Hmmm. Hard to know where to start with the irony of The Guardian publishing a piece

[Peter]

whining about discussion of the issues being shut down in the wake of a mass killing. :snakehead:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ng-gun-control

This from the home of such classic apologist articles as 'Don't look back in anger', 'We must carry on as normal', 'It's the victims of the forthcoming anti-muslim backlash we should really be worrying about' and, of course 'Very sad, but we basically deserve it because Iraq/Afghanistan/Israel/Empire/Thatcher (delete as appropriate)'.

Jaw-dropping hypocrisy.

Its a house with many rooms, b. There is staggering idiocy on all sides when it comes to gun control.

[Burney]

Its a house with many rooms, b. There is staggering idiocy on all sides when it comes to gun control.

It's a house full of ****s is what it is, p.

The really staggering idiocy on gun control in America is to imagine it's still possible. That horse has not merely bolted, it fúcked off decades ago and lived a long, happy and fulfilling new life before eventually dying at a ripe old age.

[Peter]

It's a house full of ****s is what it is, p.

The really staggering idiocy on gun control in America is to imagine it's still possible. That horse has not merely bolted, it fúcked off decades ago and lived a long, happy and fulfilling new life before eventually dying at a ripe old age.

Yes and no. Yes if you are looking to ensure that nobody owns a gun. There are plenty of other restrictions one could consider to try and minimise the impact. For instance, at a stroke you could remove the right to carry a concealed weapon, or indeed to carry any weapon. By all means have a gun but leave it at home.

You can also restrict the guns people buy.

I always find it rather funny when the gun lobby say that making something illegal doesnt stop people doing it. What a logic that is!

[Burney]

Yes and no. Yes if you are looking to ensure that nobody owns a gun. There are plenty of other restrictions one could consider to try and minimise the impact. For instance, at a stroke you could remove the right to carry a concealed weapon, or indeed to carry any weapon. By all means have a gun but leave it at home.

You can also restrict the guns people buy.

I always find it rather funny when the gun lobby say that making something illegal doesnt stop people doing it. What a logic that is!

Yes, but what do you do about all the guns that are going to continue to be in people's hands? Because if you think people will simply hand them back (assuming you can get past the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution - which you can't) you're wrong.

You then have the prospect of a country absolutely packed with illegal guns and a large part of the otherwise law-abiding population criminalised overnight.

[Peter]

Yes, but what do you do about all the guns that are going to continue to be in people's hands? Because if you think people will simply hand them back (assuming you can get past the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution - which you can't) you're wrong.

You then have the prospect of a country absolutely packed with illegal guns and a large part of the otherwise law-abiding population criminalised overnight.

You cant take the guns but you can make it illegal to carry them.

[Ash]

You cant take the guns but you can make it illegal to carry them.

First 9 months of 2017:
-11,572 gun deaths
-23,365 gun injuries
-271 mass shootings (more than four victims)
-1,508 unintentional shootings
-2,971 kids/teens shot

The country that believes it has the moral right to rule the world.

[Burney]

You cant take the guns but you can make it illegal to carry them.

Which will do absolutely nothing to stop someone who wants to kill large numbers of people, of course.

[Peter]

Which will do absolutely nothing to stop someone who wants to kill large numbers of people, of course.

Of course not. Just as making drugs illegal doesnt stop people taking them; just as making murder illegal doesnt stop it happening.

It would, however, mean the individual is breaking the law the moment he leaves the house with the weapons. It would also prevent many of the shootings that are accidental or circumstantial and that arise simply because people have guns on them when an incident occurs.

In the broader sense, it means people would not be routinely walking round with concealed weapons. I think that would be a good thing.