[Archived] Gun Law Debate: Please keep posts civil and conversational

[Mike E]

Moles? Do they have X-Ray rifle sights in Darren Mike?

Haha, I mean for when occasionally break the surface. They're a curse for any lawn.

[Steve Moss]

You would still need the chemicals for the firing agent

Yes. And manufacturing a firing agent is not hard. I won't post the links as I don't want to give some nuts ideas, but anyone who reads history books or who has a basic knowledge of chemistry could manufacture a functional firing agent, if desired.

Back to 3D guns, here's a fairly recent article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/11/14/3d-printed-gun-stands-up-to-federal-agents-testfiring-except-when-it-explodes-video/

[jim mk2]

The US responds in its usual calm manner to the latest shooting atrocity.

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/02/conservative_filmmaker_pat_dollard_its_time_for_americans_to_start_slaughtering_muslims_in_the_streets/

[Adam C]

Did a quick spot of research and it seems that 3D printed guns aren't much use; a metal one is viable but cost £500000 to make. Are they really a threat? Has anybody been killed by a bullet fired from one? It seems not but it would be worrying if the technology became viable. Criminals are probably better off with a crossbow at the minute.

[Guest Norbert]

John Malkovich would be the man to ask.

[speeeeeeedie]

The latest US nut job school attack occurred earlier today. The idiot reportedly stabbed 20 people. No one has died so far and the police have him. My money has him being white, skinny, pale, into video games, a bit of a recluse, and probably an only child from a broken home.

http://news.yahoo.com/4-students-seriously-hurt-pa-school-stabbings-131205503.html

I'm sure someone will come out with the "if the students had guns he wouldn't have stabbed half as many" argument. I see it as it matters not whether people can get guns or not, there are always plenty of mentalists out there willing to try something.

[Stuart]

You said no one has died. If he'd had a gun they might not have been so lucky.

[Tom]

That is a fair point if someone has stabbed 20 and nobody has died how likely would that casualty count stay at 0 if it was 20 people shot?

[thenodrog]

Still a fact that no gun or knife ever killed anybody without someone holding it. We make it evermore difficult to buy guns and knives but don't make it difficult for nut jobs to roam the streets freely.

[Amo]

Still a fact that no gun or knife ever killed anybody without someone holding it. We make it evermore difficult to buy guns and knives but don't make it difficult for nut jobs to roam the streets freely.

How do you propose we do that, Drog? It's true that a lot of mentally ill patients slip through the net, and consider that any system is open to human error, but some people appear perfectly balanced until they snap for one reason or another and go postal. How are you supposed to prevent that?

[thenodrog]

No idea tbh. I think most of us will know someone that could be deemed decidedly 'dodgy '. Maybe the onus is on society to stop being so lenient and draw attention to perceived 'oddballs'.

[Baz]

Still a fact that no gun or knife ever killed anybody without someone holding it. We make it evermore difficult to buy guns and knives but don't make it difficult for nut jobs to roam the streets freely.

The idea surely with less guns is that it will take away a lot of the "heat of the moment" type killings (the vast majority). You can make it difficult but never impossible for the mass-shooting determined types, which may either put them off, or will catch them before they start. Another thing to possibly help is for the media to refuse to name the perpetrators of the mass shootings, as I think a lot of it is a desire to be noticed, take away the fame and Id guess at less attempts. Whether thats possible Im not sure, but it could help.

[ultrablue]

No idea tbh. I think most of us will know someone that could be deemed decidedly 'dodgy '

I think we probably do

[Audax]

UltraBlue: Keep on practising English, you speak it almost as good as the Koreans I have met over here and you are not quite immersed in an English speaking nation in South Korea I would venture to say. You do a very good job.

[ultrablue]

Thanks for your words of encouragement Audax. Who knows, if I keep practising I might end up teaching English at high school and then at a university here in South Korea for the last 6 years.

[Stuart]

Oh, Audax...

[old darwen blue]

UltraBlue: Keep on practising English, you speak it almost as good as the Koreans I have met over here and you are not quite immersed in an English speaking nation in South Korea I would venture to say. You do a very good job.

Doh!

[Mike E]

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5203439/?ir=UK

So where do we stand on this? Personally, I'm happy for people (with appropriate circumstances) to own guns, but it shouldn't be at the expense of our police force AT ALL.

[Steve Moss]

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5203439/?ir=UK

So where do we stand on this? Personally, I'm happy for people (with appropriate circumstances) to own guns, but it shouldn't be at the expense of our police force AT ALL.

Didn't the taxpayers, through their elected representatives, impose the costly regulations on gun owners?

And since when does a background check cost so much?

[Mike E]

Didn't the taxpayers, through their elected representatives, impose the costly regulations on gun owners?

And since when does a background check cost so much?

Yes they did (and I'm glad), but why that is to put a hole in Police budgets is beyond me. The full amount should be paid by anyone wishing to own a gun.

[Steve Moss]

Yes they did (and I'm glad), but why that is to put a hole in Police budgets is beyond me. The full amount should be paid by anyone wishing to own a gun.

So not only do you restrict the right, you then transfer the cost of exercising that right (which you imposed) onto otherwise law-abiding gun-owners?

This is a pretty good example as to why we don't trust proponents of gun control.

And since when does a background check cost so much? Or is there more to it?

[Mike E]

So not only do you restrict the right, you then transfer the cost of exercising that right (which you imposed) onto otherwise law-abiding gun-owners?

This is a pretty good example as to why we don't trust proponents of gun control.

And since when does a background check cost so much? Or is there more to it?

The logic is different between cultures, obviously. But I don't understand why it's fair to put the cost of owning a gun onto our police force and, by extension, the public purse and the taxpayer who has no wish to own any weapon.

And tbf, 'the right to bear arms' is exactly why we don't trust proponents of....erm...the right to bear arms haha.

I don't think it's the checking that ACTUALLY costs anything. Probably the cost of the license, plus admin fees etc.

[Baz]

Shouldnt come out of the police budget (if from central funding at all). If it increases the cost it may deter people from it being a whim, which could lead to lots more guns in circulation.

[Steve Moss]

Here's a rare bit of video showing that a law abiding armed citizen does serve to deter crime and catch criminals when the police are not around:

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/134172-armed-good-samaritan-stops-purse-snatching-next-even-better/

[Mike E]

The key word being 'rare'