• "Auto racing began 5 minutes after the second car was built." - Henry Ford
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Dear Guest. Follow RaceDepartment on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Twitch, Steam and YouTube.

STOP THE CARNAGE! Gun laws must change.

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Andrew Scott, Oct 3, 2017.

  1. Andrew Scott

    Andrew Scott
    "Ye Old Convict" Premium

    Can someone please stop the carnage of innocent civilians in the USA, it's nothing short of madness that the gun laws and the "right to bear arms" seem more important than American lives, something must be done NOW.

    The fact that these mass shooting have become common place in the USA, a weekly occurrence in fact, is unacceptable in this modern age. I'm at a loss as to why the politicians have done little to act, or used their powers to change the gun ownership laws and stop the sale of assault rifles, regardless of the 2nd amendment.

    From my family and I, our thoughts are with the American people during this inconsolable and unimaginable period, our deepest sympathies go to the families and friends of those injured or deceased, in what can only be described as an act of complete inhumanity in Las Vegas.
  2. Andy Jackson

    Andy Jackson
    I am the new Colin Mcrae I am Premium

    The gun laws won't change as long as you have a pro NRA president, a massive gun industry that see's its shares and profits rise after every incident and finally a nation that want's guns freely available. It does not matter what happens.
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 3
  3. bsmooth


    Definitely have no use for Assault Rifles at all. I'm sure there lots of fun to shoot off, but as for a need for the everyday person C'mon!
    Don't think it matters who's in for president NRA has gotten way to powerful just by itself.
    You want to own a regular single shot rifle or a handgun I think its Ok as long as you keep it locked up and you know how and where to use it.
    Just had an incident where a 13 Yr old shot a 12 yr old, thats almost beyond belief.
  4. boomer541


    The bad guys that have guns now will have guns after any gun laws get passed!
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Dennis Phelan

    Dennis Phelan
    more about staying on track. Premium

    Have the penalty high enough that they are given up. As long as "the bad guys" still have them the price for ownership is too low.
  6. Andrew

    I'm not lazy, I'm just very relaxed. Staff Premium

    Bullet Control:

    • Haha Haha x 1
  7. boomer541


    When Gov. can control all guns then Gov. can control all the people!
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  8. Andy Jackson

    Andy Jackson
    I am the new Colin Mcrae I am Premium

    Well they control all our guns here in the UK. Do you think they control all the people? Infact shouldn't a government actually control the people and all aspects of civil life? Without rules we have anarchy. By sensible gun control surely semi automatic assault rifles and semi auto shotguns are not needed by the average citizen? How about proper checks to see if a person is fit to own a firearm?
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Wolf_XII


    No the government should ensure that people can live together civiliy and not resort to violence over everyt contested matter.
    The Government is the tool which enforces the social contract upon which all people agree to make a liveable society.
    Now in all fairness, there are people who live in societies that do not agree with that social contract and want to change it, some of them violently so, however, by living in that country they are still bound to follow the rules of that social contract.
    And if they violate it, they are bound to face the consequences of that action.

    The problem is that you make a false dichotomy here, on one hand the government controls people on the other there is anarchy.

    Which denies that there are quite a few countries in which the governement does not control people, but simply oversees the running of society, and the system works well.

    Now I think you accidently used control here, not quite realizing the implications, as government controlling people would mean the government actually exercising power over the people in their decisions, like who they vote for, what news they can see, what they can say and where, who gets to vote etc.
    Which is what gives most people the creeps.

    And coming from a Country, where there have been two totalitarian states in the last century, yub I'm talking about germany, I tend to agree with them.
    We are intimately familiar with how much a government can control people and how bad that can go.
    Of how for example public discourse can be controlled and how people can loose their way of pointing out problems and loose their franchise by that.
    You know why don't you take a look at the history of east germany for that (the other one is such a tired old trope nowadays ;) ) , you know where the government controlled who got to study, who got which job, yeah no choice of job for you, where you worked, in what capacity and who you friended with. And yeah then turned quite a few of your friends into their Informal contributors, who then reported on all your actions.

    Free Press? Non-existant, don't you dare write on a topic that the party did not approve upon, remember the Party was always right!
    And while we germans use that sentence sarcastically or ironically, the SED Party of east germany, which was pretty much the state used that unironically, they actually meant that.
    Went so far as to make a song about it:

    Lyrics: http://andrewhammel.typepad.com/german_joys/2007/01/das_lied_der_pa.html

    I wonder fellow forum denizens, does this little tidbit out of the refrain remind you of something?
    Oh The Party, The Party is always right
    And comrade, may it ever be so;
    For who fights for the right
    He is always right
    Against lies and exploitation
    [women] Whoever insults life
    is stupid or bad
    Whoever defends humanity
    Is always right...

    Or rather of some recent people?

    As I said Andy I don't think you the word control in that sense, but that is what wording it like that can lead to. After all the government only controlled the people and all aspects of civil life, just I guess, a bit more toroughly than you would expect.

    I think a government shouldn't control people, it should be controled by the people, after all a government is simply made up of employees of the people.

    And yes I think the german government has too many powers and has especially been trying to encroach upon free speech recently, mainly because they don't want to be criticized.
    Given that our dear, dear, dear Chancellor is a populist of the highest order and very vulnerable to all criticism.

    "..By sensible gun control surely semi automatic assault rifles and semi auto shotguns are not needed by the average citizen?..."
    In essence by using "surely" you are saying, "I don't know, but I'll guess it's how I imagine it."

    How do you know that there is no need of "semi auto shotguns" or self-loading rifles?
    And what is the average citizen? One in the city, one living in the back country?

    Also there is no such thing as a semi automatic Assault Rifle................an Assault Rifle is a rifle of an intermediary cartridge* which has selective fire modes, in other words can be semi-auto, full-auto, Burst or any other combination, any rifle with just semi-auto firing mode is a self-loading rifle.
    Oh and Assault Rifles defined as above are banned already.
    So the use of Assault Rifle in "semi automatic assault rifles" is simply a device to trigger an emotional reaction, to make one think: "Assault rifles are bad, Assault rifles are military, surely no one can disagree if we ban them."

    I find such emotional tactics distasteful, as they show that the person arguing with them has no trust in the persuasive power of their arguments. And I have seen quite enough of "the feels over reals" style of argumentation in recent times!

    Funnily enough, I've talked with an elk (moose) hunter once and guess what, to hunt them you need really powerful rifles. And a semi-auto capability is rather handy if you mess up and the elk charges you. Mind you an elk bull weighs about half a metric ton.......I remember going to Sweden over 15 years back and they told us to drive carefully there, because if you hit one the two people on the front seats would be goners.

    "...How about proper checks to see if a person is fit to own a firearm?"
    Ok no problem with that, but what should they look like? If you propose them, you should have an idea on how they should work.

    Great, now I'm defending the lax gun control laws in the US.....something which I don't agree with.....but then certain views upon state power compel me to do so.

    Although the UK has had some encroaching on Citizen's right and tries to control public debates recently, you know with the recentl CPS guidelines on "hate speech" which is what we call a "Gummiparagraph" or a "rubber paragraph/Law" in germany.
    Why Rubber? Because it's definitions are so "elastic" that they can be used to cover just about everything you want.

    Oh and Chris Phelan, do you honestly think that criminals would ever give up their guns?
    Hell even in germany, with our very stringent gun control laws, they still have guns, especially the illegal stuff like really working AK-47s or derivates of it.

    BTW. about Chris Rock's idea, I rather like it! As they have said, many a true word has been spoken in jest! ;)

    * Smaller than Battle rifles's ammunition like the 7.62x51mm, so like the Russian 7.62x39mm or the 5,56x45mm. Yeah the length is important, as that controls the powder charge, the longer the cartridge is, the more powder and the more backblast. Which also makes the gun harder to control full auto.

    BTW, not a gun nut, just a historian, who was bored one day and decided to research that a bit.
  10. Andy Jackson

    Andy Jackson
    I am the new Colin Mcrae I am Premium

    Well you can argue semantics all day long. Assault weapon/assault rifle.
    "...How about proper checks to see if a person is fit to own a firearm?"
    Ok no problem with that, but what should they look like? If you propose them, you should have an idea on how they should work.
    How about the same way it's done here in the UK?

    And lets get this straight:
    Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud.

    Read this folks:

    Wolf, or whatever your name is, I am not a liberal PC do gooder. I actually love guns. I served in the Military for 23 years. I love shooting, I still shoot in a club now. But no one and I mean no one can defend America's silly gun laws. I am not against owning a sidearm (I'd love to own one for my own self defence of my family and home) and I would love to hunt some animals for food if I lived in the wilderness too. But semi auto assault rifles (yes they are marketed as that) with a bump stop to make the fully auto are really not needed because guess what, America will not be over run by hoards of the walking dead and they will not ever be invaded by North Korea or Russia. And don't get me going about "open carry" either. That's just plain stupid. Can you imagine if Black people and Muslims started "open carrying" assault weapons (AR-15's etc).
  11. Wolf_XII


    So I'm arguing Semantics now? Interesting, because I used the military definition of what an assault rifle actually is.

    It's also interesting that you seem to haven't answered anything I've said on the topic of the state controlling it's citizens or free speech. Which is my main case, and isn't semantics by a fair stretch.
    And where both our governments seem to have some slight issues.

    Since you've brought up the Huff-Puff Post, I can bring up this:
    The actual numbers came from the times, which most people would regard as a more reliable source.

    Now could you please elaborate on the UK process for the non-UK citizens?

    Again I would still argue that the inclusion of semi-automatics is an emotional device, given that the original definition, coined by the militaries, based on the german "Sturmgewehr" itself a propaganda name, was different.

    Ironically enough he's right on that note, givent hat the AR-15 is the weapon's family of which the M16 and M4 are part of.

    On the other hand the same stupid semantics games that I stand accused of:
    I don’t think the founders had the Orlando shooting in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment.

    But we should in considering our gun legislation and start recognizing the difference between a weapon to defend yourself and your family and one designed for assaulting others."

    No the founders did write that to counter the european value system at that time, in which the right to bear arms was a right of nobility.
    Something which could be transferred to retainers.
    It's in essence a device to show equality.

    However inferring a distinction between a weapon and another based on the name "assault rifle" and inferring that "assault rifle" means designed to assault people is a bit silly.
    All weapons are in essence designed to assault a person, a

    Wolf will suffice for now, ;) I do have another name, but I just come from the generation of people who used pseudonyms, since people should take us for what we are, not based on their perception. And yeah I do care a lot about my privacy.
    Also back when people first introduced me to the net, they did advise me strongly to use a pseudonym instead of my name, given that certain employers liked to sniff through their employees online history. ;) (Something that hasn't changed, only that now people try to get their opponents fired.)

    Just for full disclosure, I don't think you are a PC Dogooder, or SJW as they are also called, I just to point out how they love to abuse comments like yours to justify their own ends. With copious ammounts of dogwhistling to make one think they want the same as you.

    I think the open Carry is a particularly stupid idea, and the threat of invasion for the US is a rather small one, unless the Canadians or Mexicans decide to invade. But I guess the Nothern ones won't do it, because according to their PM your enemy wins his wars by getting killed by you! ;) (And yeah the most important shots are those that you don't take, but I'm not that sure that Justin Trudeau knows that. ;) :p )
    It's just too much of a logistical problem for any non-North American country to invade the US..........and I guess you know that old tidbit about strategy and tactics being what logistics permit! ;)

    The Main reason given for what I've heard is that people want to keep their guns should the government actually try to change the country from a democracy to a totalitarian regime.

    Which ironically enough, now both sides, left and right seem to fear, along with a civil war being cooked up by the far left and far right.
    Which is contributing to their reticence in giving their guns up.

    However saying that nobody can defend something is a bit too absolutistic, given that there always is the possibility that someone could.

    The problem is however, that even stricter gun laws, like the german ones (they are weapon laws actually as they cover more than guns) for example still don't end the aquisition of such guns by criminals.

    And the question is, if you have to defend yourself against such bad people but the law enforcement can't reach you quite as quickly as here in germany or the UK, having a rifle could be helpful.

    Remember there are parts in the US which are on the arse end of nowhere, you wouldn't need it in a city though.

    As for the Bump Stock it should be made illegal, because it's trying to circumvent a law.

    I agree though that the weapon's laws are a bit rubbish at times, for example, I'm not allowed to carry a weapon for self defence in germany, but I might use everything that is at hand.
    Which means that in certain situations one is unarmed or creates weird problems, say one collects medieval weapons and uses them in defense against a burglar......because they are definately weapons, which would mean carrying them would be illegal, but they were also what was at hand in the home.

    Carrying a weapon has never been an issue in germany, never needed it, but recent events make think....
    • Like Like x 2
    • Love Love x 1
  12. Andy Jackson

    Andy Jackson
    I am the new Colin Mcrae I am Premium

    OK. :cool: