OH

---

Yep it just goes to show that most Yanks arn't mature enough to be trusted with firearms Dull. ;-)

It was also the same weapon the military had.
The purpose was to protect against a Government's Overreach as well one's self.

+1

And the Australian Government obviously believes their citizens are not mature enough to be trusted with firearms..........

.....kinda like the German Government in 1938...........

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Accurately, the correct tense is used: was. It certainly isn't applicable anymore, as military hardware has so far outstripped what citizens are legally allowed to own (my previous example was the Apache helicopter, which can blow targets into tiny pieces with a 20mm cannon in pitch darkness and beyond accurate range of most rifles... even if a lucky shot could hit one at that distance it would not penetrate the Apache's armor.)

Still the argument can be made for citizens owning firearms for personal protection, especially if they live in rural areas, and of course may need them to deal with wildlife and livestock.

---

By saying the hardware available to the American Military is far superior to anything than can be possessed by private citizens I think you make two valid points.

First being that the Federal Government has no reason to fear being overpowered by the citizens through insurrection.

Second being that the first point makes disarming everyone of every type of weapon currently legal due to the actions of statistically very few mentally ill members of society, irrational.

No one should be denied the right to bring equal firepower to bear for protection against assault as that possessed by the assaulter. The Odessa shooter was DENIED a legal purchase of a firearm due to threats made. It didn't stop him.

The Parkland shooter was well known to the system and the authorities, that didn't stop him. In fact if you look at most every shooting there were some warning signs but the acts were carried out none the less.

And the idea that a regulated militia is the reason for arming citizens is false. The reason in this day in America is for the average citizen to be allowed to CHOOSE to defend him/herself from ANY assault. Not to be a militia or a cowboy or a Rambo. Just pure and simple defense of person and loved ones should the need arise.

To live in a world where monsters can choose to indiscriminately murder innocent people and think that a law banning one tool for the job will stop such monsters is not logical or correct. Each person is ultimately responsible for their own protection and safety.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

The reason in this day in America is for the average citizen to be allowed to CHOOSE to defend him/herself from ANY assault.

Using guns to defending from ANY assault? Well, that whats differ the US to the rest of the WORLD.

Can you spot the correlation?



Gun ownership per 100 persons
US - 120.5
UK - 4.5
Australia - 14.5
Canada - 34.7

Yep, you can certainly see that the old "Wild West" is still alive and doing well as more firearms and the mentally challenged keep it well fed.

Two fallacies

Second being that the first point makes disarming everyone of every type of weapon currently legal due to the actions of statistically very few mentally ill members of society, irrational.

1) That the mentally ill are only a statistically small percent of the population.
https://www.mentalhealthfirstaid.org/2019/02/5-surprising-mental-health-statistics/ wrote:

In the United States, almost half of adults (46.4 percent) will experience a mental illness during their lifetime.

2) That the only way to obtain is gun is from a licensed dealer who does background checks and scrupulously follows the result.

The Odessa shooter was DENIED a legal purchase of a firearm due to threats made. It didn't stop him.
The Parkland shooter was well known to the system and the authorities, that didn't stop him. In fact if you look at most every shooting there were some warning signs but the acts were carried out none the less.

We can address number two with a requirement for universal background checks on private party transactions. A tax stamp for every gun would be an excellent method to insure compliance.
We could also add a law that using an untaxed gun in a crime is its own crime with a mandatory minimum of say 25 years. Most crooks aren't idiot stupid. If they are stupid enough to use a gun it will be taxed and hence traceable. Most however will refuse to use a gun in crime. This is a good thing.

As to number one, do you have an absolute way to tell if a mentally ill person (1/2 the population) is never going to snap? I don't think so. Now all we need do is change HIPPA to allow and require mental illness to be reported to the National Instant Background Check system so that the mentally ill (1/2 the population) is precluded from gun ownership. With a universal check, mostly law abiding persons will be unable to access a firearm when they should not be able too. If it is in fact mentally ill who are doing these shootings, this will dramatically drop their number.
Of course with that reporting of a new mental illness has to come confiscation of guns already owned. (remember the constitution, the government must compensate when it takes)
An appeal system might make this a less bitter pill for the NRA to swallow, e.g. Another shrink and a normal limits MMPI.

Now working on #5 from the article "In the United States, only 41 percent of the people who had a mental disorder in the past year received professional health care or other services." which is what Rump wants to do will be a good thing, but it only will make a difference in those who know they have a problem and want help to stop the problem. They are the ones who are less likely to snap. It won't meaningfully reduce mass causality events.

<ed>grammar typo

Just the Left Wing Superior People, as with the Master Race by the Right. Believing in their right to control, what they believe to be the Masses, Inferior's. Deplorables, Lowlifes and anyone disagreeing with them.

A Secular Ideological belief, as with the similar Religious Theological belief in their Superiority and Right to Control. That is evil, hate filled and will always destroy our individual freedom. A freedom which they despise.

So, machine guns for all who want them then?

Like I'll ever get a straight answer on that...

---

So what is your solution Clyde?

Instead of just lambasting other's and agreeing with fools. ;-)

Then where do you keep get this "confiscation" bit from?

NRA "fools" of cause.

So what is your solution Clyde?

Again.

So you have no solution then?

Since getting a straight answer on this (especially from some) is like trying to nail smoke to the wall, I'll demonstrate:

Interviewer: Say, Mr. Kevvy... Machine guns for all who want them, then?
Mr . Kevvy: No.

Wow... that was complicated.

---

So you have no solution then?

To human frailty? No.

At last, we get an answer!
Clyde, what will be your comments be should your daughter-in-law & grandchildren be fatally injured in a mass shooting by a whacko?

So in other words you'll just let things keep getting worse?

I don't agree with including the silly "machine guns" in this discussion. Do you?

Of course you don't... you just equated people who are for any sort of firearm restriction to Nazis. So now you are in the predicament of either agreeing that everyone should be able to own a machine gun, which is an opinion you probably disagree with and don't want to be associated with, or that everyone should not be able to own a machine gun, which is... a firearm restriction! Which makes you either a hypocrite, or an equivalent of a Nazi by your very own words, and of course leads to the next logical question of: if you agree with machine guns being restricted because they are too dangerous, then why do you so strongly and divisively disagree with other types of firearms ie semi-automatic high-capacity magazine rifles also being restricted because they are too dangerous?

Not a good corner you have painted yourself into, is it?

---

And yet again you evade the question Clyde.

That's not being at all morally credible is it?

Awaiting his answer.

Awaiting your simple Yes/No to "Machine guns for all who want them?" for nigh a year now...

---

And yet again you evade the question Clyde.

That's not being at all morally credible is it?

Dear Wiggo,
Sirius B understood that I have no solution to human frailty.

I think Wiggo & everyone else understands your stance on that. What is not understood is your avoidance of reasonable questions which are answered by asinine statements.
Too many use statistics to state "the odds of it happening to me is minimal"
Unfortunately, it is happening to someone every day in the US.
Never ever say Never.