Crime Maine shooting - 18 dead

Again, I didn't say you should not be able to own a gun. Just that you need to adopt what works for other countries in order to dimish the massacres. I have not seen one single good argument from pro-guns of why it's better not to follow what other countries do.

Because the protection of yourself and your family is your responsibility her in the US. Also the government should have a healthy fear of the people. Not that the government in a worst case situation could not take all the guns by force but to do they they would have to agree to kill and imprison a large part of the population.
You will never understand this because of a basic difference in how we view government and how you view it.
 
“Automatic weapons” have been basically banned since 1934 in the USA, they were hit with an unconstitutional tax of $200 at the time (roughly $3500 today) and then outright BANNED on May 19, 1986, you either have to be a manufacturer WITH authorization from the chief of a local police department to own “for demonstration purposes” where you must surrender the firearms to the ATF when your license expires or be fortunate enough to own a firearm that was registered before May 19, 1986, which will set you back around $30,000, and take a year for the background check to go thru, unfortunately the majority of those guns are owned by rich collectors, museums, movie studios and law enforcement agencies; meaning your average American cannot get their hands on, let alone afford one.

The Swiss, along with the normal American citizen are allowed to own semiautomatic weapons tho.


Not hilarious by ANY means, just like drag strips and race tracks have been shut down for years by whiny neighbors complaining about noise, so have hunting spots and registered shooting ranges, so at the least it helps people stop having annoyed neighbors whenever they’re trying to hunt or shoot.

For me suppressors are ideal for hunting deer or coyote, especially the coyote, so I am able to hunt at night (with my spooky scary night vision and thermal imaging) and be able to hear the animals and effectively track them, while not disturbing the farmers who pay me for dispatching the nuisance animals on their property while they sleep.

Yea coyotes are a real problem around here.
The local farmers let certain people they trust hunt their land for deer and general game if they agree to kill coyotes. Eben with that the population is still going out of control. Any small dog or cat let out at night and not watched is likely to be a coyote snack. They have started more pack hunting bigger game and it's a good idea to keep an eye on anything small even in the day time include kids.
 
“Automatic weapons” have been basically banned since 1934 in the USA, they were hit with an unconstitutional tax of $200 at the time (roughly $3500 today) and then outright BANNED on May 19, 1986, you either have to be a manufacturer WITH authorization from the chief of a local police department to own “for demonstration purposes” where you must surrender the firearms to the ATF when your license expires or be fortunate enough to own a firearm that was registered before May 19, 1986, which will set you back around $30,000, and take a year for the background check to go thru, unfortunately the majority of those guns are owned by rich collectors, museums, movie studios and law enforcement agencies; meaning your average American cannot get their hands on, let alone afford one.

The Swiss, along with the normal American citizen are allowed to own semiautomatic weapons tho.


Not hilarious by ANY means, just like drag strips and race tracks have been shut down for years by whiny neighbors complaining about noise, so have hunting spots and registered shooting ranges, so at the least it helps people stop having annoyed neighbors whenever they’re trying to hunt or shoot.

For me suppressors are ideal for hunting deer or coyote, especially the coyote, so I am able to hunt at night (with my spooky scary night vision and thermal imaging) and be able to hear the animals and effectively track them, while not disturbing the farmers who pay me for dispatching the nuisance animals on their property while they sleep.

It's true about automatic weapons. But there are still many differences in both countries' gun laws. From what I've read:

In Switzerland, military service is mandatory for men. So the average swiss man knows how to handle a gun better than the average american man. They treat guns with proffesionalism and respect. After service, they may keep their gun with a permit. Also, permit is required to buy a gun and you need to have a good reason to want one (being in a shooting club, being a hunter, etc.). I read their permit is only valid for 9 months (not sure if this is true). They have laws regarding the number of guns you can buy, how they're stored and transported, etc.

Also they banned some semi-automatic rifles in 2019:

https://qz.com/1623173/switzerland-approves-stricter-gun-laws-in-light-of-neAs
 
I think you way over estimate the number that would turn over their guns because the government has no real idea who and where they are. Which is another reason we will fight any form of national registery.

The over 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the USA, as well as the military in war zones, find out who has something illegal (including guns) and go and take it all the time without having a list.

Yea coyotes are a real problem around here.
The local farmers let certain people they trust hunt their land for deer and general game if they agree to kill coyotes. Eben with that the population is still going out of control. Any small dog or cat let out at night and not watched is likely to be a coyote snack. They have started more pack hunting bigger game and it's a good idea to keep an eye on anything small even in the day time include kids.

Release some bears, wolves and mountain lions to restore the balance!

'Refreshing the Tree of Liberty':

craig-robertson-comp-1.jpg
 
No, a risk is not a risk. That's a very ignorant statement. There are necessary risks and unnecessary risks.

Sorry. You're wrong. A risk is a risk. Are there levels of risk? Yes. Can some risks be lessened with compensating controls? Yes.

Necessary and unnecessary don't usually come into play. It's all about how you mitigate and compensate for the level of risk.

Also, 600 massacres a year proves the risk is not near being well controlled.

Oh the hyperbole . . . count them however you want, ultimately mass shootings are rare.

No, but their easy access to them is. Laws regarding killing machines need to be strict otherwise innocent people will pay the price. Why is it so hard to look at the countries that are doint it better? You just said you don't care about them, so evidently, your ego is getting in the way.

My ego has nothing to do with this champ . . .

Except I didn't say "criminal". A criminal has already committed a crime. I said "bad guy" as a in a person who wants to harm innocent people. Big difference.

As has been the case in several of the higher profile and more notorious shooters, they're a known "bad guy" who law enforcement ignored. So that "big" difference isn't quite as big as you'd like it to be. Regardless, other shootings that Everytown, etc. ignore involve these "bad guys" who aren't old enough or legally able to possess a firearm.

Also what's your point? That they knew he shouldn't own guns but still owned them? How is this statistically relevant?

What's the point? Really? Did you bother reading the story from ABC?
 
Yeah, that's what he said.

"Mass shootings mostly happen in designed GUN FREE ZONES."

All I can say is I'm glad I live in Canada.

Holy crap . . . have you guys moved in together yet?
 
The over 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the USA, as well as the military in war zones, find out who has something illegal (including guns) and go and take it all the time without having a list.



Release some bears, wolves and mountain lions to restore the balance!

'Refreshing the Tree of Liberty':

craig-robertson-comp-1.jpg

You assume that all the police departments are going to just go along with that. However we already see some departments refusing to enforce gun laws the believe are unconstitutional. To use the military to enforce any law would be the last gasp of the US death. It's unconstitutional

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which removed the military from regular civil law enforcement, was enacted in response to the abuses resulting from the extensive use of the army in civil law enforcement during the Civil War and the Reconstruction. The Act allows legislated exceptions

As for the rest of the post, put down the pipe to clear your head when posting.
 
Because the protection of yourself and your family is your responsibility her in the US. Also the government should have a healthy fear of the people. Not that the government in a worst case situation could not take all the guns by force but to do they they would have to agree to kill and imprison a large part of the population.
You will never understand this because of a basic difference in how we view government and how you view it.

You're right, I don't understand that mentality. I don't understand why americans should be cautious about a tyrannt goverment. I mean, many tyrannts have the support of a large part of the people. So lets say a tyrant has has the support of most gun owners. And that's a good thing how? How do you know you'll be on the right side?

I find this scenerio of someone using the US military to subdue american citizens extremely unlikely. If I was a tyrannt, I wouldn't attack the people, I would divide them, I would create fear, I would fuel anger and resentment. Then I'd have the support of many of them.
 
Sorry. You're wrong. A risk is a risk. Are there levels of risk? Yes. Can some risks be lessened with compensating controls? Yes.

Necessary and unnecessary don't usually come into play. It's all about how you mitigate and compensate for the level of risk.

No.

There are levels to risk, but they can still be either necessary or unnecessary. Allowing citizens to own a vehicle is a necessary risk, and it's for the betterment of society. Allowing citizens to buy guns with little restrictions an unnecessary risk.

Oh the hyperbole . . . count them however you want, ultimately mass shootings are rare.

Not rare enough not to do anything about them.

My ego has nothing to do with this champ . . .

On the contrary, this is all about your ego.

As has been the case in several of the higher profile and more notorious shooters, they're a known "bad guy" who law enforcement ignored. So that "big" difference isn't quite as big as you'd like it to be. Regardless, other shootings that Everytown, etc. ignore involve these "bad guys" who aren't old enough or legally able to possess a firearm.

Are you saying most mass shooters were ignored by law enforcement? Do you have a source for this?

Also, that's another point in favor of not making guns easily avaible.

What's the point? Really? Did you bother reading the story from ABC?

Not interested in your copy & pasted articles. Give me an argument and I'll respond.
 
No.
There are levels to risk, but they can still be either necessary or unnecessary. Allowing citizens to own a vehicle is a necessary risk, and it's for the betterment of society. Allowing citizens to buy guns with little restrictions an unnecessary risk.

We have restrictions. We have laws. The fact that you're refusing to read the article I linked to that verifies where those weren't properly utilized in this case invalidates everything else you've posted.

Not rare enough not to do anything about them.

And not often enough to completely revamp gun ownership here in the US.

On the contrary, this is all about your ego.

What does my ego have to do with this?

Are you saying most mass shooters were ignored by law enforcement? Do you have a source for this?

It wouldn't matter what I provided to you. You've already stated below you're not interested in what I provide. Do your own research and prove me wrong.

Also, that's another point in favor of not making guns easily avaible.

What? If you bothered to read the article you'd understand how "the system" failed.

Not interested in your copy & pasted articles. Give me an argument and I'll respond.

Maybe you should be. You might learn something.
 
I'm a pretty clever fellow but I have no idea what this has to do with what you said.

Are you for real? You don't understand how that post proclaiming the need to ban AR-15s due to them being used in high profile mass shootings that happened in gun free zones has to do with what I said?
 
Explain Afghanistan and Vietnam then.

Also in a scenario like that, both sides would have tanks. You think every single person in the military is just itching to start mowing down the civilians they swore an oath to protect?
Lol? Compare the terrain of Afghanistan and Vietnam to some flyover state suburbs. Also last I checked us citizens don't have rpgs , mines, anti tank missiles
 
I don't think we have to actually worry about any tanks rolling through our hoods. Our government might be stupid, but it isn't THAT stupid.
Right so using the argument to protect yourself against government takeover is stupid
 
Right so using the argument to protect yourself against government takeover is stupid

Wrong, the vast majority of ground forces only carry infantry rifles, as it's the most effective ground combat method period. One only needs to look at what's going on in Gaza to see the optics nightmare of using tanks and bombs against citizens.

If the US had to resort to dropping bombs, or rolling tanks through the streets you can be damn sure that half of the military would AWAL or mutiny. That's the hand only and armed citizenship can force.

Besides government takeover is only one of many scenarios where you may require a means to defend yourself from other armed attackers.
 
Wrong, the vast majority of ground forces only carry infantry rifles, as it's the most effective ground combat method period. One only needs to look at what's going on in Gaza to see the optics nightmare of using tanks and bombs against citizens.

If the US had to resort to dropping bombs, or rolling tanks through the streets you can be damn sure that half of the military would AWAL or mutiny. That's the hand only and armed citizenship can force.

Besides government takeover is only one of many scenarios where you may require a means to defend yourself from other armed attackers.

I'm not sure if the military or police would have a large percentage go AWAL.

Way too much of the "Just doing my jerb" shit going around when people are asked to do things they know aren't right.
 
Lol? Compare the terrain of Afghanistan and Vietnam to some flyover state suburbs. Also last I checked us citizens don't have rpgs , mines, anti tank missiles

I'm not saying that. I'm saying if they started rolling tanks in US cities, I think a good chunk of the military would defect.

Normal people don't hate their fellow citizens and want to see them all lined up against a wall and shot like you do. It might seem that way sometimes online, but I think most people are still pretty normal.
 
Back
Top