Military man might know better perhaps?

So forget all the bullshit about “gun control.” Only if the Congress passes a law banning the manufacture, import, and sale of gas operated weapons except for use by the military and police will this be a safer country. The United States Army knows how dangerous these weapons are and controls their possession and use accordingly. It’s time the rest of the country followed the military’s example. One mass killing after another has proven that gas operated weapons are way too dangerous for civilians to own and use. Ban them.

Throughout he keeps talking about semi- and automatic rifles.

Sorta missing the pistols thing.

94 comments on “Military man might know better perhaps?

  1. WAPO scum.

    Shilling for the left–150 million murders done by or through the state’s ARMED thugs–so far.

    80+ people shot dead in the streets of Venezuela this year. The killing done by socialist thugs with guns handed out by Corbyn’s Pal Maduro. Left’s liking for gun control always vanishes when it is their thugs getting the guns.

    Don’t see WAPO spending much ink or shite like Kimmel many tears over those 80-odd souls.

  2. Yes, but what kind of “military man” are we dealing with here?

    Truscott was born in Japan to US Army Colonel Lucian K. III and Anne (née Harloe).[1] His grandfather Lucian Jr was a US Army general during World War II where he commanded the 3rd Infantry Division and later the Fifth Army in Italy. His father Lucian III served in the US Army in Korea and Vietnam, retiring as a colonel.[2]

    So far, so good…

    Truscott attended the United States Military Academy, graduating in 1969. In 1968, Truscott and other cadets challenged the required attendance at chapel services. Later a court case filed by another cadet along with midshipmen at the United States Naval Academy resulted in a 1972 US Court of Appeals decision (and upheld by the Supreme Court) that ended mandatory chapel attendance at all of the service academies.[3] He was then assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado.[4] There, he wrote an article about heroin addiction among enlisted soldiers and another about what he felt was an illegal court martial. He was threatened with being sent to Vietnam, so he resigned his commission about thirteen months after graduating, receiving a “general discharge under other than honorable conditions.”[1][5]

    Oh dear. Silver spooned baby boomer turns out to be a narcissistic troublemaking twat.

    Never heard that one before.

    Besides, I subscribe to the science of nameology. Anyone with a name like “Lucian K. Truscott IV” is going to be of no use to men, beasts.

    Jacob Rees-Mogg is the exception that proves the rule.

  3. Having read the piece, can’t see any problem. He talks about gas operated weapons. Think it’s you seeing a pistol & a rifle as being different things. Both are mechanisms for enabling a cartridge to discharge a bullet. The only difference is the length of the barrel.
    And he does have a good point. It’s hard to see a reason for automatically reloading weapons in other than a combat situation. Rate of fire isn’t a factor in either hunting of target shooting

  4. It is over sixty years since my demob’ but given a Bren and/or a Smith and Wesson 38 and enough ammo it would still be possible to do a lot of damage. As for families Mogg’s great grandad Mogg was an East End cabinet maker one of a long line of East End workers.

  5. Mogg’s great grandad Mogg was an East End cabinet maker

    How posh were these cabinets?

  6. It’s hard to see a reason for automatically reloading weapons in other than a combat situation.

    Yanks don’t need a reason, tho. They have the US Constitution. Besides, from a practical POV, the gun debate in America is just pro-forma political signalling.

    Nobody’s going to obtain the political clout to abolish the second amendment, and even if they did, grabbing hundreds of millions of privately held guns across such a vast territory would be next to impossible without doors-kicked-in-at-dawn police state tactics.

    There’s a problem, particularly characteristic of journalists, politicians, bureaucrats and similar trades whose chief output is words. The problem is their confusion between rules and outcomes.

    So our man Lucian says:

    Only if the Congress passes a law banning the manufacture, import, and sale of gas operated weapons except for use by the military and police will this be a safer country.

    If only they’d thought to pass a law against murder. Everybody in Nevada would be alive, right?

  7. He’s incorrect in the specifics. Many automatic and semi-automatic weapons aren’t gas operated with a piston at all. Most Heckler and Koch weapons use roller delayed blowback https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_MP5#Operating_mechanism

    or straight forward recoil can be used

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil_operation

    The man is an idiot. As Steve says, he is a narcissistic trouble making twat. I would also add ill-informed. No wonder Salon published him, he has perfect credentials.

  8. ‘And he does have a good point. It’s hard to see a reason for automatically reloading weapons in other than a combat situation.’

    I have a gas operated SHOTGUN. The gas system reduces recoil, and quick follow up shots at birds is appreciated.

    ‘Rate of fire isn’t a factor in either hunting of target shooting’

    Classic Lefty assertion. Gun ownership rights have DOUBLE OUGHT NOTHING to do with hunting of (sic) target shooting. Besides, there are competitions – target shooting – where rate of fire IS a factor.

    So, we have a “military” man who knows little about firearms. But has no qualms about displaying his ignorance publicly.

    BTW . . . Bill Clinton pushed through an Assault Weapons Ban in the 90s, which had ZERO impact on crime. When it sunsetted at 10 years, Congress allowed it to die.

  9. A narcissistic trouble making twat seems about right.

    As others have pointed out most semi-automatic pistols used some form of blowback – the force of the cartridge pushes the mechanism backwards and so reloads. It is common in submachine guns. It is simple and it is cheap. The Sten, the Uzi and the H&K MP5 all use some form of blowback. No gas pistons at all.

    Under his proposal all of these would be legal. Although I am not sure it is sporting to hunt deer with an Uzi.

    Guns using some form of blowback also all tend to use smaller cartridges. There is a problem here with scale. Assault rifles usually use a more high powered round and so usually use some form of gas operated system. However the French were forced to use the standard NATO calibre, the 5.56×45mm NATO round. So they designed a bullpup assault rifle that uses a blowback mechanism. Which means that it cannot take the 5.56×45mm NATO rounds of other countries.

    You wonder if the French have committees who sit around thinking of ways to get out of the agreements they enter into in order to better screw their allies – and their soldiers in this case as the FAMAS famously does not work that well.

    But of course this assault rifle would be legal under this scheme.

  10. What he wants to ban is self loading weapons. By stating the technology, gas operated, he is inviting the market to find ways round it, which in part has been achieved already as others have pointed out.

    And this is why the left are twats, they can’t see further than their own self importance.

  11. bloke in spain – “And he does have a good point. It’s hard to see a reason for automatically reloading weapons in other than a combat situation.”

    If a group of people enter my house with hostile intent, whether they are home invaders, serial killers, Soviet parachutists or just the police doing something I do not agree with, I would want the ability to fire back and fire back often. There is no good reason to ban these weapons. Not in the US. Not in Britain. Long guns are used in a tiny number of crimes – about 120 or so deaths a year I believe. Yet there are tens of millions of them in the US. So what is the problem?

    The bottom line for crime in the US is that gun crime is the work of Democrat voters who prey on other Democrat voters. Many Republicans have guns. They like guns. They shoot deer with them. Republicans with guns are harmless. Democrats on the other hand are a problem. They kill people. They mainly do it with pistols – many these days of the semi-automatic variety. Almost all of these are illegal.

    Now because the Democratic Party (whether in office or in the newsroom) does not want to see more Democratic voters in prison, they are vehemently opposed to enforcing laws that would put many Democratic voters in prison. In Chicago you can be busted for your sixth time carrying an illegal pistol and still walk. So the Democratic Party, in office and in the media, agrees to pick on Republicans. So the gun control debate is never about crime but about Republicans.

    It is a displacement activity. But if the Democratic Party ever gets serious about gun crime, they do not need new laws. They can enforce the laws they have. Illegally owning guns is a crime. Felons should not have guns. But they do. The only way to reduce the murder rate in the US is to jail more Democrat voters. Simple as that.

  12. He’s clearly discovered that some weapons are gas operated and is trying to look savvy by referring to that – without even realising that gas operation is a subset of all the possible operating mechanisms that self loading weapons can adopt. Knobber.

  13. Tony Querfotze is one of those who beat me to it, but I’d like to point out that a ban on “gas operated weapons” would still leave weapons like the MG42 (“Hitler’s Buzzsaw”), the M2 .50″ heavy machine gun (“Ma Deuce”), and the M134 Minigun six-barrelled Gatling gun (“Ol’ Painless”) legal before other controls were applied – not sure that’s the effect he’s actually trying to produce.

    And to amplify BiND’s comment, I’ve seen some of the aesthetically-hideous but technically-ingenious means used to tapdance around state-specific rules such as California’s “assault weapons ban”, and used to shoot pistol with folk using oddball calibres like .38 Super or 9mm Largo (designed to get around “you cannot have weapons chambered for military ammo” laws – so we’ll use something as good or better instead…)

    The last time we had the “ban imminent!” rhetoric, after Sandy Hook, it sparked a years-long sales surge in all types of semi-automatic firearms and ammunition, with friends in the US complaining that for months it was near-impossible to find ammunition in some calibres and some stores implementing rationing to allow those not stockpiling to actually acquire a few boxes of rifle ammo from time to time. And, of course, in the US these weapons and ammo are far less closely tracked than in the UK.

    Again, probably not actually the desired outcome, but who cares about that when there’s virtue to be signalled?

  14. In France, private citizens may not own guns unless they are registered as a hunter or target shooter. Even so they’ve had a couple of mass shootings.

    And in my country, South Africa, where gun control laws are much stricter than America’s, the murder rate is equivalent to a Vegas every single day.

    For the record, although I have seen armed combat I don’t own a gun and never would.

  15. “Rate of fire isn’t a factor in either hunting of target shooting”

    Just cos you don’t know about disciplines in which it is important doesn’t mean they don’t exist. See – 3-gun, IPSC, etc.

    Or types of hunting in which it’s important. E.g. German-style “Druckjagd”, boar shooting in heavy cover, amongst others.

  16. Anyway, this is classic obfuscation, and deliberately not distinguishing between semi-auto and fully-auto wpns. Plus not knowing about other types of operating mechanisms other than gas.

    In any case this is 100 year old technology – in fact this year is the centenary of the first large-scale issue of semiauto rifles to front-line troops in combat.

    By the French.

  17. If a grizzly bear were running in my general direction, rate of fire would be very important. Those things take a bit of stopping

  18. You wonder if the French have committees who sit around thinking of ways to get out of the agreements they enter into in order to better screw their allies

    No, they listen patiently to everyone agreeing to do X and they reflexively say they will do Y. This is simply how they are, and they admit it.

  19. The bloke’s a twat.

    Ecksy, the WAPO has covered Maduro a lot actually. eg https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2017/08/08/its-time-for-maduro-to-go/?utm_term=.4c54590e16a9

    BIS

    ‘And he does have a good point. It’s hard to see a reason for automatically reloading weapons in other than a combat situation.’

    That’s a very fucking slippery slope my friend. Firing full auto is a lot of fun, firing semi-auto is quite good fun, reloading with a bolt is less so. Fun is all the excuse you need, as long as you’re not firing at people (whom you don’t need to be firing at). See also Ferraris, because only racing drivers need vehicles capable of 200mph etc

  20. Interested–“Chavez meant well but Maduro is a bit of a naughty boy” isn’t what I would call coverage of murdering socialist scum.

    You are utterly misguided with your gun control stance and are thus part of the problem.

    When the shit hits the fan our bearded buddies will give the lie to your “guns are hard to get in to the UK” line and we will be living out the Godfather quote.

  21. Ecks, I love you but you’re fucking mad.
    Now you think there is some special bat signal that ‘our bearded buddies’ are waiting for, so that they can go to the mattresses and dig up their vast collection of well-oiled MP5s?

    I suggest to you that if they had them they would be using them.

    My ‘gun control stance’ is as follows: in the US, banning them (apart from being illegal) would be stupid, because there are so many in circulation that only the baddies would be armed. In a world where the baddies are routinely, easily armed, law abiding people should certainly consider being armed, too. I think this is broadly your own position? (If I lived in the States I would be armed.)

    So where the fuck do you think the baddies in the US get their weapons from? Gun shops, after background checks?

    They get them by decades of breaking into gun shops, and people’s houses, and stealing them.

    In the UK, it is not possible to break into a gun shop or a house and tool up, because there are no gun shops, and no houses with guns in them.

    Make firearms widely available in UK houses and gun shops and guess what will happen?

    Now, if at some future point it transpires that weapons are coming in in large numbers then we will have to do something about that. That might involve allowing some people with the right skills and qualifications and experience, background checked to the hilt, to own firearms, but it would not involve allowing random punters to own them in any sane world, for very obvious reasons.

  22. Is it not just so obvoius that the external costs of gun ownership laws (or lack of) in the US far outweigh the internal benefits but such a large magnitude that heavy regulation is the only possible way to deal with it?

    And the only reason that it ever gets debated in the US and laws aren’t immediately passed to restrcit gun ownership is becasue of the ridiculous interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

    So anyone arguing for anything other than heavy restrictions on gun ownership is basically as stupid as Richard Murphy?

  23. And he does have a good point. It’s hard to see a reason for automatically reloading weapons in other than a combat situation.

    Quite right, but eventually there will be combat with our own governments and/or some form of Chavez – Corbyn – Maduro – Lenin – Stalin – Mao – Pol Pot religionists.

  24. Also, the whole gun control debate died with the wide availability of computerized metal milling equipment and the necessary digital files.

    Plus the documentary of at least 10 years ago showing metal smiths in the Khyber pass making working AK47 knock-offs with charcoal forges and hand tools.

    The debate is dead but doesn’t yet know it.

  25. It’s hard to see a reason for automatically reloading weapons in other than a combat situation.

    Agreed, but with this minor modification: When you don’t know anything about firearms or their use it would be extremely difficult to see a reason.

    It’s hard to see a reason for having a spleen if you don’t know what the spleen does or how the human body functions.

  26. And the only reason that it ever gets debated in the US and laws aren’t immediately passed to restrcit gun ownership is becasue of the ridiculous interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

    Two questions:

    (1) Have you ever read the U.S. Constitution in its entirety?
    (2) Do you own a copy?

  27. Interested – “In the UK, it is not possible to break into a gun shop or a house and tool up, because there are no gun shops, and no houses with guns in them.”

    Actually that is not true. British people do own guns. Not as many as Americans do but there are gun shops in the UK and criminals can get hold of guns if they want.

    Of course the hot new trend is importing them from Eastern Europe. AK-47s have turned up in London. So have Czech submachine guns. If people want them, they will get them.

    “Now, if at some future point it transpires that weapons are coming in in large numbers then we will have to do something about that.”

    White British people are very law abiding. They do not really want illegal guns. That will change as the White British population becomes a persecuted minority.

    “but it would not involve allowing random punters to own them in any sane world, for very obvious reasons.”

    The reasons are not obvious to me. Why? What is wrong with a random punter being allowed to own a gun? We used to have such a system in the UK. No crime problem. Guns don’t cause people to kill other people.

    im – “Is it not just so obvoius that the external costs of gun ownership laws (or lack of) in the US far outweigh the internal benefits but such a large magnitude that heavy regulation is the only possible way to deal with it?”

    No it is not obvious. There is no obvious external cost of gun ownership in the US.

    “And the only reason that it ever gets debated in the US and laws aren’t immediately passed to restrcit gun ownership is becasue of the ridiculous interpretation of the 2nd amendment.”

    You mean the literal and only obvious interpretation? That interpretation? Good for the Founders then. That is why they had a Constitution – so Rights would not be taken away according to the whim of the self-elected elites of the day. If only Britain had such a law.

    “So anyone arguing for anything other than heavy restrictions on gun ownership is basically as stupid as Richard Murphy?”

    The evidence seems to suggest the stupidity is heavily on the gun control side.

    Fred Z – “Also, the whole gun control debate died with the wide availability of computerized metal milling equipment and the necessary digital files.”

    A British man showed the world how to make a sub machine gun on Youtube once. He was put away. The technology, as you say, is out there if people want to find it and use it.

    But Britain does not have the problems Brazil does. Yet. This article should be a classic:

    http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/01/22/common-illicitly-homemade-submachine-guns-brazil/

  28. Interested:

    “Now you think there is some special bat signal that ‘our bearded buddies’ are waiting for, so that they can go to the mattresses and dig up their vast collection of well-oiled MP5s? ”

    Was there a bat-signal in Lebanon where they arrived first as “refugees”? Is there a BS (apt) in Rakine province Burma where it has been kicking off for several years ( before the leftist press started beard-sucking on the beards behalf). The Bat Signal is numbers. Once there are enough–once a takeover is credible –then matters move. Might be twenty years but that isn’t long–1997 hasn’t fled memory yet.

    As for mattresses –mosques more likely but wide-spread dumps more likely still. And building overseas links to ship in nearer the time. They got the guns they wanted in in Lebanon.

    “I suggest to you that if they had them they would be using them.”

    An assertion. Why tip your hand before you are ready. If anything the assault truck fringe is counterproductive. They would be wise to lie low until the time is ripe and the leaders and tacticians will do so. They are however such a nutshow that they can’t all be railed in even by their own crew. The nutters are irregular operations–and if it spreads terror why not? The leadership can’t stop them anyway and it helps their leftist buddies get folk use to worsening conditions.

    “My ‘gun control stance’ is as follows: in the US, banning them (apart from being illegal) would be stupid, because there are so many in circulation that only the baddies would be armed. In a world where the baddies are routinely, easily armed, law abiding people should certainly consider being armed, too. I think this is broadly your own position? (If I lived in the States I would be armed.)”

    Ok.

    “So where the fuck do you think the baddies in the US get their weapons from? Gun shops, after background checks?”

    The 7-11? Where do the Afghans get their guns from? They make them using foot-powered lathes–good copies of any shooter you can name. Our US crime pals are a bit low-brow even compared with beardies but they could manage it–or enough of them could –except that guns are available with less work.

    “They get them by decades of breaking into gun shops, and people’s houses, and stealing them.”

    Less work than making them –ok but so what?

    “In the UK, it is not possible to break into a gun shop or a house and tool up, because there are no gun shops, and no houses with guns in them.”

    There are millions still of shotguns and a smaller number of black-powder guns so that isn’t true. And a substantial number of guns both here and in the US are nicked from the police and military.

    “Make firearms widely available in UK houses and gun shops and guess what will happen?”

    Violent crime and burglaries will go through the floor. And cunts at the top who dream of lording it over us will have numbers of sleepless nights.

    “Now, if at some future point it transpires that weapons are coming in in large numbers then we will have to do something about that. That might involve allowing some people with the right skills and qualifications and experience, background checked to the hilt, to own firearms, but it would not involve allowing random punters to own them in any sane world, for very obvious reasons.”

    Its always squaddies and coppers with you Interested. Yes there are some decent folk amongst their number but lots of them are low-brow twats who would be helping the state to put evil on us –not the other way around. The British state is no longer trustworthy or even on the side of British natives. So your special squads would be more likely to be killing ordinary people not defending them.

    Who the fuck do you think killed most of the 150 million put down by statism in general and socialism in particular so far. Fucking coppers, squaddies and paramilitarys that’s who.

    im–you forgot the “a dickhead” –and a state-sucking stooge to boot.

    It is long past time “heavy legislation” was applied against all the enemies of freedom such as yourself.

    Fred Z–“The debate is dead but doesn’t yet know it.”

    I hope very much that you are right. Altho’ there can be no “debate” between freedom and tyranny.

  29. Southerner – “In France, private citizens may not own guns unless they are registered as a hunter or target shooter. Even so they’ve had a couple of mass shootings.”

    One involving a rocket propeller grenade. Which I would think was illegal pretty much everywhere. Gun laws? Aren’t they great?

    “And in my country, South Africa, where gun control laws are much stricter than America’s, the murder rate is equivalent to a Vegas every single day. For the record, although I have seen armed combat I don’t own a gun and never would.”

    So what do you think the effect would be if you put that sentiment on a sign and posted it outside your front door?

    What if you put an NRA sign outside your home? Why are you virtue signalling in this way? You are protected by men with guns. Why is it more morally to hire people to do what you cannot do yourself?

  30. D the P

    1 and 2 – No, but I own a computer so have access to a copy of the full Bill of Rights, which I have read.

    I agree that on a strict intepretation of the 2nd amendment, read in zero context, it can only be concluded that Americans have the right to bear (fire)arms, but that is missing the point.

    The 2nd was intended to ensure that citizens could protect themselves against the state in the same way they protected themselves against British rule. It just isn’t needed anymore.

  31. SMFS

    I agree the literal intepretation of the 2nd is that Americans have the right to bear arms, but;

    1. Context is important. Just becasue something was right in 1791 doesn’t mean it is right.

    2. Laws change, becasue sometimes they are wrong.

    Do you genuinely believe that the gun homicide rate in the US is not correlated to the lax laws on gun ownership?

  32. The 2nd was intended to ensure that citizens could protect themselves against the state in the same way they protected themselves against British rule. It just isn’t needed anymore.

    Out of curiosity, what conditions applied previously to justify protection from the State which no longer apply now?

  33. I love those stills from the camera footage, especially the man running away and airily pointing his gun behind him without looking. He’s been watching too many films.

    Anyway lay, the chap in the photo with the tattoos, money and fag – here we have another black man tragically cut down in his prime, and just after he has come into a bit of money too by the looks of it. His only ‘crime’: to blunder onto someone else’s ‘property’ at an inconvenient time, carrying a gun solely for his own defence.

  34. Mr Ecks,

    Nice to meet you too. Your humour is only surpassed by your idicocy.

    Are you so paranoid that are effectively comparing the modern British government to the Soviet Union?

    I may be a dickhead, but I’m not a state sucking stooge. My view is that the benefits of gun ownership are far outweighed by the costs. Therefore its simply market failure and appropriate to have a level of government regulation, which I believe needs to be heavy. I get that government intervention into a free market can cause problems. But I don’t see that the lack of gun ownership in the UK has led to such an oppresive state that our personal freedoms have been compromised. And even if they have been compromised, the I would value that lower than the freedom to not get shot by some nutcase.

    Happy to debate the issues with you, but you don’t need to be a cunt about it.

  35. im

    The 2nd was intended to ensure that citizens could protect themselves against the state in the same way they protected themselves against British rule. It just isn’t needed anymore.

    And who is to say that it won’t be needed at some time in the future?

    Do you genuinely believe that the gun homicide rate in the US is not correlated to the lax laws on gun ownership?

    Yes. How many homicides are committed by legal gun owners as opposed to illegally held firearms?

  36. Rob

    Is that question genuinely out of curiousity, or do you just disagree with what I am saying and what some more detail so that you can then attack that?

    That’s a genuine quesiton.

  37. Henry C

    “And who is to say that it won’t be needed at some time in the future?”

    I accept that point. My outlook is that is won’t be. I haven’t lived through an oppresive reigeme (unless you count the UK as one), so I accept there could be naivety in much approach, but I believe we don’t need guns to keep our governments in check. Perhaps events in Catalonia will change my mind.

    “Yes. How many homicides are committed by legal gun owners as opposed to illegally held firearms?”

    Surely the questions is how many homicides are commited by guns that were legally obtained by someone at somepoint?

  38. im –

    1 and 2 – No, but I own a computer so have access to a copy of the full Bill of Rights, which I have read.

    The full Bill of Rights is simply the first 10 amendments. That is not the full Constitution. So the answer to #1 is “no”, correct?

    The 2nd was intended to ensure that citizens could protect themselves against the state in the same way they protected themselves against British rule. It just isn’t needed anymore.

    Where I come from, that is called an opinion… and not an interpretation based on informed contextual analysis. And, given that it appears you haven’t even read the entire Constitution, I’m suspecting that you haven’t put a whole lot of time doing systematic research into the various scholarly interpretations – based on context – of the 2nd Amendment.

    Ergo, I call bullshit.

    And adding a window dressing of affected knowledge to an uninformed opinion is as Murphy-esque as it gets.

  39. “Mr Ecks,

    Nice to meet you too. Your humour is only surpassed by your idicocy.”

    Specimen quote from a clever guy:”The 2nd was intended to ensure that citizens could protect themselves against the state in the same way they protected themselves against British rule. It just isn’t needed anymore.”

    That alone points you as high-up on the scale of fools. Destructive fools since your smug self-assurance threatens everybody else. You and yours deserve to be sliced and diced by your naïve nitwittery: the rest of us don’t.

    “Are you so paranoid that are effectively comparing the modern British government to the Soviet Union?”

    There is no order of difference in political scum. As Molyneux correctly explains they are all farmers of human livestock. That a few are nicer than others shows only the factory farm logic that animals allowed a bit of space to move are more productive than the absolutely caged. Again a level of child like foolishness that ill sits with reality.

    “I may be a dickhead, but I’m not a state sucking stooge.”

    Oh Yes you are.

    ” My view is that the benefits of gun ownership are far outweighed by the costs.”

    I don’t give a damn about your view. If you don’t want a shooter don’t have one.

    ” Therefore its simply market failure and appropriate to have a level of government regulation, ”

    Yeah –zero.

    “which I believe needs to be heavy.”

    Couldn’t care less what you believe. You are free to be as thick and smug as you like but not at the expense of me and mine.

    ” I get that government intervention into a free market can cause problems.”

    That’s mighty white of you. Tell the 80 dead Venezuelans all about it will you? I’m sure they and their relatives will be so comforted.

    “But I don’t see that the lack of gun ownership in the UK has led to such an oppresive state that our personal freedoms have been compromised.”

    Are typing with your white stick? Go online and say a few nasty things about certain religious beliefs and then see what happens. Sure guns haven’t been needed yet. Its only when the scum at the top get down to skin games that bit matters. Or rather get down to mass skin games. Individuals are already playing –like the Bacon-Hanger Guy who paid with his skin 100% for expressing his opinion.

    “And even if they have been compromised, the I would value that lower than the freedom to not get shot by some nutcase.”

    In that case you deserve both.

    “Happy to debate the issues with you, but you don’t need to be a cunt about it.”

    I am a cunt–Meaic said so. And while I have time for the views of Interested say–who was a squaddie– and could no doubt drop the hammer on some scumbag doing or threatening harm to decent folk, I have no time for you. Because you come over as the quintessence of middle-class smugery and “All is right with MY world–so fuck the rest of you”. I wouldn’t be surprised to discover you were Dr Pangloss’s fucking son-in -law or summat. If any thing did happen you would still be on the phone to the coppers two hours after you’d been killed.

    As Scrooge put it “Good Afternoon”.

  40. Dennis

    “The full Bill of Rights is simply the first 10 amendments. That is not the full Constitution.”

    Can you explain why my comment on the 2nd ammendment requires a reading of the full constitution? You can’t just ask if I have read the full constitution and then not provide any basis why it is relevant. In your own words thats just bullshit.

    “Where I come from, that is called an opinion… and not an interpretation based on informed contextual analysis.”

    Fair – its my opinion. Is there really a need to do a full contextual analysis though? Some people like guns, some people make money out of guns. They have some power, see that they can keep their access to guns and keep making money from them by interpreting the 2nd ammendment in a way that suits them. If that isn’t the case then what is?

    “And, given that it appears you haven’t even read the entire Constitution” – again, why is that relevant?

    “I’m suspecting that you haven’t put a whole lot of time doing systematic research into the various scholarly interpretations – based on context – of the 2nd Amendment.”

    You are right, I haven’t. Have you? What was your conclusion?

  41. im – guns don’t kill, people do. A gun is a mere tool. And we are armed to protect ourselves from government tyranny. If the US Constitution doesn’t convince you of the Founder’s intent I suggest you consult The Federalist Papers.

  42. Jean

    “guns don’t kill, people do”

    guns don’t kill, people do and they do it more easily when the can get hold of guns more easily becasue they are legal.

    There aren’t many people who can kill with just their hands. People can kill with knifes, but can’t do near as much damage as they can with guns.

  43. “Gas operated weapons”

    Being picky, but all firearms are operated by gas. It’s gas expanding that forces the projectile down the barrel.

    So whacking “gas operated” into legislation is either a very smart move (cue lots and lots of legal actions from just about everybody), or very dumb (for exactly the same reason).

  44. Can you explain why my comment on the 2nd ammendment requires a reading of the full constitution?

    Sure. Context.

    The context here being that you’re representing your opinion as valid because it is based on an informed and sophisticated (“contextual”) interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I was simply providing some context to that claim so others could draw a conclusion as to just how informed and sophisticated your opinion actually is.

    Fair – its my opinion. Is there really a need to do a full contextual analysis though?

    Wait… Didn’t you just write this:

    I agree that on a strict intepretation of the 2nd amendment, read in zero context, it can only be concluded that Americans have the right to bear (fire)arms, but that is missing the point.

    And this:

    Context is important. Just because something was right in 1791 doesn’t mean it is right.

    And just how does one actually do a less-than-full contextual analysis and maintain a degree of scholarly rigor and intellectual consistency? Where I come from, a less-than-full contextual analysis is called cherry-picking facts to support an argument that can’t be supported by all the facts.

    Seems like I was right when I called bullshit, non-contextually.

  45. im–Why do you think they wouldn’t?

    Irrelevant anyway. It is not the business of the scummy state to forbid people to be free and able to defend themselves up to and including against said state itself.

    Fuck all the statistics. No justification is needed.

    The state increasingly does as it likes and to Hell with its own supposed law. The time approaches where all decent people must do the same or end up existing ( not living) lower than whale shit.

  46. Dennis

    No contextual analysis – just read the 2nd in isolation

    Putting the 2nd into context – It was written in 1791 following the war of independence. Guns were far less sophisticated that they are now and capapable of far less damage. The risk of the government oppressing its people was far greater then.

    Full contextual analysis – reading every single piece of analysis on the 2nd, evaluating the quality of each bit of analysis and forming a conclusion.

    Where you come from, do you think everything needs a full contextual analysis. If so, could you share yours on the 2nd?

  47. Mr Ecks

    They would be better of as less people would be killed by guns.

    No one managed to defend themselves in Las Vegas with the guns they held legally. The band all had guns, but they didn’t defend anyone.

  48. Could do massacres with pistols, .22 rifles etc – with single shot weapons it would be slower firing though could well be more accurate.
    The two problems in this most recent mass shooting was position and range.
    If he’d have walked into the crowd and started shooting he’d have killed a bunch but someone with a gun could have shot him or a bunch of people could have charged him and overpowered him – not possible when he’s so distant and high.

    People die daily from being shot. Just we see the actions of one person as being far worse than the actions of a hundred.

  49. Where you come from, do you think everything needs a full contextual analysis. If so, could you share yours on the 2nd?

    Answer to Question #1: No. But I do need a rather full explanation of what someone means by “context” when they cite the need for “context” in examining an issue or problem.

    Answer to Question #2: My reading of the 2nd Amendment is literal. I didn’t bring up the need for “context”, you did.

    And I take it from your non-answer that you’ve never actually read the U.S. Constitution in its entirety. See, where I come from, we consider that important factual information when evaluating the validity and/or seriousness of someone’s claim that the meaning of the parts of the Constitution they don’t like need to be considered in “context” so said parts can be dispensed with.

  50. “The risk of the government oppressing its people was far greater then”

    Oh, you mean the 100s of millions who died and are dying because of fascist/communist/socialist/statist scum did so before 1791?

    I’m impressed by Ecks and Dtp arguing with you when you quite clearly do not have a clue, and seem incapable to have one in the 1st instance.

  51. monoi, a clue about what? That governments can be oppresive?

    I am talking about the USA in 1791 compared to the USA now. How can the “100s of millions who died and are dying because of fascist/communist/socialist/statist scum” be relevant to that? No one is dying in the UK because of fascist/communist/socialist/statist scum. Yes, we have significant issues due to having a state/government but its not like we are Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

    Dennis

    What quesiton have a specifically not answered for you? Is it “how does one actually do a less-than-full contextual analysis and maintain a degree of scholarly rigor and intellectual consistency?”

    Do you genuinely read the 2nd literally?

  52. My initial question was this: Have you ever read the U.S. Constitution in its entirety.

    But the whole “how does one actually do a less-than-full contextual analysis and maintain a degree of scholarly rigor and intellectual consistency?” works for me as well.

    Full answer to your question: Yes. Literally.

  53. im-aD–“They would be better of as less people would be killed by guns.”

    100,000 Americans are saved from violence and harm every year by their possession and/or carry of firearms. Most of the time the display of a weapon discouraged the evildoer(s)-no shots fired. That includes many thousands of women . Without firearms many of them would have been assaulted and raped. And some of them would NEVER have gone home to their loved ones again.

    As for kindly politicians and how well disarmed Americans will be treated– Yeah they could die in jail or a labour camp instead of being privately shot.. And with the USAs corporate socialist jails the distinction is increasingly irrelevant. That way society could be enhanced by their murders.

    “No one managed to defend themselves in Las Vegas with the guns they held legally. The band all had guns, but they didn’t defend anyone.”

    Cos handguns can’t outrange long guns. That is the laws of physics not the laws of nitwits. So by your “logic” the military doesn’t need sidearms as they are no use against tanks.

  54. “It was written in 1791 following the war of independence. Guns were far less sophisticated that they are now and capapable of far less damage.”

    Well, that’s true enough.

    But, guns in 1791 were capable of far more damage than the alternatives available in 1791.

    Which might be why the text uses the word “arms” instead of “swords”, “spears” or “large rocks”.

  55. I am talking about the USA in 1791 compared to the USA now. How can the “100s of millions who died and are dying because of fascist/communist/socialist/statist scum” be relevant to that?

    If you’d asked any reasonable German in 1900 whether their government(s) would, by the end of 1945, be directly or indirectly responsible for 60 or so million deaths in two world wars and murder millions of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and mentally impaired individuals for no other reason than they existed, do you think that reasonable German would have answered “Yes”?

  56. “I am talking about the USA in 1791 compared to the USA now. How can the “100s of millions who died and are dying because of fascist/communist/socialist/statist scum” be relevant to that?”

    To what ?–the USA in 1791?. Here we need to imagine Walter from the “The Big Lebowski” huffing and puffing as he shouts “WTF are you talking about man?”

    You may not consider mass fucking murder because you want people to focus on 1791 and forget what bullshit you are talking.

    ” No one is dying in the UK because of fascist/communist/socialist/statist scum.”

    YET–fixed it for you.

    “Yes, we have significant issues due to having a state/government but its not like we are Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.”

    Heard the name Jeremy Corbyn at all lately? Brazen admirer of soviet tyranny. Endorser of his chum Maduro–the one handing out guns to the leftist thugs who have shot 80 protesters dead so far this year? That Jeremy Fucking Corbyn who says Venez is “successful state”. That fucker?

    What if Corbog and McNasty get in and decide that we are going down the Maduro route? If you think McNasty and those around him are not up for it –think again.

    But sure–a middle-class genius like you knows that isn’t going to happen. And you can talk your way out of it anyway if it did. Right?

  57. i can see i am not very popular here….. but a few points.

    1. I don’t like innocent people getting killed, whether that be that be by the state or individuals.
    2. I think that the protection from state tyranny that is not provided by the 2nd amendment is sufficient.
    3. I think that the reason the US has a high homicide per capita rate is becasue there are so many guns there that are there becasue of the lack on gun control.

    I accept that those are my opinions. I can see I presented my opinion as fact, so can accept the criticism for that.

    But please don’t suggest I am ignorant of Corbyn. I tell everyone I can that I believe his is a complete cunt and point them in the direction of Venuzuela. I didn’t live through the 1970’s but understand the damage that socialism can do. It doesn’t take much research to establish that

  58. Your views aren’t that popular –and I have suggested they are revealing of your character. But then I am not a nice man so who knows.

  59. not popular here*

    Insulting someone, then saying you aren’t nice therefore suggesting your opinion may not be valid may show that you do have some empathy and may be nicer than you think you are.

    I don’t get the impression you would like that though.

  60. im –

    I don’t like dead innocents either.

    Maybe it’s my professional training, maybe it’s that I’m a cold, analytical type of human, but when I see a proposed solution to a problem, I want see facts and analysis presented that actually supports the contention that said proposed solution has a reasonable chance of being successful.

    I’ll leave you with this: I can offer a solution to gun violence in ‘Merica that will lower the gun violence here to the same level as most European nations who presently have far more stringent gun control than we do.

    It would be far less expensive or intrusive than a outright ban.

    It would be far easier to implement than an outright ban.

    I can provide a factual basis to support why it would be reasonable to believe in the effectiveness of the solution.

    And, if you are not willing to support my proposal, I believe I have every right to doubt the sincerely of your wish to reduce gun violence.

    The proposal is this: Make it illegal for African-Americans to possess or own any type of firearm.

    If you look up the government statistics and do the math, you will find I am correct.

    If you can’t support that proposal, then I can’t can really take your professed desire to reduce gun violence all that seriously.

  61. @Dennis
    ” ‘It’s hard to see a reason for automatically reloading weapons in other than a combat situation.’

    Agreed, but with this minor modification: When you don’t know anything about firearms or their use it would be extremely difficult to see a reason”

    I regularly shoot for the pot using a cut down 12 gauge single barrel. Reloading from a forearm worn cartridge bandoleer takes under three seconds. (once got off 4 in 10 seconds to win a bet) That’s under what it takes to assess what effect the previous one had & decide what to do about it. Although usually nothing needed. Nice gun. Light to carry & use in amongst the trees & bushes. Could get a pump I s’pose but why bother?
    And I’d still quite like it as a personal defence weapon, in the unlikely event I needed one. Amazing what a pig load does out to about 50ft. If you’d just seen your mate, beside you, cop one the last thing you’d be feeling is aggressive..

  62. I’m not sure a cut-down 12 gauge would work well as a concealed carry weapon. Nor do I think it would fit in the sort table top biometric safe you’d keep on the nightstand. I certainly wouldn’t want a loaded 12 gauge outside a safe in a house with children.

    Actually, what I was trying to say, however elliptically, was that the most obvious reason for having an automatically reloading weapon in any situation, combat or otherwise, is convenience.

  63. i can see i am not very popular here…

    So what. Neither am I. That’s not the issue.

    If you’re going to offer opinions here, you better be ready to defend them, and defend them well.

    There are no prisoners taken around here. If you can’t take that, go. If you can, stay.

  64. “Putting the 2nd into context – It was written in 1791 following the war of independence. Guns were far less sophisticated that they are now and capapable of far less damage. The risk of the government oppressing its people was far greater then.”

    You think? I’d say a modern Western State has far greater capacity to oppress its population, both legal and practical than any State of 1791 had.

  65. “The Yanks are dead keen on killing each other”

    Yanks in gangs are dead keen on killing each other. Outside of that their murder rate isn’t much different from here and their burglary and rape rates are about half ours if I remember correctly.

  66. DtP,

    “Two questions:

    (1) Have you ever read the U.S. Constitution in its entirety?
    (2) Do you own a copy?”

    I know it wasn’t aimed at me, but Yes to both questions. I also listen to the Cato daily podcast, them being great defenders of your constitution (my copy is from them), and I’m currently reading 1776.

    I’ve also read/listened to lots of serious argument on both sides of the debate and I’m not convinced either way. However I do wonder if there weren’t so many legal weapons whether there’d so many illegal weapons.

  67. im – “Do you genuinely believe that the gun homicide rate in the US is not correlated to the lax laws on gun ownership?”

    Since Obama has come to power gun ownership has expanded by something like 57%. Homicides have dropped by just under 50. So yes I genuinely believe that homicide rates have nothing to do with gun ownership. They are not even particularly well correlated. High gun owning states tend to have lower homicide rates than low gun owning states.

    Which is to simply say that Democrat voters have a problem with gun crime and Republicans do not. Those Democrat voters are more likely to be urban, the Republicans rural. We need Democrat Voter control, not gun control.

  68. ‘It just isn’t needed anymore.’

    When Obama was elected, gun sales skyrocketed because of things he said. The opportunity for government oppression of American citizens is greater today than it has been since that creep Lincoln was president.

  69. ‘Do you genuinely believe that the gun homicide rate in the US is not correlated to the lax laws on gun ownership?’

    Homicide rates are inversely proportional to “lax” gun laws. I.e., locations with the toughest gun laws have the greatest homicide rates. See: Chicago.

    You are clueless, im, but unafraid to show it to the world.

    U.S. homicide rates, specifically, “Homicide by firearms discharge,” occurs 6000 times a year among black men, 6.5% of the population. Only 5000 times a year among all the rest, 288,000,000 people.

  70. @im

    It’s not just the Second Amendment, the Founders contemplated private armies and navies. Read the part of the main Constitution giving Congress the right to issue letters of marque and reprisal and captures on land and sea. Privately owned artillery were part of the War of Independence.

    Anyway, after watching a putative second world country fall into chaos and dictatorship in Venezuela, I would be loathe to give up my arms as Antifa seems to be agitating for the same process here.

  71. im –

    Once again we find you refusing to answer a simple question.

    And once again, given the context of this thread, it appears your refusal to answer that question suggests that you are far more interested in exerting power and control over others than preventing the “death of innocents”.

    Based on your posts here, I think it reasonable to assume that you were not pounding on your keyboard about the “death of innocents” on September 30. I suspect that on that day another bright, shiny object in the field of politics held your attention. I further suspect that within the next few days another bright, shiny object will appear on the political landscape and gun control will be forgotten until the next tragedy arises.

    You are fundamentally unserious, and the fact that you had neither the intellectual wherewithal or moral courage to reject the superficially reasonable (or outrageous, depending on your point of view) proposal I put forth proves it.

    Run along, your next bright, shiny object will appear any moment now.

  72. Dennis,

    Ok – in answer to your quesiton, the answer is no, I can’t support your idea because you put a proposed solution out, which you state would work but you offer zero supporting evidence other than saying look at the statistics.

    If you read the stats, sure you see that Afro-Americans are disproportinately respresented in offenders in gun crime/homicide. But you then assume that causality of this is because they are Afro-American, because you propose that they should be banned from owning guns.

    How do you get to that conclusion? How do you control for higher poverty rates for Afro-Americans

    And above that, you actually think it would work.

    You are no better than someone arguing for gun control saying there are more guns in America, there is a higher homicide rate, therefore guns should be banned, end of discussion.

    Becasue you are cherry picking your own facts to fit your agenda.

    You attack others claims/opinions and tell them that they need to back up what they say with full evidence but when you claim something yourself you refuse to back it up.

    Where I come from, we call that being a hypocritical prick.

  73. ‘Putting the 2nd into context – It was written in 1791 following the war of independence. Guns were far less sophisticated that they are now and capapable of far less damage. The risk of the government oppressing its people was far greater then.

    ‘It just isn’t needed anymore.’

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/10/05/nancy-sinatra-murderous-nra-members-face-firing-squad/

    Then there are government employees recommending “Death penalty for global warming deniers.”

    Government oppression is a far greater risk today also because of technology. A North Carolina farmer in 1791 was far too remote for government to even know of his existence.

    Additionally, until the War Against Southern Indepence, Federalism was alive and well. Feds would not go out into the country, nor would they have survived had they tried.

    In 1791, civilians had the SAME guns as the military. Up to the WASI, they had the same. After it, civilian guns were SUPERIOR to military arms. This lasted until 1936. When the military caught up to the civilian market. Note “caught up,” not surpassed. Ipso facto, for most of U.S. history, civilian arms were equal to or superior to military arms. The idea that civilian arms must be inferior to military arms is a recent invention.

  74. ‘The United States Army knows how dangerous these weapons are and controls their possession and use accordingly. It’s time the rest of the country followed the military’s example.’

    This is Bill Clinton’s doing. He was afraid to be on bases with armed people.

    The result is most U.S. domestic military bases could be seized by 50 armed men (what they would do with them afterwards is unknown). I don’t know how many military bases there are in the U.S., but say there are 100. Then 5,000 is all it would take to take control of the U.S. military.

    Don’t think the Mullahs haven’t figured this out.

    ‘It just isn’t needed anymore.’

    As anticipated by the framers of the Second Amendment, it will fall upon the citizenry to defend the nation.

  75. ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

    The framers recognized that the people had the right to keep and bear arms. It already existed; the right was not ‘created’ by the Second Amendment.

    It states that that existing right shall not be infringed. Why? Why is that important? Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

    Who is “the people?” All citizens. See Federalist #28 and #29.

    My reading of them suggests the government should provide arms to all citizens.

  76. Ok – in answer to your quesiton, the answer is no, I can’t support your idea because you put a proposed solution out, which you state would work but you offer zero supporting evidence other than saying look at the statistics.

    Given that you seem to be passionate about the need to very strict gun control, I’d just assumed you’ve spent the time and effort to review the easily accessible statistics made available by the Justice Dept., as well as other federal agencies. If you aren’t familiar with even the most basic of the statistical facts related to the issue, then we end up doubling back to another issue: Whether you’re serious enough to have done any research to validate your opinion.

    If you read the stats, sure you see that Afro-Americans are disproportinately respresented in offenders in gun crime/homicide. But you then assume that causality of this is because they are Afro-American, because you propose that they should be banned from owning guns.

    Oh, so you are familiar with the stats after all.

    Here you are either very confused or deliberately disingenuous. I did not address causality because I do not assume causality. I leave that to the Sociology majors. I simply pinpointed the demographic contributing the most to gun violence. That demographic was pinpointed because the facts demonstrate that’s where the problem is, not because the demographic is what it is.

    How do you get to that conclusion? How do you control for higher poverty rates for Afro-Americans.

    Interesting. Are you now suggesting there is a causal link between gun violence and poverty rates? Why haven’t you brought this up before? If you are, more than anything, interested in preventing the “death of innocents”, why didn’t you suggest (way back when) that reducing poverty would be helpful, if not essential, component in reducing gun violence. Again, this simply suggests you are more interested in exerting power and control than in addressing the problem at hand.

    And above that, you actually think it would work.

    Go back and read my post. At no time do I state, or even imply, that the proposal was something I support. It was a simple test of logic. I wanted to see if you had the courage of your professed convictions, and I got my answer… Not from your “no” here, but from the attempt to dodge giving an answer in your first post in response to me. You didn’t say you opposed it, and you didn’t say it was racist, and you didn’t say it would be impossible to implement – both of which are obvious – you just dodged the question altogether. When faced with a glimpse of the logical – if extreme – consequences of what you are advocating, you fell to floor and assumed the fetal position. That pretty says it all.

  77. Oh, and by the way, my “test of logic” derives from something a man named Niemöller once wrote:

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.
    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    I’m pretty sure you won’t understand the linkage, but I thought I’d post it for you anyway.

  78. I went back and read your post. You wrote;

    “I can offer a solution to gun violence in ‘Merica that will lower the gun violence here to the same level as most European nations who presently have far more stringent gun control than we do……..
    …..I can provide a factual basis to support why it would be reasonable to believe in the effectiveness of the solution…….
    ……The proposal is this: Make it illegal for African-Americans to possess or own any type of firearm.”

    How can that not be implying the proposal is something you support. if you think it can be effective then why wouldn’t you support it? And what’s the point of me answering the question if you are not willing to back it up. Are you saying that you can’t provide a factual basis for it to be reasonable to assume its effectiveness.

    “That demographic was pinpointed because the facts demonstrate that’s where the problem is, not because the demographic is what it is.”

    That’s where the problem is at its worst. It does not mean that gun related homicide commited by people of other races/ethnicities is not an issue either.

    You leave causality to sociology majors, but you conclude that banning African Americans from owning firearms. That’s just lazy. Poverty is always going to have a positive correlation with violent crime/homicide. Its human nature to take more risks if you are more desperate and have less to lose.

    Yes, I get your logic test. If I dont stand up for gun rights its a slippery slope until I get oppresed myself and there is no one to protect me.

    You have a beyond very cynical view of the world. Maybe becuase you are not a very nice person yourself, you have not capacity that there are people in the world who try to do good. Not every politician is a massive power hungry cunt who wants to control you. You should stop watching so much dystopian science fiction and

  79. Maybe becuase you are not a very nice person yourself, you have not capacity that there are people in the world who try to do good. Not every politician is a massive power hungry cunt who wants to control you. You should stop watching so much dystopian science fiction and

    You seem a bit rattled.

    Anyway, whether I am or am not a very nice person is irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that I have an understanding of history… and especially the dismal history of many of those who thought they were trying “to do good”. Just about every horror of the 20th century can be traced to those who thought they knew how “to do good” better than anyone else. And while it is true that not every politician is a “power hunger cunt”, what we’ve also learned from history is that it often only takes one…

  80. “The United States Army knows how dangerous these weapons are and controls their possession and use accordingly. It’s time the rest of the country followed the military’s example. One mass killing after another has proven that gas operated weapons are way too dangerous for civilians to own and use. Ban them.”

    I don’t get this – if ‘gas operated’ (I suspect that doesn’t mean what the writer thinks it means) are too dangerous for civilians to own, then why do our governments keep giving them to civilians all over the world?

  81. “Rate of fire isn’t a factor in either hunting”

    It absolutely in many types of hunting. Sure, there’s the ideal ‘one-shot, one deer’ hunting. Then there’s hunting coyotes or doves where being able to get several rapid shots off in succession are preferred.

    Oh, and then there’s the whole ‘shooting at the soldiers oppressing you’ bit. Rapid-fire is pretty nice there too.

  82. “Interested
    October 5, 2017 at 1:05 pm
    In the UK, it is not possible to break into a gun shop or a house and tool up, because there are no gun shops, and no houses with guns in them.”

    You’re right, they can’t. So they get them from illegal firearms factories.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1040000/Illegal-gun-factory-weapons-used-Britains-crimes.html

    Like the IRA did. Or people in the Phillipines do. Or the people in Mexico do.

    People forget that firearms are a very mature technology *and* that manufacturing tech is now cheap and portable enough that an individual can own a CNC mill. No new-fangled ‘3d printing’ needed. You can start up a gunshop in your garage and churn out very respectable copies of ‘real’ guns – not zipguns or crap that will explode in your face but fully functional, safe-to-operate – select-fire weapons.

  83. “im
    October 5, 2017 at 2:10 pm

    The 2nd was intended to ensure that citizens could protect themselves against the state in the same way they protected themselves against British rule. It just isn’t needed anymore.”

    This has to be a joke right? Because all governments are nice and benevolent – until they’re not anymore. Sure, we don’t need guns to use against the government *right now* – but you never know what tomorrow brings.

    That’s in addition to the fact that the very existence of these guns helps *prevent* ever needing to use them (ideally).

    There are MULTIPLE instances throughout US history where the armed populace helped prevent government oppression.

    Try reading about the Fugitive Slave Acts.

  84. The problem is that if someone posts something you disagree with you instantly assume they are an idiot and challenge them to provide sufficient supporting evidence, But when challenged yourself you do not play by your own rules.

    You said that you didn’t even implicitly state that you supported your proposition, but when I challenged you on you have ignored it. Yet when you asked me a question which I didn’t directly answered (but subsequently did) you shit you pants and start making assumptions/conclusions about me.

    Based on the way you respond, and the opinions you have, it suggests that you were either bullied (having a Monty Python handle increases the likelihood of this) or molested when you were younger and therefore, naturally, you have predisposition to reject anything to do with power/authority/control. You automatically assume that I want control over people because I suggest tighter control over guns.

    It is relevant that you are not a very nice person. You have zero ability to empathise with others and understand that others can be nice (perhaps you are aspergic to a degree?). So your view of government will always be biased to thinking that they are out to get you. Again this is probably due to previous negative experiences that you have had.

    On other points;

    “What is relevant is that I have an understanding of history”

    So its ok for you to say you understand history and others should to take it as fact? How can you claim that without stating why, but still challenge others?

    “Just about every horror of the 20th century can be traced to those who thought they knew how “to do good” better than anyone else.”

    Can you provide a factual basis to support that i.e. prove that the majority of Hitler, Stalin, Pot, Guevara et al actually thought they were doing good, even at that start of their political careers. “Doing good” is going to be subjective here so can understand why this will be difficult.

    “And while it is true that not every politician is a “power hunger cunt”, what we’ve also learned from history is that it often only takes one…”

    I agree with you on that, and as much as I dislike you, I’ll stand toe to toe with people like you to stop Corbyn getting in. If .you had the ability to be a little more empathetic then you may find others willing to agree (enough to make a difference, rather than those on your idealogical echo chamber here). Shouting Venezuela every time someone supports him is just not going to work to get those who are the beyond saving Left onboard against him. Its just like the Left shouting racist, sexist, prejudice at any suggestion from the Right that may sound aesthetically unappealing but is actually based in fact.

    TBH – I don’t really give a shit if American’s want to have an increased risk of being shot. If that is how they want to run their country, democratically (as it is), then its not for me to argue with. I thought that on a free-market economics blog, by actually analysing (admittedly at a high level) a free-market in guns in the USA and the internal/external costs/benefits it has, it would be readily accepted that its just ridiculous to have what is essentially a free market in guns in the USA.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.