Most hunting rifles aren't semi automatic and while they are more powerful they their design makes them also slightly more difficult to handle outside careful hunting scenarios.

Мишель I disagree with the last part of that statement. You obviously have not handled very many hunting rifles. Or have been hunting very much. There is no such thing as carefull hunting scenario unless you are in a fenced in canned hunt ( Which are unsportsman like anyway IMO )
The best handling hunting rifle I ever owned was Winchester model 94 lever action. I still regert selling it over 30 yeras ago. Any rifle or shotgun I ever owned was well balanced, wieghed what I wanted to carry all day and handled just fine in the real world of hunting. In fact my AR-15 comes in well over two pounds heavier than my Remington model 700 in 30.06 caliber with a scope.

With careful hunting scenario I meant a scenario where you take your time to look for a target and shoot it. Opposed to running through the woods and trying to shoot at everything that moves.

What exactly is the European reason giving 'The Power' (Tsar, King, Duce, Government, etc.) the Authority to limit Free and Independent People access to guns?

Answer: A Primitive, and almost Childish, TRUST in Authority.

No, the answer is that we believe that the monopoly of violence should be in the hands of the state, as the state is the only body in society that answers to the public and can therefor be held accountable in case they misuse their power. And guess what, they haven't misused their powers ever since the end of WW2 (in the case of Germany) and longer in the case of most other countries.

Since WWII? Very SHORT Time. Or has Europe changed history, human nature, or the nature of evil? The Future beckons'.

Since WW2 is only really the case for Germany. France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia have a much longer history of successful democratic regimes where power has not been abused by the state.

American Thought: 100 Million People have Guns. A few go crazy and 100 People are killed. Criminals also have guns and 4000-6000 people are killed.

European Thought: Power has the Guns. ONE goes crazy and 10's of million people are killed.

The European model is an Historical Failure.

The American Model is an ongoing experiment. It may fail.

In case you forgot, in the US power still has access to enough firepower to wipe out all life on the planet. So basically what you got is a country where people kill their fellow citizens with guns and in case the government goes crazy is still capable of killing billions of people. Basically you got our flaw plus extra gun violence. I'd say this particular experiment is a clear failure.

Sorry I have never understood European Logic (sic).

Understanding the Historical Failure of European Thought: Why is this First Attempt to stop 'The Greater Bad', wrong?

As an attempt its not wrong. But with any attempt one has to recognize when it has failed and it clearly has failed and come up with a new attempt. However, American conservatives have pretty much declared the Second Amendment sacred and any attempt to in any way change it is considered heresy.

It is Sacred. Just like the Other 'Bill of Rights'. To 'Throw Out' one you don't like, is VERY European.

One moment you claim its all just an attempt in a larger experiment to counter act 'historical forces' and the next moment you declare that its perfect and cannot ever be changed. Those two statements contradict each other.

And what do you mean, "what do you do now?"?

A constitutional amendment must come from and be approved by the people; the courts and the president have no say and there is no direct popular vote. An amendment, to pass, needs a 2/3 approval vote from both the House and Senate along with a 2/3 approval of the several States. How the states approve or reject is up to them. If the amendment is approved by the 2/3 vote it is a done deal, the president can't sign or reject and the court can't declare the constitution unconstitutional.

This can be done by a convention; if 2/3 of the several States call for one but this hasn't happened; all past amendments were introduced by congress. It's not easy to change but the founders wanted it that way.

---

A constitutional amendment must come from and be approved by the people; the courts and the president have no say and there is no direct popular vote. An amendment, to pass, needs a 2/3 approval vote from both the House and Senate along with a 2/3 approval of the several States. How the states approve or reject is up to them. If the amendment is approved by the 2/3 vote it is a done deal, the president can't sign or reject and the court can't declare the constitution unconstitutional.

This can be done by a convention; if 2/3 of the several States call for one but this hasn't happened; all past amendments were introduced by congress. It's not easy to change but the founders wanted it that way.

Last I heard it only needed one or two more states to call for one.

and your event was?

I personally have never been in a car accident, after over 45 years of driving.

But I feel the Seat Belts, and Air Bags, MAY save my life someday.

Just because you haven't used something, doesn't mean anything.

I don't think they are really comparable. Mainly because we know for a fact that seat belts and Air bags save lives. I do not believe that is the actually the case for guns.

Via pm someone asked me what my event was. Well there wasn't one event. I lived in Brixton for 20 years which is very much like Compton except not quite as bad. It has a lot of the same social problems and poverty. Lots of drug problems, gang problems and overall crime. The only reason it was possible to live there was because of the strict gun laws in the UK. If Brixton had more guns it would have been just like Compton. It would have been a blood bath there.

So there is a clear difference when you have gun regulation and when you don't.

I'm glad that there are no places in the UK as bad as Compton. I also know that one of the reason's there isn't is because the UK has sensible gun laws that reduce the number of guns available to criminals.

That's not to say that these places are wonderfully safe, but I do know its a lot easer to get away from someone wielding a knife than someone wielding a gun. I also know that I was at a much smaller risk of being caught in the crossfire during gang killings.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Hi Es,

Air bags save lives

They can also kill... little kids... if one deploys when a little kid is in the seat it 'protects'.

From http://www.ou.edu/oupd/kidseat.htm

Children riding in the front seat can be seriously injured or killed when an air bag comes out in a crash.

An air bag is not a soft, billowy pillow. To do its important job, an air bag comes out of the dashboard at up to 200 miles per hour — faster than the blink of an eye. The force of an air bag can hurt those who are too close to it.

but I do know its a lot easer to get away from someone wielding a knife than someone wielding a gun.

That depends on the knife and the skill of the person using it. Ever hear of 'throwing knives'?

Hi Es,

Air bags save lives

They can also kill... little kids... if one deploys when a little kid is in the seat it 'protects'.

From http://www.ou.edu/oupd/kidseat.htm

Children riding in the front seat can be seriously injured or killed when an air bag comes out in a crash.

An air bag is not a soft, billowy pillow. To do its important job, an air bag comes out of the dashboard at up to 200 miles per hour — faster than the blink of an eye. The force of an air bag can hurt those who are too close to it.

but I do know its a lot easer to get away from someone wielding a knife than someone wielding a gun.

That depends on the knife and the skill of the person using it. Ever hear of 'throwing knives'?

You don't need much training to kill a lot of people with a gun. You need quite a lot to learn to use throwing knives.

Guns have killed far more children than airbags ever have. Not a good comparison.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Last I heard it only needed one or two more states to call for one.

A "Constitutional Convention" would be a hoot. The House the Senate and 50 State Legislatures in one room making amendments on the fly, two or three an hour.

---

Guns save lives also.

I've seen that site before, and in most cases no lives were in actual danger.

You can argue that guns stop robbers, but I once overheard two insurance brokers on a train complaining about the strong correlation between crime and unemployment.

So I'm going to argue that there are more effective ways to protect people from crime than shooting people.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Hi Es,

Air bags save lives

They can also kill... little kids... if one deploys when a little kid is in the seat it 'protects'.

From http://www.ou.edu/oupd/kidseat.htm

Children riding in the front seat can be seriously injured or killed when an air bag comes out in a crash.

An air bag is not a soft, billowy pillow. To do its important job, an air bag comes out of the dashboard at up to 200 miles per hour — faster than the blink of an eye. The force of an air bag can hurt those who are too close to it.

but I do know its a lot easer to get away from someone wielding a knife than someone wielding a gun.

That depends on the knife and the skill of the person using it. Ever hear of 'throwing knives'?

You don't need much training to kill a lot of people with a gun. You need quite a lot to learn to use throwing knives.

Guns have killed far more children than airbags ever have. Not a good comparison.

Hi Es,

Perfectly valid comparison, in my opinion.

An Air-Bag is a dangerous tool. Properly used, it can save lives. Improperly used, it can injure or kill the user or a family member.

A gun is a dangerous tool. Properly used, it can save lives. Improperly used, it can injure or kill the user or a family member.

It takes training to use guns safely. It also takes a lot of practice to use them well.

It takes training to use 'throwing knives'. It also takes a lot of practice to use them well.

Case in point on gun safety.

A number of years ago, in the apartment complex I lived in at the time there was a crime-wave. An armored car guard lived across the street from me. The criminal picked the wrong place to break in and burglarize.

The guard arrived home from work as his place was being burglarized. He caught and subdued the burglar without incident, then yelled out for someone to call the police. I heard it and called the police for him. When the police arrived, the guard had the perp lying face down on the ground while he was holding his handgun aimed at the perp from several feet away to keep the perp well behaved.

The police officer was a rather new one. First thing he did was to remove the guard's gun from his possession (standard procedure in such cases). The cop then stuck the gun in his pants behind him between his pants and his shirt so that his belt would hold it in place. What an idiot. He didn't even unload it first.

As you can probably guess, the cop blew a large chunk of his own 'backside' off. In the confusion, the perp (of course) ran off.

What sucked was that this idiot of a cop got a medal for being 'wounded in the line of duty'....

Guns take quite a bit of training to safely possess and use. Sadly, not everyone receives this training, and of those that do, many do not pay attention to it. But why penalize those of us that DO pay rigorous attention to gun safety and otherwise qualify (ie. NO felony convictions, no mental disorders, etc.) by preventing them from owning the things?

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Hi Es,

Air bags save lives

They can also kill... little kids... if one deploys when a little kid is in the seat it 'protects'.

Which is why, at least in Europe, it is illegal to keep children in the front of the car.

Europe has, and eventually will always fail, concerning 'Trust in Power'.

So, instead of offering American solutions to Historical European failures. I was just giving you an opportunity to give European solutions.

Indeed, it will most likely fail at some point. But to say that these failures are European is nonsense. They are just as well American failures. Or Chinese failures. Or African failures. They are human failures, and most likely they are failures of understanding what power is and where it comes from. Once you do understand it, you will see that every human trusts power in some way.

In any case, there is no solution to avoiding a naive trust in power. There is only one way to effectively slow down the corrosive influence power has on individuals and that is collective responsibility. We have that, both in the US and in Europe and the system that gives us collective responsibility is called Democracy. But even this system is open to abuse and will eventually fail. But when it does, its everyones fault, and not just the fault of a single individual.

In the case of weapons, it actually only speeds up the corrosive and corrupting influence of power. Weapons have been granted power due to their lethal properties and as a result anyone carrying a weapon has power. While the goal was to curb the influence of government tyranny, instead weapons have empowered individuals to become tyrants themselves. If the aim is to curb the corrosive effects of power, weapon ownership MUST be restricted.

In the case of weapons, it actually only speeds up the corrosive and corrupting influence of power. Weapons have been granted power due to their lethal properties and as a result anyone carrying a weapon has power. While the goal was to curb the influence of government tyranny, instead weapons have empowered individuals to become tyrants themselves. If the aim is to curb the corrosive effects of power, weapon ownership MUST be restricted.

That may be quite true, however, once that is accomplished, a corrupt leader gets into power, replaces those under him with his own "yes" men" and this occurs...

June 4th 1989

... so when democracy falls, we can expect more of it. What price gun control now?

---

That may be quite true, however, once that is accomplished, a corrupt leader gets into power, replaces those under him with his own "yes" men" and this occurs...

June 4th 1989

... so when democracy falls, we can expect more of it. What price gun control now?

Yeah but an armed populace will never stand in the way of a government. Just look at the United States, where the government had no problem with repealing the Posse Comitatus and deploy the army against armed civilians that thought they could separate from the United States.

Again, the US government is just as much capable of killing millions of people as the Chinese, Russian or Nazi Germany government. The difference between the US government and all those other governments is that they aren't run by Hitler, Stalin or Mao and the reason they aren't run by those people is because the population has consistently voted for people that weren't like that. Therefor it follows that it wasn't gun ownership that kept the US government in check, but the fact that the people in the US didn't vote for a tyrant.

Also, despite Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government has consistently moved towards greater personal freedoms for its citizens ever since Mao's death. Chinese people today are probably the most free Chinese citizens in the history of China.

Most hunting rifles aren't semi automatic and while they are more powerful they their design makes them also slightly more difficult to handle outside careful hunting scenarios.

Мишель I disagree with the last part of that statement. You obviously have not handled very many hunting rifles. Or have been hunting very much. There is no such thing as carefull hunting scenario unless you are in a fenced in canned hunt ( Which are unsportsman like anyway IMO )
The best handling hunting rifle I ever owned was Winchester model 94 lever action. I still regert selling it over 30 yeras ago. Any rifle or shotgun I ever owned was well balanced, wieghed what I wanted to carry all day and handled just fine in the real world of hunting. In fact my AR-15 comes in well over two pounds heavier than my Remington model 700 in 30.06 caliber with a scope.

With careful hunting scenario I meant a scenario where you take your time to look for a target and shoot it. Opposed to running through the woods and trying to shoot at everything that moves.

Any hunter who runs through the woods shooting at everything is an idiot and not a hunter. Myself I like stalking a game animal. There are times just sitting at the base of a tree wont bring game in.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Any hunter who runs through the woods shooting at everything is an idiot and not a hunter. Myself I like stalking a game animal. There are times just sitting at the base of a tree wont bring game in.

Oh yes, but in a combat scenario people do tend to run through the woods (or streets) shooting at everything that moves (roughly speaking). The AR was designed with that in mind. Or at least, it was not designed for a scenario where you have the luxury to stalk your target.