NRA gives FCC boss Ajit Pai a gun as reward for killing net neutrality. Yeah, an actual gun Ajit Pai – chairman of America's broadband watchdog, the FCC – is the proud new owner of a handmade Kentucky long gun from the US National Rifle Association (NRA) – thanks to his brave stance in favor of lining the pockets of billion-dollar telcos. The watchdog boss said he was surprised to receive the Charlton Heston Courage …
There is nothing about the NRA anymore that has to do with hunters. It is about political control of a democratic (mainly) government. The NRA has been shown to be a conduit between the russians and the US congress/lobbyists.
Let's ban all firearms until we have a rational policy. Let's take a lesson from other countries that are far more intelligent and civilized than mine.
There is no doubt that Ajit Pai is clueless on net neutrality and wrong to have killed it. That being said we have a large audience of NRA and gun haters that could use a lot more education. Some of the worst gun tragedies in history have occurred in countries with the most stringent gun laws. No country outlaws autos because a small segment of society drives DUI ending up killing innocent people. In fact more people die or are seriously injured annually from auto accidents then from all the gun incident deaths worldwide. Banning autos or guns isn't going to stop evil people.
Failing to address the real issue which is mentally unstable and evil people, will allow future tragedies to occur. Few governments want to admit that they are helpless to protect the populous from "lone wolf" killers, gangs and terrorists, but it is a reality. If you want to reduce these terrible tragedies learn how to protect yourself from evil in our world. There is no legislation that will stop these incidents.
Saying that autos kills more whilst being true does not meant that nothing can or isn't done about improving the safety of autos. New legislation is brought in all the time to improve them and reduce accidents. There's also the fact that very few people do bad things with cars... as opposed to poorly regulated firearms that seem to have nutters doing things with them several times a week.
Also in more sane countries, we also do things like put strict testing requirements on both cars and people to ensure that they're capable of handing over a ton of metal traveling at speed.
(And before you point out about the recent spate of vehicles driven into crowds alot of actions have been taken to reduce the actions or damage from such actions, such as putting reinforced gates around city centres, large plant pots designed to act as barriers to vehicles, armed responce units positioned in descret locations near potential attack areas... actual action rather than thoughts and prayers)
> very few people do bad things with cars
The Parkland School Massacre killed 17 people. 109 were killed by in/by cars that same day.
That’s 5 Parkland massacres every day.
Since 1968, 1,530,000 Americans have been killed by guns.
Since 1968, 2,130,000 Americans have been killed by/in cars
We need to ban cars.
The Parkland School Massacre killed 17 people. 109 were killed by in/by cars that same day.
I see you are taking great care not to compare like with like, so let me help you. On an average day in the USA, 90-100 people are killed by guns. A few are accidents, some are suicides, the vast majority are murders. Now, you tell me: what are the proportions for those killed in or by cars?
The silence will be deafening.
"On an average day in the USA, 90-100 people are killed by guns. A few are accidents, some are suicides, the vast majority are murders. "
Fact check: The U.S. Department of Justice reports that approximately 60% of all adult firearm deaths are suicides.
Murders are only about a third of the death rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
"A few are accidents, some are suicides, the vast majority are murders"
not true. the vast majority are SUICIDES:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html
"More than 60 percent of people in this country who die from guns die by suicide"
And that is the NY Times, and not Fox News, though Hannity has been talking about this kind of thing all week.
FYI - it's my understanding that murder statistics with KNIVES are several times that of guns (3 or 4 times I think), and even MORE murders are with BARE HANDS! (or feet, part of the same statistic).
So... anti-gun people, get your FACTS STRAIGHT before you go off on your emotion-filled manipulative tirade against SELF-DEFENSE, simply because YOU have issues with guns in the hands of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS for the purpose of DEFENDING THEMSELVES. You can't have a cop everywhere to protect everyone against "the bad guys". And even if you do, SOME of those cops may even cower behind cover until the bullets stop flying! (this REALLY happened a week ago, a sherrif's deputy hid for 4 of the 6 minutes' worth of shooting, instead of putting his life on the line to save at least SOME of the students that were shot by the (allegedly) psychopathic school shooter - firing in the air would've at least distracted the perpetrator and caused him to focus on YOU instead, or maybe hide, or whatever, ANYTHING to disrupt his 'fish in a barrel' shooting spree)
In any case, if you want PROTECTION, it's gotta by SELF protection! You can't trust law enforcement, they can't be everywhere, and if you can protect YOURSELF, you're better off.
A few are accidents, some are suicides, the vast majority are murders.
Citation required sir.
Whilst not wading into the actual debate on regulation, culture, etc, 55-60% of US Firearm Deaths are Suicides, deflating your claim that the "vast majority" are murders. It's not even a majority.
We need to ban cars.
Let's continue this line of argument.
Let's compare an American driving test versus a German driving test and how Americans drive versus Germans. Let's compare an American DMV car roadworthiness test versus test in any Western European country. Then compare the death rates on the Autobahn versus death rates on American roads.
I think the results are pretty obvious - American traffic code and driver testing and as a consequence driving skills suck bricks sidewize through a thin straw and need to be toughened to REDUCE the number of casualties on American roads.
Continuing the same argument. It is the best argument for licensing gun ownership and mandatory testing of all gun owners prior to issuing a license. Ditto for the guns themselves. It is proven that rigorous testing and licensing only the ones who can handle correctly a piece of lethal machinery reduces deaths. Comparing American versus German roads proves it. Let's apply it to guns, shall we?
there is the little issue, that cars generate (facilitate) a good fraction of GDP by transporting persons and goods to the place where they are needed. Guns seem to have a somewhat smaller economic impact -- except in those exceptional cases of war, where the GDP tends to take the bullet (so to speak).
@Gene Cash:"The Parkland School Massacre killed 17 people. 109 were killed by in/by cars that same day.
That’s 5 Parkland massacres every day.
Since 1968, 1,530,000 Americans have been killed by guns.
Since 1968, 2,130,000 Americans have been killed by/in cars
We need to ban cars."
1. Americans can't drive for shit. Really. Drive around the block without killing somebody and you've got your licence.
2. Most states have no roadworthiness inspection. Americans can drive dangerously defective cars which would be sent to the crusher in Europe.
3. Car deaths v. Gun deaths is false equivalence. I would be equally unimpressed if you invoked Godwin's Law and blamed Hitler. You fail. Goodbye.
"1. Americans can't drive for shit. Really. Drive around the block without killing somebody and you've got your licence."
ISTR that in some states, cornering isn't part of the test. Drive forward x yards. Reverse x yards. Test completed and passed.
Cars (And any motorised vehicle for that matter) is not designed with the primary intent of killing people or animals.
Guns are designed to kill things.
Other societies in the world have largly done away with the premise 'everyone has the right to own a gun'.
I've shot .22 rifles (target shooting on a range) and 12-Bore shotguns (clay's) yet have never felt the need to own a gun or want to carry one with me where I go in public. I'm sure that most of the people in my country are of similar minds. IMHO, it is a sign of a mature civilisation if they can do without the need to carry weapons at all times.
I have never felt that the USA is a mature civilisation and is full of insecurities. At the risk of being even more controversial, the fact that many millions of Americans think that the whole world wants to kill each and every one of them does not help in their global outlook.
Can’t resist the bait.
I’m not anti gun. In fact, I believe gun control in the sense of controlling guns is a smart idea. I don’t own a gun but I do enjoy visiting a shooting range to try and put holes in paper in a controlled environment... just as I like playing darts or billiards.
I am a poor marksman and who be a poor gun owner. I don’t believe a person like me, with my marksmanship or training should have a gun outside of a controlled environment. I certainly would not invest properly in storage of a firearm or additional safety measures that should be mandatory.
I own a car, for which I studied and have to prove regularly that I’m fit to operate. I pay insurance to ensure that when (not if) I eventually make a mistake, there is a system in place to mitigate the problems associated with my mistakes. I am forced to buy new cars with new safety equipment every few years or I am penalized by the state for operating an unsafe device that places myself, my passengers and those around me at greater risk. My vehicle is inspected regularly by professionals with advanced diagnostic equipment to ensure my vehicle is within reasonable parameters.
If I fail physical or mental diagnostics, my license to operate a vehicle is revoked until such time as I can correct this. If I show carelessness or repeated inability to operate my vehicle, my license is suspended. I am financially penalized for owning quantities of vehicles as well. If I am obsessed with said vehicles, I can choose to (at great personal expense) own as many as I can afford.
It is by no means unreasonable that guns should be controlled in such a manor. Like cars, they are tools that demand a great deal of respect and understanding. People who demonstrate greater skills (truck drivers) can operate vehicles of greater capacity. Consider that guy who rents a trailer to move some stuff on his car and needs 90 tries to back it into his driveway while impeding traffic.
So by your argument, instead of banning guns and cars, would it not be more reasonable to suggest that the inexperienced gun owner should be limited to a pea shooter with little more than a few weeks education and testing, but that to own and operate an AR-15 or bazooka one should require the equivalent of a helicopter pilot’s license?
That said, I would be sad to see a blanket ban on guns like the AR-15 as they are quite fun at the range. But without military training, regular operator evaluations, insurance and safety control inspections of the equipment, they should never leave the range.
Big difference, though. Cars aren't protected by the Constitution. Guns are because they're the last resort. And before you say the military, ask them to explain Vietnam, Somalia, and so on. Guns have been seized in the past, too. Ask Louisiana gun owners following Katrina. Plus there's the whole "seconds count, minutes away" problem.
Cars are not designed and built to kill. Weapons are. The advantages of cars in allowing for far greater mobility and good transportations offset their risk to kill because of their mass and speed. They are heavily regulated, and more and more efforts are made to make the safer and safer. And you can't enter in buildings with a car.
Anyway, the best car to kill people, the SUV, was not surprisingly created in the US. It looks they have severe problems about their manliness, and need to compensate.
It's also interesting that in the US the government goes mad if diesel engines pollute beyond rules, but is perfectly OK when weapons are used to kill children.
In the civilised world we have.
Seatbelts, crumple zones, licencing, and the death rate is not that bad for an activity so many people carry out.
Now try the following.
Time to go to work. I take my car, you take your gun.
I drive there and if I see any mad gun men I will squash them.
Now do you sit on the gun and go nowhere or try to hijack a car?
Sitting, get nowhere.
Hijacking, get shot by firearms squad.
50% of the 40,000 deaths on the roads of America are due to drugs and alcohol. In my book, that is not a "very few" number of people. In addition, almost all crime involves the use of a private automobile at some point. Obviously, these will not be eliminated, but you're more than a bit myopic in your statistics. I do not think the NRA should be involved in "Net Neutrality", that is not their charter. However, when 3 times as many people are killed with baseball bats, hammers, etc. as are killed with long guns, and a similar number are killed with people's bare hands, your hatred of the NRA is a bit over the top.
"However, when 3 times as many people are killed with baseball bats, hammers, etc. as are killed with long guns, and a similar number are killed with people's bare hands, your hatred of the NRA is a bit over the top."
That's a good point to bring to the discussion, but it's worth bearing in mind that all those other items (except maybe certain classes of knives), have a genuine and primary non-lethal use. I very much doubt that most gun owners bought them primarily for hunting and target shooting and that most have never, ever drawn them in anger for self-defence.
Saying that autos kills more whilst being true does not meant that nothing can or isn't done about improving the safety of autos
Let alone what their purpose is.
The main function of cars is transportation.
The main function of guns is killing animals and people.
The NRA, if I recall, has about 5 million members. That's about 1.5% of the american population. How is it that such a small number has such absurd power?
No peaceful country in the world stands by and let’s mass shootings occur month after month but the US. The ‘we need more good guys with guns’ argument was shown up as the schickster lie it is at the latest tragedy where it now appeared 4 trained law enforcement officers did not feel able to rake on a shooter with an AR15 rifle. Quite how a teacher with a concealed carry handgun is expected to do more bemuses me.
The ‘we need more good guys with guns’ argument was shown up as the schickster lie
It is the most idiotic argument on a different level. Specifically for schools. You cannot make a teacher shoot their own pupil. 99.9% of them will try to talk the person down not terminate him. The 0.1% that will actually shoot are unfit for the profession in the first place and should have never ended up facing a classroom.
Arming teachers instead of stopping assailants creates a situation where the most likely assailant (a current or former student) is supplied free spare guns and ammo. Every school becomes Castle Volfenstein on the "I'm too young to die" difficulty level.
No doubt a massacre or two at a hospital will prompt Trump to say that Doctors should be armed!
Following the Trump principle, they could save a fortune by getting rid of the secret service guys who protect him on his golf outings etc. and just give him a gun. Lots of money saved, and he might accidentally shoot himself. Win-win.
" it now appeared 4 trained law enforcement officers did not feel able to rake on a shooter with an AR15 rifle. Quite how a teacher with a concealed carry handgun is expected to do more bemuses me."
__I__ would have done it, WITHOUT hesitation, if for no other reason, for the LULZ. "A shooter - IT'S MY CHANCE!!!"
And, your (condescending?) attitude towards teachers disturbs me.
A teacher who is former military, or who may even be a volunteer cop or deputy, and has gone through police and/or military firearms training, would be MORE than capable. And a teacher with some NRA training would be ok, too. Keep in mind, NOT EVERYONE is a simpering COWARD. A number of us are into martial arts, and wouldn't hesitate to defend ourselves or another human being from an EVIL PERPETRATOR. And consider how one of the PE coaches acted as a HUMAN SHIELD (apparently tossing students through open doorways, etc.) and died a hero, saving the lives of as many students as he could. If he'd had a PISTOL, I bet he would have SHOT THE PERP! And, THAT is what _I_ am talking about! It's the kind of bravery that stops a criminal from causing a MASSACRE.
Those 4 cops you mentioned should be *FIRED*. One of them quit on his own.
I think nothing would make me happier, if I had a concealed carry permit, than being able to USE MY WEAPON to defend against something like that. "This is what I've TRAINED for, PRACTICED for, endured the rectal exam to get my concealed-carry permit for! MY CHANCE! W00T!"
And there are enough people like ME in the USA that there's no shortage of volunteers who would say the same *KINDS* of things, and actually *MEAN* it.
(and yes, I'm ex-military, and I know how to shoot).
Now consider this: if schools weren't labeled as "gun free zones", would the school shooter STILL have tried this? because, if it's "gun free" then ONLY a criminal will have one...
__I__ would have done it, WITHOUT hesitation, if for no other reason, for the LULZ. "A shooter - IT'S MY CHANCE!!!"
One of the reasons why you can never be and should never be a teacher.
You do not go into a classroom to wage war. If you do, the kids will get you hospitalized in no time (if you are not fired for being unable to control the class before that).
I have been on both the giving side (getting 2 teachers fired and one hospitalized) and receiving side - teaching classes so I know this one first hand. The moment you even think about solving things by extreme measures - you have lost it. You are either looking at a pink slip or an ulcer. Sometimes both.
This is why teachers and guns do not mix. To survive in the classroom, especially in high school for a decade you need to be able to play the peacemaker. As a result, no matter how much gun training are they given to go with the guns they will try to talk the armed pupil down, not shoot them.
By the way - your attitude is an example of what is wrong with USA as a country. The result of having your attitude leads to sh*t like this:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/12/stephen-mader-west-virginia-police-officer-settles-lawsuit
Person with real life and death experience who has seen the front line in Afghanistan talks the guy down. Two mental idiots come and shoot over his head to "terminate the suspect". Bombastic Bob style. If that is not a case which shows the idiocy of the "gimme a gun" attitude, dunno what is.
"Keep in mind, NOT EVERYONE is a simpering COWARD."
Before you start throwing around terms like "simpering coward", you might want to look up "fight or flight response". It seems to be the way some peoples brains are wired and reversing it from flight to fight or vice versa can take some very serious effort and training. The military are well aware of this.
Bob,
Serious question here... have you ever fired a weapon "in anger"? Military style anger... at an enemy who's out to kill you? Yes, shooting back is a reaction but it's nothing to gloat over, it something one takes (usually) very seriously without yelling and screaming it at the whole world. You're post makes me think of a 10 year old playing cowboys and Indians. Being involved in a gun battle is very sobering indeed and not recommended because "Whoop!!!!".
Ja, we get it. You are just DYING for an excuse, any kind of excuse, to kill someone.
People like you, who positively salivate at the thought of being able to use their beloved gun to off someone, shouldn't be allowed to own one.
Move to Utah and volunteer for the firing squad - Please!
Mac (weapons trained)
it now appeared 4 trained law enforcement officers did not feel able to rake on a shooter with an AR15 rifle.
I don't believe that's what happened at all. I think it much, much more likely that the law enforcement officers let it happen to use it as fuel for their anti-gun rhetoric. I base that on the fact that they were warned about this guy multiple times and did nothing. They knew he was unstable and had guns and did nothing. They knew he'd threatened this and did nothing. They watched him enter the building and heard the gunshots and did nothing. And then they started kept talking about how we need more gun control.
That, to me, does not sound like people who were afraid to do their job. It sounds to me like men with an agenda.
This post has been deleted by its author
Name them, Mr (or Ms) AC.
Because we can plenty of them that have taken place in the US.
The "He's a lone loon" argument is a cop out. Let me suggest it has more to do with the racial and economic profile of who gets shot and whose a member of the NRA than anything.
Funny - I have been driving roundabouts for over 30 years here in the US. Please do not comment on what you do not know - sick of clueless people. I can tell you so many stories of stupid brits I have interacted with just over the phone much less worked with using my Work Visa. Get it through your head ALL countries have plenty of STUPID people.
Here is just one of many links I can come up with
https://www.inverse.com/article/34337-carmel-indiana-might-forever-be-america-s-roundabout-kingdom
the British government does not allow their driving licences to be exchanged for British ones. I did not know this.
It is mostly correct. American license counts as a form of "provisional" license. You do not need adult supervision like with the normal provisional license, but you are allowed to drive with it only for a year. After that you have to sit the test.
There were also some caveats regarding automatic vs manual - I think that the provisional condition is only valid for automatic cars too.
It's been awhile since I've done my driving exam so my memory is a bit fuzzy on this one.
"You do not need adult supervision like with the normal provisional license, but you are allowed to drive with it only for a year. After that you have to sit the test."
That one year applies to most if not all non-UK driving licences, including other EU citizens. Watch any of the fly on the wall police documentaries and you'll regularly see non-UK drivers pulled and then done for no licence, no insurance (no licence by definition mean insurance is void) because they've been here for over a year.
Actually, banning cars *would* drastically reduce car-related deaths, both accidents and homicides. The claim that "banning autos or guns won't stop evil people" is ludicrous; if you ban cars, car accidents won't disappear, but they *will* plummet to nearly zero and I can't imagine the amount of willful obtusity it would take to dispute that.
The difference between cars and guns is that cars have extreme usefulness besides killing people, so much so that it outweighs quite a lot of accidents. It's difficult to make the same claim about guns.
"There is no doubt that Ajit Pai is clueless on net neutrality and wrong to have killed it."
I have _LOTS_ of doubt, about that statement in particular. Ajit Pai de-regulated by killing off something that the FCC shouldn't have been trying to regulate in the FIRST place.
And stop calling those regulations "net neutrality" please. It's such a "wrong descriptive" name. 'Net Neutrality' makes it SOUND like it protects people. The truth is, it restricts what services you can get, by ensuring that EVERYBODY is EQUALLY "mediocre", and NOBODY can pay extra for a 'fast lane'.
That's right. We'll all just FLY COACH. On 'Spirit Air'. No more 1st class, no more business class, just "cram 'em all into a can" coach. This analogy is similar to how so-called "net neutrality" is implemented.
@ bombastic bob
Re: > and NOBODY can pay extra for a 'fast lane'.
and: > That's right. We'll all just FLY COACH.
Nobody is stopping you from buying your own T1 or T3 line. Go right ahead. Net Neutrality isn't stopping you.
Please go educate yourself about what Net Neutrality really is.
Bombastic is particularly apt, IMO.
"The truth is, it restricts what services you can get, by ensuring that EVERYBODY is EQUALLY "mediocre", and NOBODY can pay extra for a 'fast lane'."
If you had an actual capitalist economy with actual competition instead of actual or near monopolies of ISPs, then the differentiating fact between competing ISPs would be price and speed. The current situation is that each ISP is or almost is a monopoly in each area in much of the USA and is milking the customers for every extra dollar they can get without improving service. What benefit does the customer get if Amazon Prime can afford to pay for faster content delivery at the expense of slower Netflix? There's little to no cross-over of content. Yo pay for your ISP, you pay for Amazon Prime, then you pay your ISP a surcgarge to AMazon Prime usable. Meanwhile, Netflix dies because your connection is restricted and your ISP doesn't offer you the option to pay extra to be able to use it properly.
@Bombastic Bob: "And stop calling those regulations "net neutrality" please. It's such a "wrong descriptive" name. 'Net Neutrality' makes it SOUND like it protects people. The truth is, it restricts what services you can get, by ensuring that EVERYBODY is EQUALLY "mediocre", and NOBODY can pay extra for a 'fast lane'.
That's right. We'll all just FLY COACH. On 'Spirit Air'. No more 1st class, no more business class, just "cram 'em all into a can" coach. This analogy is similar to how so-called "net neutrality" is implemented."
Really there should be first-class water, pure and refreshing; second-class water, don't look too closely at the reservoirs; and poor-people water, taken from cholera & rat-dropping pumps, to make sure there's no mediocre unamerican socialist lack of choice through money forcing a drab water equality of everyone at the same level.
This post has been deleted by its author
@Oliver Jones:"Gun control is required before Communism can take power..."
Hot take, bro.
If gun control is a precursor of communism, how come I can count the number of communist states on one hand? China, Cuba, Laos, Best Korea and Vietnam
The 2nd amendment is bullshit anyway.
It might have been cool 200 years ago, but a well regulated militia would never win against the combined US military today. Dream on.
And I know what you're going to say - "look at Afghanistan, look at what guerrilla fighters achieved"
The difference between guerrillas in Afghanistan and Americans is that Americans have no stomach for violence at home. Sure, they like it when it's in faraway places or on TV and in the movies, and imagine that they would be that "hero with a gun". The reality, as we saw from those cowardly cops in Parkland, is somewhat different...
This post has been deleted by its author
@Oliver Jones:"Tell that to Hitler..."
Gun nuts often use that old lie alright; that Hitler only achieved what he did because he got the citizens to give up their guns. Few people owned guns in Europe in the 1930s, including Germans.
"Whether a well-run militia could beat the US military today is actually irrelevant...
Why then do so many Americans claim they need their guns in case they need to rise up against their government? Why is the provision still in the 2nd amendment?
You were arguing earlier that gun control would usher in communism, but you never answered my question. How come there aren't more communist states?
Take off your tinfoil hat and go outside for some fresh air...
In fact, the nazi party REPEALED a lot of the Weimar republic's restrictive gun laws during their rise to power. They just made a little effort to ensure the "right" people had guns.
The 2nd amendment doesn't seem to be applied equally either. Take that bundy militia taking over a federal building and getting a slap on the wrist - now what do you think the response would be if, say, the standing rock protestors had brought weapons, considering the reaction they got from the police WITHOUT them?
Re: Hitler and guns..
Umm, if I remember my 20th century German gun laws correctly (no guarantee I did), Hitler had the MOST permissive private gun ownership laws. Under the Kaiser, there was no private gun ownership (or only the nobility, I forget off the top of my head). Post WW2 German private ownership was very restricted.
During the third reich, German citizens were allowed (IIRC, encouraged) to own guns. Not the Jews, of course, but everyone else.
Just temeber anyway that when Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland raised against Russian control, they were crushed by Russian tanks.
guerrilla works only as long as you have someone to supply you, a terrain which offers cover, and enough suicidal members., And against troops not ready to clean up support and strongholds with heavy weapons.
Hot take, bro.
Not just hot, full of shit too.
I used to live in a "communist" country where our apartment was the only one in the apartment block without an assault weapon. The guy above me had an AK47 and his service Makarov (a cop). The quiet procurement department head under me had a Dragunov.The guy under him had a whole collection of rifles including the models of Tulka which classify as an assault weapon. The guy above the cop had another AK47. And so on.
We were the exception with having no guns. The two commando class russian hydraulic harpoons using 9mm 300g arrows (the ones their special forces use) do not count. They are quiet close range weapon. One that shoots above water and punches through fairly thick steel too.
If you are wondering which "communist" country was that do a google image search for "Tracer Bullets New Year Eve Sofia". That will give you the answer. It will also give you the answer on how do I know who had what - they all opened up Arab style from the balkonies on New Years Eve.
By the way, Bulgaria was farily tame - one the most "communist" dictatorship of all - Enver Hodja's Albania had more assault weapons per capita in the hands of the population than USA has now. By far. Everyone had at least one AK47 and not just AK47. The population had heavy machine guns, RPG17s - the works. That did not prevent it from setting the model which is now followed by Kim in Korea and running it for close to 50 years.
So the idea that blanket gun ownership somehow prevents communism is complete utter ratshit. It does not even qualify to be bulshit (that is something that has some use, not just spreading disease).
If gun control is a precursor of communism, how come I can count the number of communist states on one hand? China, Cuba, Laos, Best Korea and Vietnam
You might want a six-fingered hand soonish then, as Venezuela is set to join their ranks.
(One may consider them effectively communist already)
They are so unequivalent it is laughable. Almost all gun deaths are the result of trying to deliberately kill someone - either yourself or another person/people. I don't know what the accidental discharge or "hit the wrong target" rate of deaths is, but I think we can safely assume it is much less than 10%. Even if you throw out suicides that means over a third of firearms deaths were deliberate.
How many automobile deaths can you say were deliberate, excluding suicide? Surely well under 1%, unless you want to argue that it is murder if you drive 80 mph on ice and kill someone after you inevitably wreck.
The other factor that separates automotive deaths is that if you are in a position to kill others with a car, you are almost always in a position to die as well. The only way that would be true for guns would be if the breech would randomly blow up about 30% of the time you pulled the trigger. How many people would choose a gun to kill someone with those odds? I think there would be a lot more knife crime!
The 2nd amendment is bullshit anyway.
It might have been cool 200 years ago, but a well regulated militia would never win against the combined US military today. Dream on.
Speaking of the 2nd amendment, the The Militia Act of 1792 (passed at the start of May within six months of the 2nd amendment) starts by saying "That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion"
So.... the purpose of the "militia" is defined as basically that of the National Guard, not to "resist tyranny" or any of that crap.
For all those Supreme Court justices who like to go with the "original meaning" of the constitution they are pretty damn ignorant where it comes to the second amendment.
Concerning the 2nd amendment and militias, let's separate it out to the two clauses it contains:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
This is a justification clause. It states the reason that the amendment exists and carries no provisions.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This is the operative clause, the part of the amendment which actually guarantees a right. It is not dependent upon the justification clause and does not cease its function if the justification clause ceases to be true.
In other words, any argument about a militia not being necessary any more are irrelevant. Whether we actually still need a militia or not the operative clause of the 2nd amendment is still in full legal force and, as part of the Constitution, is the highest law in the land.
Until and unless an amendment is passed limiting or repealing the second then it, and the protection of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is in full effect, as has been backed up by multiple SCOTUS decisions, the most recent of which was a mere decade ago.
Now if anyone wants to talk about such an amendment, by all means lets discuss it. But let's not waste our time trying to pass gun laws which A) won't get enforced very well if existing gun laws are any example, and B) are going to get overturned in SCOTUS on the first challenge because they violate the 2nd amendment.
If we're going to ban something in response to all the school shootings, it should be SSRIs. The vast majority of school shooters have been on one or more psychoactive drugs, almost all of which have the publicly state side effect of "suicidal ideation". And if you've got a big enough grudge, it's not all that far from suicidal ideation to acting on homicidal ideation. But of course that's next to never suggested: it's not sexy like gun control and Big Pharma isn't about to let their cash cow go without a fight.
@AC banning SSRIs
You seriously have no idea what the sam hell you are talking about. SSRIs (typically used as anti depressants and anti anxiety medication) list 10,000 side effects. Simply due to the legal horseshit that has fallen out of the bio-medical industry and the legal industry in the states. Once you understand that the statement "The vast majority of school shooters have been on one or more psychoactive drugs" has *No* basis in fact you'll find that the horse you road in on is an invisible unicorn.
In the UK in 1996 we had a school shooting in Dunblane - shortly after, private ownership of handguns was pretty much banned - the public have never been allowed to own fully- or semi-automatic weapons.
After that one, awful, event, there have been no more school shootings.
Just since 2010 in the USA, in schools there have been:- 146 separate events leaving 156 dead and 247 injured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#2010s
Absolutely tragic.
There is nothing about the NRA anymore that has to do with hunters.
Given that 90+% of its members are hunters, I would have to disagree with you here.
The NRA has been shown to be a conduit between the russians and the US congress/lobbyists.
Sources please.
Let's ban all firearms until we have a rational policy. Let's take a lesson from other countries that are far more intelligent and civilized than mine.
In the UK the murder rates went up when they implemented gun bans (source). In Australia the gun ban had very little effect on the murder rate (source) and the armed robbery rate actually increased (source).That being the case a blanket firearms ban would be one of the dumbest things we could possibly do based on existing examples. Not to mention the fact that it would require a Constitutional amendment that, frankly, wouldn't have a prayer of passing even in the current anti-gun frenzy.
Clearly courageous and heroic mean something different to the speaker of this inane comment than they do to most of the population. To do what Mr. Pai has done since the King in Yellow was elected requires neither courage nor heroism - just a thick skin, bull-headedness and a complete lack of concern for the consumers his organisation is supposed to protect.
Nice King In Yellow reference. We haven't fully slipped into R. Chambers' "Repairer of Reputations" alternate timeline quite yet, though it certainly isn't for lack of trying by the Old Ones and their emissaries like Pai.
Strange is the night where black stars rise,
And strange moons circle through the skies,
But stranger still is Lost America.
Banning 5 million legal firearms is almost impossible. As much as I completely agree that the NRA need to be reigned in, the call to ban the constitutional right is not going to be an easy one, mainly because a large number of those 5 million NRA members will simply not give up their right to own something they clearly need to survive off of the harsh US wilderness...
It would need to be a slow reduction. Banning of sale of automatic weapons.. then banning of ownership... then semis... then large calibre... if it works for that long, only then can they ban the remaining weapons.
It'll take decades.
Some people have suggested banning ammo.. but those who really like their guns will have boxes upon boxes stored away, ready for days like that....
Or the Apocolypse...
Everybody keeps trying to do this back door ban thing. That’s not going to work. If you don’t like the 2nd amendment, the founders created the framework on getting it repealed. Follow the framework that they created. Back door attempts are just going to get ruled unconstitutional.
there are limits on every right in The Bill of Rights . . . there are limits on 'free speech' (unless it's money) and there have been restrictions on fully automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns and others for a long time now.
i have no idea why the supreme court decided that everybody is a member of a "well regulated militia" . . . but i suspect the reason is money again.
Banning 5 million legal firearms is almost impossible.
Tripe. How many million firearms do you think were floating around Europe in 1946? Where are they now? Do you seriously think there are millions of STEN guns squirrelled away in potting sheds all over the continent? Your figure seems low to me, but even if you're off by a couple of orders of magnitude it changes nothing (besides making them easier to find). How many tins of lead paint or tons of asbestos do you think needed tracking down and disposing of after they were recognised as potentially lethal?
The logistics of banning firearms in the US are simple. The problem is the political will to face down the (inevitable) couple of dozen Ruby Ridge/Waco incidents which the tin foil hatted FEMA Camps/NWO/Freeman on the Land/Militia lunatics will inevitably provoke.
If you are going to argue that a lightly but dangerously armed populace is a good thing then defend that position on its merits. Trying to deflect the question with bogus claims of logistical impossibility discredits your argument because it implies you realise yourself that your position is untenable.
So, armed civilians prevent government tyranny? Fine. Explain how a bunch of amateurs using only 9mm pistols and 5.56mm rifles stop a tank? Or a Predator? Or an Apache helicopter? Or just a bunch of professionals with M-16s and grenade launchers? It's ridiculous. You know it, I know it, the whole world knows it.
If you're going to claim the 2A is anything other than a historical anachronism then find a coherent argument that isn't rooted in "liberty" vs. men with muskets. You might as well riff off the founder's obsession with Rome and bolt the right to own a gladius into the Constitution, or go all Anglo-Saxon and make it a seax.
This Washington Post article makes interesting reading, suggesting the 2A is much more about militias than arms...
"So, armed civilians prevent government tyranny? Fine. Explain how a bunch of amateurs using only 9mm pistols and 5.56mm rifles stop a tank? Or a Predator? Or an Apache helicopter? Or just a bunch of professionals with M-16s and grenade launchers? It's ridiculous. You know it, I know it, the whole world knows it."
Oh? Explain how heavily outgunned Vietnamese drove out the mightiest army in the world? What about Somalia? Afghanistan? Iraq? I believe the British had a lot of trouble with the Gurkhas, too. One thing in common: a stubborn defending home front. Why would the US be any different if push came to shove?
Quote
I believe the British had a lot of trouble with the Gurkhas,
Yes, they did but a long time ago. Now the Ghurkas serve with pride in the British Army. They may be short (as in height) but you really don't want to get on the wrong side of them. My next door neighbour is a former Sgt Major in the Ghurkas. He retired and now lives in the UK with his family.
Someone with MiG-21, artillery, AA missiles, and anti-tank weapons doesn't look 'outgunned' to me, especially when its supply lines are intact because stopping them would involve a war with China and Russia. While in deep forests tanks are mostly useless, and the side whose soldiers are more expendable has a big advantage in close combat..
In Somalia the US troops were outgunned, because they were on a Peace effort. So, no tanks and other heavy weaponry. When they were under siege, they had to ask Pakistani armored vehicles to save them.
In Iraq and Kuwait, Saddam's troops were defeated and in a rout
Suicidal attackers backed by religious/political madness, the a good part of the population, and by some state supplying weapons, are another issue, especially if you're not ready to heavy bomb them, and destroy supply lanes.
Plus the advantage, both physical and psychological, of fighting on home ground.
Add the fact that the US was still trying to fight a conventional war (in a WW2 stylee) against a mostly-guerilla force (although backed by conventional forces armed and financed by the USSR and China).
And guess what? Conventional forces vs guerilla armies == lots of casualties for both sides. And a western-style democracy (as the US was then) is a lot more sensitive to casualties than a despotic regieme.
Vietnam wasn't a military victory - it was a political one.
Oh? Explain how heavily outgunned Vietnamese drove out the mightiest army in the world? What about Somalia? Afghanistan? Iraq?
All cases of foreign invasion. The relevant comparison for small arms against government oppression would be the spectacular (lack of) success the domestic opposition to Saddam Hussein enjoyed when he was in power.
The problem with the "defending to home front" analysis is that if the government bans guns and sends forces in to collect them then they are defending the home front against an internal insurrection. No extended supply lines, no unusual terrain and no external meddling (because they definitely control the navy and air force).
@Kaltern:"It would need to be a slow reduction. Banning of sale of automatic weapons.. then banning of ownership... then semis... then large calibre... if it works for that long, only then can they ban the remaining weapons.
It'll take decades."
Why? Australia did it in weeks after the Port Arthur massacre.
The point of saying "keep your guns, ban ammo" is so that idiots argue how impossible that would be and then say what an imbecilic argument that is. Then the proposer can say "OK, so we ban guns then, as that seems to be easier". It's one or the other because otherwise people killing each other remains an impersonal point and click, fatalistic whim.
So what if it takes decades? Is that a reason not to start?
Gun owners are dieing off in the US anyway, their average age is now over 55. And there are fewer of them, only about a third of the population own guns now vs over 40% a few decades ago.
Start by banning the sale of semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. Also any gun carrier or used in a crime must be destroyed, not resold to be used again. Next ban the private sale of guns, all guns must be sold through a licensed dealer that must verify and record both the seller and buyer identities. Failure to do so means heavy fines, and destruction of the gun. And of course all the other common sense measures like mandatory training, licensing, background checks etc.
It can all be done, they just have to start.
"Banning 5 million legal firearms is almost impossible."
There were millions of guns running loose around Europe after WW2 - many brought back as momentos from the war. My dad had one (or was it two). But they were squeezed out of the system quite quickly. Strangely communism didn't fill the void. Even more weirdly communist countries decided to eventually become non-communist - and succeeded without the use of arms.
Strict gun control can never completely stop bad people doing bad things. But it can reduce it from a major hazard to something very unusual - and something you don't need to prepare kids for. Here the Dunblane school shooting still resonates. The rules were tightened even more. Dunblane was 1996. That's 22 years ago. We may have a smaller population but not that smaller! The stats do point very strongly that reducing guns reduces risk. Its not rocket science.
Surely its worth a try? Or are the US population voting to remain prisoners of the NRA histrionics? On cold statistics a more threatening domestic terror organisation than those Potus gets excited about.
If rolling eyes could be heard across the pond - you'd be deafened.
"the call to ban the constitutional right is not going to be an easy one, mainly because a large number of those 5 million NRA members will simply not give up their right"
I wonder how many gun owners and especially NRA members are members of a "well regulated militia"? Or did the NRA re-design itself as a militia?
Hint: The clue is in "well regulated". So all gun owners have a "constitutional right" to be "well regulated". Something the NRA seem to be against.
“His reward, a showpiece gun, was not actually handed out on stage, quite possibly because CPAC has a no-weapons policy for its events.”
No, because it would have been illegal to!
He’s a Virginian resident, and CPAC is in Maryland. They’ll have to send the gun to a licensed dealer in Virginia and have them do the transfer to Pai.
@clueless AC
He’s a Virginian resident, and CPAC is in Maryland. They’ll have to send the gun to a licensed dealer in Virginia and have them do the transfer to Pai.
It's considered an "antique," not subject to Federal firearms laws.
It's like watching the ape/bone-club scene in the film 2001. They have been given a boon, and have realised they can use it to smash others in the head, and the others can't seem to stop them! Next up - cannibalism.
What are the odds Trump will give them medals? Services to the New Order. Give them Republican-red MAGA armbands. If you tattoo a voter id number on citizens I'm sure it would cut down on that evil Democrat Hillary/Obama voter fraud next time (although it might make it hard for black people to vote!).
In my experience, people who refer to a 'police state' are usually the sort of edgy teenagers that complain about not being allowed to skateboard in Tesco and constantly complain about 'fascism' while not having a clue what it means.
Just the sort of whiny liberal commentard that seems to make up most of the readership of this site.
Who, according to a biography heroically defended the Aleutian[0] Islands as a gunner on a B-25 during 1944 and '45, facing "extreme weather" that "was as dangerous as enemy aircraft." He also "slipped on a patch of ice and was run over by an ambulance."
[0] Japan actually invaded the Aleutian islands Attu and Kiska in June 1942, but they were recaptured in 1943, before Heston enlisted.
"Japan actually invaded the Aleutian islands Attu and Kiska in June 1942, but they were recaptured in 1943, before Heston enlisted."
And the whole exercise was mainly a feint (they weren't militarily significant and were undefended), which is why the Americans only gave them cursory notice (as in they bombed the airbase the Japanese were trying to build there) until after the real target (Midway) was successfully defended.
Your error is, you're assuming you know what the words mean.
The fact is, words like 'liberate' and 'give back' have no definition that can meaningfully be applied in this context, and therefore they mean whatever the speaker chooses for them to mean. And therefore the statement is meaningless.
The same goes for a lot of statements made by the other side, by the way. As long as we, the audience, allow them to go on spouting bullshit like this without defining their terms, they'll keep doing it.
"The watchdog boss said he was surprised to receive the Charlton Heston Courage Award from the association at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Maryland today. His reward, a showpiece gun, was not actually handed out on stage, quite possibly because CPAC has a no-weapons policy for its events."
How come deranged gunmen never strike at these kind of events?
You'd see some legislative action on gun ownership pretty damn fast if a bunch of old rich white guys were taken out by a guy with an AR-15.
But what if he used a homemade ANFO bomb instead, a la Oklahoma City? And it was impossible to stop Bath Township since the perpetrator got the excavation charges used in the massacre legally (he was a FARMER).
Remember, the worst nonmilitary massacres in American history didn't use guns.
@CHarles 9:"But what if he used a homemade ANFO bomb instead, a la Oklahoma City?"
That's a red herring. I don't give a crap about ANFO bombs, as they aren't used in mass killings every single week of the year.
"Remember, the worst nonmilitary massacres in American history didn't use guns."
Yeah, and...?
3,000 people died on 9/11. There hasn't been a comparable incident since then.
How many people do you think have died in mass shootings since 9/11?
>Not 3,000, that's for sure
And if loons like you have their way, it's best if no one finds out, neh?
https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx
Hear no evil see no evil speak no evil - If you don't research a problem, that makes it go away
How many people do you think have died in mass shootings since 9/11?
1875 to date. But even if the count was 2999 the gun nuts will proclaim that it's still lower than the WTC death toll.
Data from the Gun Violence Archive reveals there is a mass shooting – defined as four or more people shot in one incident, not including the shooter – nine out of every 10 days on average.
Remember, the worst nonmilitary massacres in American history didn't use guns.You don't have to make weapons impossible to get. You just have to make it a little bit harder than pursuing a solution to your problems that doesn't involve killing somebody.
"You just have to make it a little bit harder than pursuing a solution to your problems that doesn't involve killing somebody."
"A little bit harder" may well be along the lines of "ending the world" for someone that damned determined. You can't really on the past for reference because the social pressures are much different then. I mean, how many people then vs. now were willing to accept MAD as an acceptable outcome:?
What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns
Pai shows typically bad judgement associating with the NRA just as the rest of corporate America are distancing themselves.
I remember that the local fuzz ignored many reports from members of the gun club that the perpetrator was a member of that he was unstable and not fit to hold a firearms licence; this for several months prior to the incident.
The police excuse after the fact was that they couldn't review his licence as it would impact his EU granted human rights.
Even back then a firearms licence was held "at the pleasure of" the granting chief constable and could be withdrawn at any time with no reason required.
Hasn't said this to members, I doubt this is reported correctly - could be fake.
Edit -> I see the idiot political spin arm of the reg posts on saturday, unlike all the other articles. Interesting for a tech publication. And I also note that while NRA is in the title, it wasn't them giving Pai anything, it was CPAC, probably bought and sold by the telcos. NRA wouldn't be. That said, the rest still stands.
/////
If it isn't, 100% of the members I know - and that's a lot as I'm a gunsmith - will be quitting.
You gotta be kidding if you think Joe Sixpack, which are the bulk of members, would be for this.
NRA gets the bulk of their money from member dues. Yeah, others put in some too, but most is from the normal people. Their lobbying is real, but also dwarfed by big pharma, big military-industrial, and big business generally. Their power is all those voters who are members...they really don't want to lose us.
Which is not to say that probably a few people high up in NRA are industry shills and losers - for now, maybe they don't have that position very shortly.
We'll see...
@DCFusor"Edit -> I see the idiot political spin arm of the reg posts on saturday, unlike all the other articles. Interesting for a tech publication. And I also note that while NRA is in the title, it wasn't them giving Pai anything, it was CPAC, probably bought and sold by the telcos. NRA wouldn't be. That said, the rest still stands."
I see the idiot pro-gun nuts have got out of bed.
The "Charlton Heston courage under fire award" is an NRA award. Shit, Carolyn Meadows gave him the award. You do know who Carolyn Meadows is, don't you? Second Vice President of the NRA.
That's not fake news, but you say you're a gunsmith so I don't expect you to be objective...
The answer to your question: technically, it's not an NRA award, it's given by the CPAC. (The "NRA award" spin seems to have been introduced to this particular story by Russia Today, and subsequently parroted by basically everyone - including Fox and Brietbart News. Interesting, no?)
But the award was made by a prominent figure within the NRA (last year it was Chris Cox, this year Carolyn Meadows). So I think it would be fair to say that they endorse it.
Incidentally, in the course of researching this answer, I learned that in 2015, the award did involve handing over an actual gun on stage. So it's only sometime in the past 3 years that CPAC has decided to go gun-free. Also interesting, I thought, as a reflection of their confidence in Trump's pledge to fix violent crime.
Ahem...
I am a little surprised by the number of downvotes (not that I feel wounded...)...
I just wanted to clarify I was using very basic figures, based on the supposed membership of the NRA, and I am of course fully aware just how many firearms could be in the posession of US citizens.
I am also 100% against firearm ownership and I would be much happier knowing that the right to own a gun was permanently abolished.
I suspect some people skimmed my post, and automatically thought I was somehow supporting gun rights. I don't.
NRA / 2nd amendment types (read tin foil nutters ) care to comment about the ban of the ownership and sale of automatic weapons to the general US public?
The government has ALREADY banned you from holding one class of weapons........... so there should be no problem with banning the ownership and sale of semi-auto rifles
"But I need it for hunting" comes the wail.... well if you missed with your first shot its highly liable that bambi and her ilk have fucked off at this point, so sending another 29 rnds after them wont help a bit... and if you hit on your first shot.. why do you need a semi-auto rifle in the first place?
And as for the laughable "I need it to defend myself from the ebil guvernment"... good luck with taking on a squad of marines armed with M-16s, grenade launchers and able to call for A10 back up if things get tough....... Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrpppppppppppp and the problem is gone.
Handguns yes... single shot rifles yes.. semi auto and fully auto guns..... no (and thats a quote from a republican friend whos into guns and stuff)
"And as for the laughable "I need it to defend myself from the ebil guvernment"... good luck with taking on a squad of marines armed with M-16s, grenade launchers and able to call for A10 back up if things get tough....... Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrpppppppppppp and the problem is gone."
Seemed the Vietnamese, Iraqis, and Somalia did all right given their disadvantages (and the A10 was in Vietnam, too). Why can't we?
Because you don't need to? Because most of you have never killed a man, and despite your bravado and claiming the 2A, many of you would either simply not be able to do it, or would miss... or would do it and suffer long term mental effects.
And if you're invaded by Un ... well, you should join up and get trained properly.
@Charles 9:
Seemed the Vietnamese, Iraqis, and Somalia did all right given their disadvantages (and the A10 was in Vietnam, too). Why can't we?
You make a good point, but the bottom line is: all those countries were repelling a foreign invader. Nothing unifies opposition quite like that. As humankind has repeatedly shown, it's amazing what people can do when they all work together.
What do you think would unify the American public to the same extent? Nothing short of foreign invasion, I suspect. Certainly I doubt that you could persuade everyone to take part in comparable operations if the US Army (and, most likely, also its law enforcement agencies) was on the other side. And a people divided are, as the poet says, well and truly screwed. (C.f. Brexit.)
I would think a DOMESTIC invasion would be the ULTIMATE motivator, as it would prove the Founders and all the "nuts" right. Plus, consider that all those military people come from those same hometowns. How many of them do you think would stay in the ranks if ordered to move seriously against their own people?
And if it comes to turning American troops against civilians in the homeland, you know how it will be framed: as a clear and present threat of terrorism. If commanders can convince their subordinates that the enemy poses an imminent threat to peace and the safety of innocent people, they can convince them to act.
And you know what makes it really hard to make that case? The knowledge that the targets are mostly unarmed or, at most, lightly armed. If everyone knows they've got top-flight weapons of their own, then escalation becomes really easy. That's why swatting is a thing now.
"How many of them do you think would stay in the ranks if ordered to move seriously against their own people?"
That's why the Romans took recruits from the conquered territories but sent them elsewhere to serve and fight. I doubt the US military could manage the same WRT to service people being sent only to areas out of their home range.
Some knowledge of history would help.
Not at all. Vietnamese weren't just the Vietcong with a rifle you saw in movies. They were heavily armed (by Russia and China) - fighter jets, SAMs, artillery and mortars, mines, heavy machine guns, etc. They also had armored vehicles and tanks. Plus a terrain which made advanced weaponry like big tanks useless. The US armed forces were designed to fight a war in Europe against division of battle tanks in open terrain, not in the South-East jungle. You have to accept much more casualties in such war - and of course you have to destroy supply lines and enemy cities like done in WWII. Nothing of that of course, was acceptable in Vietnam.
A-10 entered service in 1977, thus was never used in Vietnam. Even attack helicopters were in their infancy in the Vietnam era, and would have been of little use anyway in the jungle.
In Somalia, US troops were sent as a "peace and humanitarian relief corp" - with only light weapons, no armored vehicles, no attack helicopters and planes, albeit they were tasked also to fight the local warlords. Just, the Somali pick-up mounted heavy machine guns and RPGs outgunned them easily, and while usually fighting each other, they allied against the US attempt.
It was a big, bit mistake made by US military planners, which needed to resort to ask help from other nations tanks and armored vehicles to save their troops under siege.
Iraqi regular troops and the Republican Guard couldn't sustain a fight against US and allies troops - did you forget the prisoners herder by helicopters?
Insurgents, especially suicidal ones, are always an issue, if they have enough support from the local population, and have supply lines which feeds them the required weapons, which usually go far beyond assault rifles, usually including RPGs, heavy machine guns, small missiles, explosives.
Even in Afghanistan Talibans had to accept US help to fight Russians. You may need to adopt an approach like the one Russia adopted in Chechenya, but it's a bit bloody, and with large collateral damages. Cutting supply lines may mean to enter into a conflict with a larger power, i.e. Russia and/or China in Korea and Vietnam, Iran in Iraq.
Being on someone's own territory and being invaded may matter, but it's not really decisive. France couldn't stop the Nazi invasion, nor Italy the Allied one. Egyptian forces were routed by Israeli ones on their own soil. Finns were able to resist the Russia invasion in Winter, when they could take advantage of terrain and better equipment against the ill-equipped and badly organized Russian army, but as soon Spring came, the numbers were against them.
It works better with highly indoctrinated populations, of course, which can be got convinced to die "for the cause" in big numbers, especially if you can leverage their deepest fears about the "invader".
What's the chance the US armed forces turn against the citizens? Wouldn't it turn far earlier in another civil war fought using any available military weapon, with army forces split among factions? Anyway, if it ever happens, it will be too late to fight them with some assault rifle.
Any invading force able to defeat them, anyway, would come from nations that would have no problems to utterly wipe out fat bearded white men and their AR-15s. And there would be no country able to help them.
"And as for the laughable "I need it to defend myself from the ebil guvernment"... good luck with taking on a squad of marines armed with M-16s, grenade launchers and able to call for A10 back up if things get tough....... Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrpppppppppppp and the problem is gone."
Although I completely agree with the stance on the outdated second amendment and the "WELL REGULATED militia" arguments, if it ever did come to some level of civil war in the US, I'd expect that significant sections of the government military would be on each side of the conflict.
Yeah, the supremes decided all gun owners are part of some hypothetical militia, but is it really "well regulated"?
Yes, because by the use of the term in 1790, "well-regualted" meant "well-equipped". Isn't that why the British Army were known as "regulars"?
"The government has ALREADY banned you from holding one class of weapons........... so there should be no problem with banning the ownership and sale of semi-auto rifles"
Not quite. An AK-47 (for example) made before 1985 CANNOT be banned due to the retroactive law restriction in the Constitution. And there's still room for any existing ban to be challenged on Second Amendment grounds, especially after the "individual right" aka militia of one ruling.
You're never going to be able to eliminate guns in the US. There are just too many in circulation. That said, when I was a kid, every boy child carried a pocket knife, and a lot of us had pellet guns and .22 rifles, and had families with shotguns and other arms. It never would have occurred to me to take one to school unless it was for show and tell, which probably would have actually been allowed if you cleared it with the teacher first. Or to use my pocketknife to stab someone. There were fistfights and bullying (which is not okay), but no one really considered actually killing their classmates. There weren't any mass shootings that I can recall before Columbine.
What changed in these decades? Were mass shootings just a meme, an idea whose time had come? Did the first one somehow make it "okay" for others to do the same? I don't know. One thing I do know is that our sanitized, politically-correct society allows resentment and anger to fester and build without a safety valve, and parenting skills are at an all-time low. And I believe that information being freely available is a wonderful thing, but I would have to admit that letting your kids view uncensored violence and destruction with no supervision does desensitize them. We also seem to think that kids are equal to adults and responsible for their own actions in the same way, while they are often still way too immature to realize the consequences of their actions or deal with heady emotions that they're feeling for the first time.
So what is the answer? I don't know. Banning everything in life that can be misused is not it though. This is the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and singing "LaLaLaLa" to tune out something you don't want to hear. And arming teachers is ridiculous. If there is any solution IMHO, it is giving kids more education than what they get in Algebra class. Kids need to be raised to value their own lives and that of others, and when warning signs present themselves, the answer isn't to lock them up forever, but to work with them to salvage their troubled psyches before they become truly lost.
I think what it is is that societal pressure is getting too great now (unlike before) and as a result people are snapping. My thing, though, is that violence will happen regardless of the means. Like with suicide, take oneears away and they'll just find another. Remember, the worst nonmilitary massacres in American history didn't use guns.
Pellet guns and small calibers are not AR-15 rifles with high-power ammunition and large magazines. The damages you can inflict in a few minutes with military grade weapons are much larger than with far less powerful ones. A .22 bullet to be fatal needs a very precise hit, and many wounds will be less dangerous. High speed military bullets makes far more damages, they crush bones and the the resulting impact wave damages nearby tissues and organs. The caliber itself doesn't mean everything, bullet speed. weight and characteristics may be very different. Someone armed with such rifles also outguns most law enforcement agents but SWAT teams.
Mass murderers know it. If they couldn't do such big damage easily before being stopped, they may not even attempt it.
"There weren't any mass shootings that I can recall before Columbine."
Google, and you'll find they started well before. I.e. the "University of Texas tower shooting" - 1966. Anyway, only in relatively recent years military grade weapons are easily available at low prices.
In the 1930s, machine guns and other weapons used by gangsters for mass killings were outlawed, and it worked.
"Pellet guns and small calibers are not AR-15 rifles with high-power ammunition and large magazines. The damages you can inflict in a few minutes with military grade weapons are much larger than with far less powerful ones. "
My point was that kids just didn't kill people a few decades ago, with isolated exceptions of course. While I would not have a problem with banning most assault weapons, or at least making them a lot harder to get, you can do nearly the same damage with a pair of 1911 Colts, even if you'd need a few more clips and to reload more often. And I don't know the answer. Restricting access to the most deadly weapons may help, but I'm not sure how you fix a broken conscience or missing empathy, or instill a voice of reason asking "Do I really want to do this?" I'd be a hypocrite if I said I've never wished harm on someone, or been in a mood where I've wished someone would start something, but there's a difference between that and deciding to go on a killing spree.
You're never going to be able to eliminate guns in the US. There are just too many in circulation.
You can never eliminate them entirely anywhere. Even in places with strict gun controls there will be those who have them hidden in drawers and a criminal element which will get their hands on them.
But you can go a long way to eliminating most of them. It only requires the will and, for America, the willingness to use force to ensure compliance. It won't be pretty but could be done if the Will Of The People (TM) were behind it.
Make unauthorised gun ownership illegal. Have a gun surrender programme for a while then shoot dead anyone who is found with an unauthorised gun. Treat it like brutally disarming an enemy in conflict. The message will soon get out, and those resisting will soon not be part of the problem.
The Second Amendment isn't sacrosanct, and self-evidently the Constitution can be amended. It does indeed rest upon the Will Of The People supporting change but, if they do, then those resisting will be a minority and the majority mostly won't care how they get their way, or how the Enemies Of The People resisting change are dealt with. If putting people up against the wall is what it takes, then that is what it takes.
In fact it can even be argued that the Second Amendment itself exists to facilitate the removal of the tyranny of unrestricted gun ownership :-)
Think of it as democratically mandated revolution. As I said; it won't be pretty, but can be done.
Cowardly? I really would like to know what their rules of engagement were. I would not be at all surprised to find they followed those rules.
Of course, the RoE might have been too cautious - but if they'd broken the rules they'd probably be toast... Which they are now anyway.
Yes. Which is why people should know the RoE before calling them cowards. If they failed to follow the RoE by not going in then that's a different matter. However, I expect their RoE required them to 'consult superiors' or some such before going in. Too many constraints can stop people potentially doing what turns out with 20/20 hindsight to be the right thing.
I doubt if they said anything about consulting superiors, because that would shuffle responsibility upwards, which is not what anyone has in mind when drafting things like that. (The golden rule is to make sure the agency employing the cop can never be held responsible for anything, period.)
What they probably did say was something about obtaining the best possible information, and not making a move while the situation was still unclear. That would be quite enough to keep the cop outside for at least five minutes after he heard the first gunshots.
Makes no difference now, the poor guy is the official scapegoat for this episode. And the RoE won't change.
FCC under Pai and NRA. These 2 groups have nothing in common except having both attracted a lot of dislike, where to large segments of the population, they are spawns of Satan.
The core supporters of each may very well have good reasons to dislike the other outright - farmers unhappy w cable fees or, smaller group, telecom free for all advocates unhappy with assault rifles. For outsiders both are pariahs.
Sure, they may hope for strength in unity. But the synergy is unclear and sometimes it is best to steer clear of endorsement/ing controversial parties.
Ars Technica readers repeatedly quipped that this was like reading The Onion.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
