What a ridiculous generalization, but I realize we do that a lot in the CE. Of course there is a culture of personal responsibility, like anywhere else. That's the whole thing about guns though. You can be more absolutely responsible 99% of the time, but get drunk/nuts/sad/angry enough to make your trigger finger wiggle and it doesn't matter. Enough people have guns -> enough ill guarded moments -> enough tragedies happen -> it becomes omnipresent in the news -> people generalizing that a diverse country of 320 million people "lack a culture of personal responsibility".
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Isn't this the very same country where you can sue Starbucks if they haven't explicitly told you your coffee is hot?
man no dont
the coffee was extraordinarily hot
the lady had third degree burns
people had been burned before and mcdonalds knew it
mcdonalds had records of the fact that their coffe was served too hot
all the woman asked for was for mcdonalds to pay her medical bills
they refused and she had to take them to court to avoid bankruptcy
the lady had third degree burns
people had been burned before and mcdonalds knew it
mcdonalds had records of the fact that their coffe was served too hot
all the woman asked for was for mcdonalds to pay her medical bills
they refused and she had to take them to court to avoid bankruptcy
Gun Etched With Bible Verse To 'Deter Muslims'
A new weapon is etched with bible verse so that Islamic terrorists are put off from buying it, a gun manufacturer says.
11:56, UK,Friday 04 September 2015
The weapon is etched with bible verse
A gun manufacturer has developed a new rifle etched with bible verse in a bid to put off Muslim terrorists.
Florida-based Spike’s Tactical has introduced the AR-15 Crusader Rifle, described as a "lightweight mid-length rifle".
The weapon is etched with the words of Psalm 144:1, "Blessed be the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle".
The words are etched upon the right side of the gun, while a cross and shield feature on the left side, according to the company's website.
Along the gun's safety lever are the Latin words 'Pax Pacis' (Peace), 'Bellum' (War), and 'Deus Vult' (God Wills It).
Spike’s Tactical spokesman Ben Thomas told WTSP 10 News why the company decided to create the Crusader.
"Right now and as it has been for quite some time, one of the biggest threats in the world is and remains Islamic terrorism.
"We wanted to make sure we built a weapon that would never be able to be used by Muslim terrorists to kill innocent people or advance their radical agenda."
I think it's a fair comment. In Canada, our licensing courses have a section on an owner's responsibilities to their community to keep and use guns in a safe manner. This includes things like not leaving them lying around loaded, whichin itself is responsible for hundreds of deaths every year in the US. Guns are fecking deadly tools and require the utmost care when handling, using and storing. The US has the 2nd Amendment, which is treated as carte blanche by a population that consistently looks to blame someone else for their situation. And I like you guys.
good ol' Spikes. They're more famous for their AR-15 lowers than complete rifles, mind you.Thank youe Eboue. That has to be one of the most ridiculously over reported and misleading stories.
Glad you like US, and who doesn't like Canada
?Maybe I just can't get into the casual swing of this CE thing, but when folks (not you in particular) so casually state things like a country "lacks a culture of personal responsibility." and "a population that consistently looks to blame someone else for their situation" then I can't get my head around how to respond.
Anyway, I wouldn't imagine licensing courses explaining to people that loaded guns are dangerous would be teaching even the most brain-dead anything they didn't already know, though of course it doesn't hurt to remind them I suppose. The point being that I don't think guns are going to be made particularly safer, no matter what we tell people when they buy them. Everybody knows what they're for, and which end the bullet comes out. That people make stupid, ignorant, or forgetful decisions is just human nature.
The whole gun debate as represented on this board I think lines up nicely with how it's commonly misrepresented in general.
There's too much focus on mass shootings by emotional adolescents. The tragedy is in the cities where people are just mowing each other down. The press can't wrap a headline around it, so it's poor copy compared to this romance with the disturbed murdering loner. Proposed legislation focused on that is going to miss the point.
Over the years, the NRA's persistent lobbying for incremental legislation has let the toothpaste out of the tube. I think the tipping point for any achievable and meaningful legislation was past when people were allowed to carry firearms off their private property. At that point it all became rather moot. What's maddening is that now the NRA is in the enviable position of being able to truthfully nay-say as ineffective any proposed control legislation that comes up. Honestly the proposed legislation coming out after the massacres is ridiculous. No "assault rifles". No large magazines. We've been painted into a corner where there is no meaningful legislation possible, and we come up with impotent but hopefully politically palatable responses which the gun friendlies laughingly sneer at, pointing out the minutiae involved in the definition of an assault rifle or how many bullets is too many in a magazine. Even the notion of psychological background checks seems like hubris. At best we might head off a tragedy here or there.
The NRA is right. Over the years, they've been able to successfully frame the situation and put us in a place where I can't envision any useful legislation. In all honestly, aside from perhaps trying to legislate guns back to people's private property, I can't see anything meaningful other than confiscation. By highlighting the uselessness of heretofore proposed legislation, the NRA is reinforcing their alarmist logic that confiscation is about all that makes sense at this point and with that they so effectively fan the flames.
I guess at this point I don't have much of a point other than we're boned, and listening to folks on here just seems to make things worse. Whether it's the initial post-massacre gleeful rush to post the "Americans at it again" snark, or the naive perceived lack of political will.
The whole situation is about as messy as this post. Sorry about that.
To be fair, the litigious nature of your civil legal system has a profound influence on my perspective.
The consistent stupidity with guns doesn't help matters either. This is at the micro level; i.e. does not consider mass shootings.
That said, I know it's not endemic but the way things are presented in the press puts you guys in the line of fire, har-har.
The consistent stupidity with guns doesn't help matters either. This is at the micro level; i.e. does not consider mass shootings.
That said, I know it's not endemic but the way things are presented in the press puts you guys in the line of fire, har-har.
Now they want to try and make silencers and suppressors more readily available under the 'Hearing Protection Act'. Well, shootings seem so commonplace in America these days I guess the rational step is to take the neccessary steps & protect the hearing of any members of the public that might get too close to the shootings.
Last edited:
Nothing wrong with that. Despite Hollywood's typical portrayal, silencers and supressors don't completely eliminate a gun's retort, they just bring it down to a level that won't damage your eardrums.
WTF I didn't think they were legal in the first place?
I want my country back.
We know it doesn't, but it does make it quieter. You don't think there's an obvious benefit to knowing a shot's been fired?
If someone's going shooting, they can wear plugs and get over it.
We're talking about a reduction of 30-40 decibels here. Just enough to protect people's hearing.
You should educate yourself about your country if you're going to claim ownership. Devices that suppress the sound of a firearm are heavily controlled in the US.
Here's a little light reading to get you started:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/01/news/companies/silencers-guns/
indeed! I just thought it was funny that instead of taking steps to protect people actually getting shot, they take steps to make sure anyone fortunate enough to escape a shooting with their lives does so with their ear drums intact.
Are you always this arrogant or just when you're talking about guns? No I haven't studied the minutiae on silencer regulation and yet I'm somehow very educated about my country.
On the plus side silencers do make guns far less accurate, so maybe it's a roundabout way of trying to reduce gun deaths
Cocks not Glocks at UT:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/cocks-n...est-gun-laws-with-dildos-20151011-gk6j8w.html
http://www.smh.com.au/world/cocks-n...est-gun-laws-with-dildos-20151011-gk6j8w.html
I'm generally pretty arrogant, yeah. It isn't hard to find this information but I acknowledge it would detract from the hyperbole of your original statement.
Whilst Im sure there are many many responsible gun owners, when it comes to something this dangerous you should unfortunately legislate according to the lowest common denominator, and considering guns are not an essential for a happy life, they should be banned.
An outright ban in the US would be an absolute disaster, though. You'd probably have plenty of people who'd revolt against it, when you consider that there are many who are against any sort of control, before even getting onto the issue of banning them outright.
Would they?
If a law was passed saying guns must be handed in within a week what would happen if after that the police came to search houses / remove any weapons and arrest people... Would they start shooting cops?
If they would then perhaps these are not the kind of folk you want with access to hand guns shot guns assault rifles flame throwers and mini guns?
You'd probably get plenty of people who'd just refuse to do it, and even if they were to not shoot cops, the idea of the police forcefully entering the homes of those who oppose such a decision and taking their possessions seems incredibly authoritarian and controlling. Plenty of Americans feel that the idea of infringing upon their weaponry rights violates the constitution, so not only banning them, but forcefully removing them from people, would be massively controversial, and I'd imagine you'd see plenty of pro-gun police officers/officials just outright refusing to participate, especially if they knew there was the risk of people being hostile and potentially firing at them.
Ancient English legal precedents at heart of US gun control tussle
Gun control advocates cite 700 year old law in bid to keep Washington's restrictions on ownership while opponents counter with 17th century Bristol court case
By Robert Tait, Los Angeles
20 Nov 2015
America's fierce debate over gun control usually takes place against the backdrop of the second amendment of the US constitution - seen as enshrining the rights of all citizens to bear arms.
Now a different precedent is being cited by advocates of tougher restrictions - a 700-year-old English law dating back to before guns had even been seen in Britain.
Lawyers fighting a challenge to limitations on who is allowed to carry concealed weapons on the streets of Washington will point to a law passed in 1328 during the reign of King Edward III when the case comes before a federal appeals court on Friday.
The law strengthened a statute passed more than 40 years earlier making it a crime "to be found going or wandering about the Streets of [London], after Curfew…with Sword or Buckler, or other Arms for doing Mischief".
At stake is the definition of who is allowed a permit to carry concealed handguns outside their homes. Washington DC and nine states grant such permits only to those who can show they have a specific need - because, for example, they have been threatened with violence.
The regulation is being challenged by pro-gun advocates, who argue that it breaches Americans' second amendment rights.
The pro-gun ownership plaintiffs are citing an English legal precedent of their own - the 1686 acquittal by a jury of Sir John Knight after he stood trial accused of taking a gun to a Bristol church "to terrify the King’s subjects".
A legal brief insists that the verdict proves the 1328 law was not intended to be broadly applied.
The case comes amid heightened controversy over US gun control laws following a spate of high profile mass shooting around the country. Last Friday's attack on Paris by the Islamic State ofr Iraq and Syria has also generated renewed support, from Republicans as well as Democrats, for legislation tabled last February that would give the US attorney general power to ban gun sales to anyone suspected of terrorism-related activity.
Legal experts say both sides are harking back to ancient historical precedents in the expectation that the case may end up with the US Supreme Court.
The court previously struck down Washington's blanket ban on handguns in 2008 in a ruling decreeing that citizens have the right under the second amendment to keep weapons in their homes.
The resort to English legal precedent is perhaps less surprising than it first appears. The second amendment is widely believed to have been based on the right to bear arms accorded under English common law and to have been influenced by the 1689 English Bill of Rights.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...edents-at-heart-of-US-gun-control-tussle.html
Gun control advocates cite 700 year old law in bid to keep Washington's restrictions on ownership while opponents counter with 17th century Bristol court case
By Robert Tait, Los Angeles
20 Nov 2015
America's fierce debate over gun control usually takes place against the backdrop of the second amendment of the US constitution - seen as enshrining the rights of all citizens to bear arms.
Now a different precedent is being cited by advocates of tougher restrictions - a 700-year-old English law dating back to before guns had even been seen in Britain.
Lawyers fighting a challenge to limitations on who is allowed to carry concealed weapons on the streets of Washington will point to a law passed in 1328 during the reign of King Edward III when the case comes before a federal appeals court on Friday.
The law strengthened a statute passed more than 40 years earlier making it a crime "to be found going or wandering about the Streets of [London], after Curfew…with Sword or Buckler, or other Arms for doing Mischief".
At stake is the definition of who is allowed a permit to carry concealed handguns outside their homes. Washington DC and nine states grant such permits only to those who can show they have a specific need - because, for example, they have been threatened with violence.
The regulation is being challenged by pro-gun advocates, who argue that it breaches Americans' second amendment rights.
The pro-gun ownership plaintiffs are citing an English legal precedent of their own - the 1686 acquittal by a jury of Sir John Knight after he stood trial accused of taking a gun to a Bristol church "to terrify the King’s subjects".
A legal brief insists that the verdict proves the 1328 law was not intended to be broadly applied.
The case comes amid heightened controversy over US gun control laws following a spate of high profile mass shooting around the country. Last Friday's attack on Paris by the Islamic State ofr Iraq and Syria has also generated renewed support, from Republicans as well as Democrats, for legislation tabled last February that would give the US attorney general power to ban gun sales to anyone suspected of terrorism-related activity.
Legal experts say both sides are harking back to ancient historical precedents in the expectation that the case may end up with the US Supreme Court.
The court previously struck down Washington's blanket ban on handguns in 2008 in a ruling decreeing that citizens have the right under the second amendment to keep weapons in their homes.
The resort to English legal precedent is perhaps less surprising than it first appears. The second amendment is widely believed to have been based on the right to bear arms accorded under English common law and to have been influenced by the 1689 English Bill of Rights.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...edents-at-heart-of-US-gun-control-tussle.html
When I Saw this bumped, I thought it was because of the New Orleans shooting.
Happening right now
https://www.rt.com/usa/323056-park-mass-shooting-new-orleans/
Happening right now
https://www.rt.com/usa/323056-park-mass-shooting-new-orleans/
Sounds like a gang related event
Still a gun related death
My first impression, too. We had something similar in Toronto during a community block party a few years ago.
It is but if it's gang related I struggle to see how additional gun control will mitigate this sort of thing. The guns involved were likely acquired through illegal channels. The perpetrators may have existing felony convictions as well, which would disqualify them from possessing firearms legally.
Sure. This isn't an example for gun control, I just saw the news that it was a gun related death, saw the topic being bumped and decided to link this here doc.
Right wing gun control fantasy played out in Texas. Woman in white shirt drawing a pistol on a purse snatcher who´s been subdued, suddenly thief escapes and gun wielding woman decides on a death sentence. She misses from point blank, not quite fulfilling the fantasy. Then calmly walks away . . . all in a days work. I love the ironic camera shot at the end . . . "Welcome to America"
Last edited:
That really should be put down as attempted murder.
Some of these gun crazies are probably frustrated they haven't had the opportunity to use all their arsenal before.
It's strange isn't it? I'm quite happy sending lead down range at the gun club.
She probably had a .22 and never shot a gun before, anyway in Texas people can protect their propriety killing if they have to.
Second though after I watched the video he got shot
Really though, barros...most people who have guns for defensive reasons actually never want to be in a situation where they have to use them. And if the thief is fleeing without your property it's not going to be good if you shoot them. She needs to read a little Massad Ayoob.
She probably would be arrested if she killed the guy for that reason, shooting in the moment he grabbed her purse is one thing but .... Anyway that's Texas and I have no idea what's the law there.
Probably a variation of Castle Law. From what I know civilians can't legally shoot a fleeing perpetrator, though.