Public Safety: Guns and Driverless Cars

[Mazer]

You've always been a dick, albed, but accusing me of copypasta is about the laziest insult you've ever used.

[Bright Eyes]

When I become your benevolent dictator, I will restore the full rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment for all law abiding people to have the means to defend themselves from criminals who still have guns no matter what the law says, and to legally resist a tyrannical government as the Constitution says, and we will all be better off when I do.

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by Bright Eyes

When I become your benevolent dictator, I will restore the full rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment for all law abiding people to have the means to defend themselves from criminals who still have guns no matter what the law says, and to legally resist a tyrannical government as the Constitution says, and we will all be better off when I do.

Most people(well in my circle) in Britain find it so hard to understand this gun thing.
It just doesn't compute at all.
I respect people points of view on most things but this is one subject I can't.
Being allowed to possess guns yes.WITH PROPER CHECKS
But Military assault weapons.
Come on that's just stupid.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by malvachat

Most people(well in my circle) in Britain find it so hard to understand this gun thing.
It just doesn't compute at all.
I respect people points of view on most things but this is one subject I can't.
Being allowed to possess guns yes.WITH PROPER CHECKS
But Military assault weapons.
Come on that's just stupid.

Many gun-owning Americans support this point of view. Incidentally, so does federal law. An assault rifle (this term has a precise definition in law) is not available to the average American since it qualifies as a machine gun, and machine guns have been heavily restricted for three decades. The term you used—assault weapon—is harder to pin down in legal terms. It is essentially any semi-automatic rifle with certain cosmetic features which make it no deadlier than a simple hunting rifle. There are military assault rifles but, respectfully malva, a 'military assault weapon' is not a thing.

I agree that proper checks are necessary. We may disagree what a proper check is, and as we've recently learned, even proper checks fail to catch everybody. Sadly, the Texas shooter this week had passed a background check despite his disqualifying history of violent crime. And the Las Vegas shooter passed every background check as well because he had no criminal past to speak of. After a month we still don't know his motive. Perhaps a psychological evaluation would have somehow indicated his intentions, but to me, requiring a psych-eval for gun buyers with no marks against them would be improper. For the government to limit a basic human right requires a damn good reason, and the remote possibility that any one gun might be used to commit a crime isn't a good enough reason, given the vast majority of guns are never aimed at people (that's rule #1 of gun safety, after all).

By the way, I'm not proud of what I said to albed, but I'm glad you got a kick out of it.

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Many gun-owning Americans support this point of view. Incidentally, so does federal law. An assault rifle (this term has a precise definition in law) is not available to the average American since it qualifies as a machine gun, and machine guns have been heavily restricted for three decades. The term you used—assault weapon—is harder to pin down in legal terms. It is essentially any semi-automatic rifle with certain cosmetic features which make it no deadlier than a simple hunting rifle. There are military assault rifles but, respectfully malva, a 'military assault weapon' is not a thing.

I agree that proper checks are necessary. We may disagree what a proper check is, and as we've recently learned, even proper checks fail to catch everybody. Sadly, the Texas shooter this week had passed a background check despite his disqualifying history of violent crime. And the Las Vegas shooter passed every background check as well because he had no criminal past to speak of. After a month we still don't know his motive. Perhaps a psychological evaluation would have somehow indicated his intentions, but to me, requiring a psych-eval for gun buyers with no marks against them would be improper. For the government to limit a basic human right requires a damn good reason, and the remote possibility that any one gun might be used to commit a crime isn't a good enough reason, given the vast majority of guns are never aimed at people (that's rule #1 of gun safety, after all).

By the way, I'm not proud of what I said to albed, but I'm glad you got a kick out of it.

Quite right name calling is not something to be proud of.
As to this gun thing.
Of course I don't know the details of what guns are what.
I have used a shotgun years ago.
Also I used a firing range in the USA many years ago for the experience.
I can't say I liked it really.
I know it's in the DNA of many,Americans this love of guns.
It's just not something I can get my head around.
Surly something needs to be done not just repeating the same old arguments over and over again.
As to owning a gun being a "basic human right"
I find that hard to understand that sort of thinking
Britain's police on the whole are still unarmed.
Despite all the troubles in the world most police want to keep it that way.
We do have armed response units which may need expanding in the present climate but I'm not really in favour of more guns on the street.
There is gun crime in Britain but not enough to justify arming all of our police.
It's a debate that we in Britain maybe shouldn't get involved in concerning American.
A country that has so many great things going for it's way of life.
Lets it's self down with this issue I feel.
But we have a phrase here in Britain.
"Non players stay off the green"

[Mazer]

It's a cultural thing, I guess. As hard as it is for you to get American gun culture, I find I cannot in the slightest wrap my head around this: YouTube: 11 British police officers versus 1 guy with a knife. I get that putting a gun in a cop's hand is the equivalent of putting the power over life itself in his hand and the British people don't want that, but give the cops something. I mean, a guard dog's bark is only as assertive as the bite it threatens, and no matter how short a leash you might put on your dog, you'd never pull his teeth.

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by Mazer

It's a cultural thing, I guess. As hard as it is for you to get American gun culture, I find I cannot in the slightest wrap my head around this: YouTube: 11 British police officers versus 1 guy with a knife. I get that putting a gun in a cop's hand is the equivalent of putting the power over life itself in his hand and the British people don't want that, but give the cops something. I mean, a guard dog's bark is only as assertive as the bite it threatens, and no matter how short a leash you might put on your dog, you'd never pull his teeth.

The guy with the knife will eventually get tired and and be disarmed.Yes it's comical that 11 police are there but what has that to do with guns?Are you saying he should be shot?The guy is obviously a nut job.Does that been we have to execute him?
Because of all the guns in America and the "Gun Culture"your police have to be armed.I don't at this moment feel our police either need to be or want to be.As to the average guy in the street being armed absolutely not.
There are so many aspects of American culture I do so admire. But this ownership of guns with it's so obvious (IMHO)flaws is not one of them.

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by Mazer

You've always been a dick, albed,

Lots of things about my life make me smile.
Everyday it's something.
Yesterday it was my little grandson playing in the bath.
Today it's you Mazer.
Your comment just made me smile.