everyone should be allowed to drink.

Wacker The Attacker

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

computers are designed to add 1's and 0's but they facilitate child pornography

ban computers

Ban food also. It makes people fat

nocoverart

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Ban food also. It makes people fat

Ban women. They give me a headache.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

I don't believe that having everyone armed would prevent any type of senseless killings.

I would imagine that an increase of weapon holders would lead to an increase of gun crime.

There are plenty of idiots out there that would shoot before they think in any type of situation. Someone is having a bad day, gets skipped in the queue for the milk....CLICK....BANG....puts a bullet through the back of the skippers head and out their face.

Nope, more weapons means more dead people. The general populous are untrained, undisciplined and uneducated to what it means to be a responsible gun owner.

Custardpi

You have to understand that the gun debate in the States is not about whether guns per se should be legal or not. Neither party is going to do away with the Second Amendment, regardless of any tragedy now or in the future. The argument is really about what kind of firearms should be included under the "right to bear arms", given that assault rifles were unimaginable in the 18th Century. Renewing the (extremely limited) Clinton era controls & possibly restricting the number of bullets in a clip is the absolute most that will come out of this.

With regard to the "people kill people" canard that always gets brought up by the anti-control lobby, while that is of course true, one could point out that someone with a military arsenal will find it far easier to kill a lot of people in a very short space of time than someone who only has access to standard hunting rifles or small handguns.

suicide_circus

The NRA are a sad and dangerous anachronism. They perpetuate the worst in the American psyche.

Wacker The Attacker

suicide_circus wrote: »

The NRA are a sad and dangerous anachronism. They perpetuate the worst in the American psyche.

They are not doing anything illegal.

Chuck Stone

PC CDROM wrote: »

People who want to go mental and kill always will. Dunblane etc.

Yes but going mental with a spoon is going to be a lot less deadly than with a gun.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes but going mental with a spoon is going to be a lot less deadly than with a gun.

having a spoon when someone breaks into your home or tries to rape you is also a lot less effective at defense

ChippingSodbury

The head of the NRA said "The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". This was his reasoning for calling for an armed Police Officer to be on duty in every school in the US. Isn't he forgetting the other side of the coin: "the only thing that will stop a bad guy without a gun is a good guy (with/ without a gun)" i.e. Joe Public and we wouldn't need all of these armed Police Officers hanging around.
What is the NRA's argument against letting anyone have nuclear weapons? SHouldn't it be their right?:pac:

Pottler

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

No. Guns are designed to kill people. They don't perform any other fuction.

Huh, you've obviously never had to save a wrongly convicted friend from a Mexican hangmans noose by shooting the rope at the last minute, so.

sheesh

ChippingSodbury wrote: »

What is the NRA's argument against letting anyone have nuclear weapons? SHouldn't it be their right?:pac:

It's in the constitution son!

Custardpi

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

They are not doing anything illegal.

Illegality does not always equal morality. The massive lobbying by the NRA of the political system in the US has kept military weapons in the hands of civilians, helping to at least contribute to tragedies such as Sandy Hook but is as you say completely legal. On the other hand, someone who grows their own marijuana & smokes it will face prosecution & often prison in many states. Regardless of the legal status of the two activities, between an NRA lobbyist & a peaceful weed smoker I know who I'd consider more moral.

PC CDROM

Stealth Recce wrote: »

I don't believe that having everyone armed would prevent any type of senseless killings.

I would imagine that an increase of weapon holders would lead to an increase of gun crime.

There are plenty of idiots out there that would shoot before they think in any type of situation. Someone is having a bad day, gets skipped in the queue for the milk....CLICK....BANG....puts a bullet through the back of the skippers head and out their face.

Nope, more weapons means more dead people. The general populous are untrained, undisciplined and uneducated to what it means to be a responsible gun owner.

You missed or skipped the Licensed bit. Like having dogs and kids I might add.

As you said. Plenty of idiots out there.

CLICK. BANG.

Phill Ewinn

As soon as they ban loonies, freaks, d1ckheads and pheasants the sooner I'll give up my gun

Cee-Jay-Cee

I think it's indicative of the times we live in when the National Roads Authority have so little to do here that they've involved themselves in the gun debate in a foreign country.

OctavarIan

PC CDROM wrote:

If we all had guns would we all be a bit more careful?

No more road rage super tooting of the horn willy nilly.

In your example how would guns change anything?

3ndahalfof6

They need to talk to their Irish sister company, to get clarification.

Chuck Stone

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

having a spoon when someone breaks into your home or tries to rape you is also a lot less effective at defense

Because the only way to prevent having your house broken into or prevent being raped is by having a gun.

Great logic.

iDave

Summary of NRA press conference today.

We have a problem with gun crime......I've got it... we need more guns

Zebra3

When it comes to the American debate over gun ownership, I'm defo with all those right-wing inbred loons.

:rolleyes:

PC CDROM

OctavarIan wrote: »

In your example how would guns change anything?

People might be less aggressive knowing that all things were equal.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Because the only way to prevent having your house broken into or prevent being raped is by having a gun.

Great logic.

i didnt say anything about preventing

once the guy is in your house, what are you going to do?

the police aren't very good at preventing violent crimes, their job is generally to clean up the mess afterwards and figure out who did it.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

PC CDROM wrote: »

You missed or skipped the Licensed bit. Like having dogs and kids I might add.

As you said. Plenty of idiots out there.

CLICK. BANG.

Well that's nice.

Nope I didnt miss it. Just because there are procedures involved in obtaining a firearm does not mean the person is mentally capable of owning one. The same with any type of licence, if you are suitable enough to jump through the required hoops, you can potentially get what you apply for.

Plus, for every extra legally held firearm there is the potential for it to get into the hands of an idiot.

BANG BANG

OctavarIan

PC CDROM wrote: »

People might be less aggressive knowing that all things were equal.

Everyone having a gun is equal.*
No-one having a gun is also equal.

*It's not, but for the sake of this post it is

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

OctavarIan wrote: »

Everyone having a gun is equal.
No-one having a gun is also equal.

everyone having the right to vote is equal
no one having the right to vote is also equal


this is fun

Pilotdude5

Pottler wrote: »

Huh, you've obviously never had to save a wrongly convicted friend from a Mexican hangmans noose by shooting the rope at the last minute, so.

I did. Threw my Light-saber at it like a boomerang.

OctavarIan

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

everyone having the right to vote is equal
no one having the right to vote is also equal


this is fun

Yeah, that's a totally fine comparison.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

OctavarIan wrote: »

Yeah, that's a totally fine comparison.

are you saying they're not equal?

MisterEpicurus

A criminal doesn't care about the law by mere definition let alone what other citizens have, including guns. If the stakes rise whereby everybody had a gun, then a lunatic will just try other ways to murder countless innocent people. What standard are you setting by maintaining these ridiculous gun laws when even semi-automatic weapons and other military grade weapons are openly endorsed on the street? Moreover, I'm getting a bit sick of Americans religiously chanting 'We want to keep our 2nd Amendment', because you can tone down the available weapons in society without affecting the 2nd Amendment. F*cking idiots. 12,000 deaths in the USA per year with about 35 in the UK and they don't think the availability of military grade weapons are the problem. It's like arguing to support the health benefits of places like McDonalds even if obesity rises colossally in the country. Just stupid.

PC CDROM

Stealth Recce wrote: »

Well that's nice.

Nope I didnt miss it. Just because there are procedures involved in obtaining a firearm does not mean the person is mentally capable of owning one. The same with any type of licence, if you are suitable enough to jump through the required hoops, you can potentially get what you apply for.

Plus, for every extra legally held firearm there is the potential for it to get into the hands of an idiot.

BANG BANG

Buy a knife if you want to kill people so. Or a Car.

What do you want from me? Permission to kill people?

PC CDROM

OctavarIan wrote: »

Everyone having a gun is equal.*
No-one having a gun is also equal.

*It's not, but for the sake of this post it is

I am now enlightened.

No one killed anyone before guns.

Never knew that.

Snickers Man

nocoverart wrote: »

Ban women. They give me a headache.

Ban water. Fish **** in it.

OctavarIan

PC CDROM wrote: »

I am now enlightened.

No one killed anyone before guns.

Never knew that.

It was a bad comparison to make, I was just trying to wrap my head around your previous post. Can't make sense of it.

purplepanda

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

i didnt say anything about preventing

once the guy is in your house, what are you going to do?

the police aren't very good at preventing violent crimes, their job is generally to clean up the mess afterwards and figure out who did it.

That's what "stategically placed" Hurling sticks are for, some people have cricket bats & / or baseball bats Or maybe crowbars :eek:

As long as you have the actual balls included of course, a cop told me that not many people buy a Baseball bat to play Baseball & that could be interpreted as "excessive force" in legal terms. :rolleyes:

I have been attacked by would be muggers & yobs have tried to enter my house, hence the "advice" from the cops a few years back :pac:

Praetorian Saighdiuir

PC CDROM wrote: »

People might be less aggressive knowing that all things were equal.

Yeah I doubt it.

Having a basic 9mm pistol with an effective range of 50m and a rate of fire of at least 100 rounds a minute is not equal to varying weapons from assault rifle and beyond.

There is nothing equal when it comes to firearms.

SimonTemplar

No they are not and I have a feeling their unwillingness to see gun control laws changed is not due to a passion for firearms but rather it would dilute their political power. That is unacceptable given the events of recent years.

A few observations that I would love to hear the NRA answer:

If the original authors of the Second Amendment knew it would facilitate mass murder in schools every few years, would they have signed it into law in its current wording?

I can understand keeping a handgun for home protection or shotgun for hunting, but allowing the public to purchase and stockpile millitary grade hardware is simply crazy. Do the NRA value this "right" over the life of a person?

Would armed guards really stop murders/suicides? I believe the Conneticut shootings happened within minutes. Even if there was an armed guard in that school, by the time they reached the scene the damage would have already been done. Also, if all schools did receive an armed guard, psychopaths would just target other places like malls or cinemas. Fighting fire with fire is not the answer to this issue, not to mention the moral and social implications of "putting guns in schools".

With this issue a hot topic again, the government should implement an "assault rifle exchange scheme" where anyone can hand in military grade weaponary in exchange for some incentive (once off tax deduction, lump sum payment, better health insurance, reduced education costs...). These could be of real benefit to people and surely their daily life would hardly be affected by their new found lack of an assault weapon. Surely some of this cost could be offset by the government selling the guns as scrap metal.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

PC CDROM wrote: »

Buy a knife if you want to kill people so. Or a Car.

What do you want from me? Permission to kill people?

WTF are you talking about! :rolleyes:

Snickers Man

Life is like a box of chawclits.

You never know when you're going to pick up a nut.

The NRA are all idiots.

So is anyone who thinks that arming grandpa with a magnum is the answer to any nation's crime problem.

Or that Grandpa with a magnum and feckless teenager with a Glock is a fair fight.

And that's all I want to say about that.

RADIUS

ChippingSodbury wrote: »

The head of the NRA said "The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". This was his reasoning for calling for an armed Police Officer to be on duty in every school in the US. Isn't he forgetting the other side of the coin: "the only thing that will stop a bad guy without a gun is a good guy (with/ without a gun)" i.e. Joe Public and we wouldn't need all of these armed Police Officers hanging around.
What is the NRA's argument against letting anyone have nuclear weapons? SHouldn't it be their right?:pac:

Dumb asses, By the same logic we should all carry knives now to combat stabbings.

These guys watch way too many cowboy movies.

bradlente

The NRA suggested today that all schools have an armed security officer patrolling the area.Seems a bit pointless to me to do so,For if someone is planning a rampage I'd imagine they're going to be fairly meticulous about it,And "killing the guy with the gun first" shouldn't be too troublesome.

Throwing more people with gun's into an area where nobody wants to see guns dosen't seem like the most pro-active or preventative measure here.The Treyvon Martin stand your ground case comes to mind.Security officers in this situation could cause more problems than they solve.

PC CDROM

Stealth Recce wrote: »

Yeah I doubt it.

Having a basic 9mm pistol with an effective range of 50m and a rate of fire of at least 100 rounds a minute is not equal to varying weapons from assault rifle and beyond.

There is nothing equal when it comes to firearms.

YAWN

Did I not mention "military grade"?

Seriously?

Chuck Stone

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

once the guy is in your house, what are you going to do?

Lock your bedroom door and call the law.

Stop creating problems that are solved only by having a gun.

It's dumb.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

PC CDROM wrote: »

YAWN

Did I not mention "military grade"?

Seriously?

Yeah but do you seriously think they wont still be able to get them? If everyone was to be "equal" and legally carry as you say "just a basic gun" someone is going to want to have an advantage on the other guy. Then "ramping up" calibres becomes the issue. It's a natural progression and is embedded in human nature.

Only an idiot thinks that everyone having "just a basic gun under a well thought out licence procedure" will result in people being more careful.

steddyeddy

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

computers are designed to add 1's and 0's but they facilitate child pornography

ban computers

Well that's a very black and white comment if you don't mind me saying. Very few people want to ban guns outright but it would make more sens to tighten regulation.

The main purpose of a gun is to kill. I dont see why regulation is bad.

steddyeddy

In fairness the Czech level of education might be higher. Some of the things coming out of american politics make my ears bleed.