American Politics Discussion

[OrangeKhrush]

the solution would be to limit limit guns to people capable of safe usage of guns and mentally capable of owning guns.

this is the second guy in a week ťhst people knew had some form of psychopathic derangement and did fuck all about it.  this goes for the NY subway shooter and the Wakausha SUV killer who post anti white, anti patriotic and anti Semite rhetoric on social media even direct threats of violence and Facebook and Twitter did nothing.

 

guns don't kill people, fucking demented people kill people.  

 

I own guns, j have to regularly do psychiatric evaluations as well as safety handling tests to renew the licences.   it really isn't a terrible thing to own guns, just terrible people who are used for political agenda.

[OrangeKhrush]

the US government sites posted anti China rhetoric about how China is planning an immediate take over in the Pacific region.   Nobody else reported on this misinformation but China responded to the US Government calling this misinformation nothing short of warmongering with the US trying to bully China which it sees as a growing threat.   

the loons are running the US and unfortunately we are the closest to war since the 50's.   the mid terms can't come sooner.   the loonies need to be pushed out before they start a war.

[Stan]

13 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

the solution would be to limit limit guns to people capable of safe usage of guns and mentally capable of owning guns.

this is the second guy in a week ťhst people knew had some form of psychopathic derangement and did fuck all about it.  this goes for the NY subway shooter and the Wakausha SUV killer who post anti white, anti patriotic and anti Semite rhetoric on social media even direct threats of violence and Facebook and Twitter did nothing.

 

guns don't kill people, fucking demented people kill people.  

 

I own guns, j have to regularly do psychiatric evaluations as well as safety handling tests to renew the licences.   it really isn't a terrible thing to own guns, just terrible people who are used for political agenda.

If you take the guns away, what do the 'fucking demented people' kill kids in schools with?

[OrangeKhrush]

Just now, Stan said:

If you take the guns away, what do the 'fucking demented people' kill kids in schools with?

bluntforce objects, bladed weapons, IEDs.

the issue is demented people shouldn't be able to get guns.

[Waylander]

We officially have no guns here yet people are still being shot.

I do recall Sasha Johnson leader of the UK BLM movement being shot and brain damaged. 

I was talking to a friend whose brother's friend was a superintendent in the police and had a firearm because of drugs gangs here. He said it was really dangerous now at certain levels in the police. 

 

[Viva la FCB+]

Noones claiming your eliminating gun violence with restrictions but you bet your ass the numbers goes down because of it. The simple back ground check wont eliminate mass shootings but again its a step forward in the right direction. Carrying on like this and doing nothing is just madness. 

[Waylander]

I wondered in the Bush years if without the right to guns whether Bush & Co would have gone full 'Nazi' and insisted on conscription and invaded Iran as well as Iraq. 

 

[RandoEFC+]

9 hours ago, Stan said:

If you take the guns away, what do the 'fucking demented people' kill kids in schools with?

This. There are demented people in lots of other places with different firearm legislation and a lot less school shootings.

You can't compare it to knives or baseball bats. God forbid someone rushed a school with a weapon like that, probably/hopefully they get decked before they get anywhere near a child.

[Devil-Dick Willie]

On 30/05/2022 at 19:02, OrangeKhrush said:

bluntforce objects, bladed weapons, IEDs.

the issue is demented people shouldn't be able to get guns.

Go watch videos of people killing several people with a gun. Then watch the same with a knife or a bat. It's night and day. Guns are effortless. It is outrageously difficult and personal to kill someone with a blunt or bladed weapon. 

A gun makes it easy to kill several people. Too easy. It's not a power people should have. 

[OrangeKhrush]

2 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

Go watch videos of people killing several people with a gun. Then watch the same with a knife or a bat. It's night and day. Guns are effortless. It is outrageously difficult and personal to kill someone with a blunt or bladed weapon. 

A gun makes it easy to kill several people. Too easy. It's not a power people should have. 

Sure it is easier but the most derranged like killing killing up close.  America they like guns because they are easily accessable, in africa its, rape, panga and burn the evidence, truly sadistic shit devoid of empathy.

[6666]

People do own guns in countries outside the context of criminality and I can understand their annoyance at being bundled in with mass shooters but it is crazy that the US hasn't taken more steps to combat the issue when mass shootings are more American than apple pie.

Not sure how much gun control would affect things with how embedded guns are in the US but I would think regular mass shootings would mean that they'd be willing to try and see. Obviously there are other factors at play and it's important to focus on those factors as well but the guns are ultimately what are being used to kill people.

[Cicero]

There needs to be some sort of legislature where all public schools needs to have automatic locking systems in place. Ridiculous to think there are schools in the United States of all places where a man with a gun can walk in effortlessly. 

[Viva la FCB+]

The ideas the republican Senators have come up with are absolutely ludicrous. Such as having armed policeman guarding schools and even arming teachers...The other idea Ted Cruz was trying to push was only having one entrance and no back doors, yeah Im sure fire departments would love that one. The fact of the matter is there is far, far too much money involved and power with the NRA and there is next to no chance these Senators grow a spine out of left field. Its sad but I dont know what can be done. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

On 27/05/2022 at 13:28, Viva la FCB said:

Gotta love the GOP responses to the latest tragedy. Suggestions of arming teachers, creating only one entrance to schools and keeping armed police by said door and even the Texas Governer General saying laws dont matter  

Way too much money involved to ever try and change anything. So very sad. 

I don't understand what arming teachers would do... other than result in some teacher that has finally snapped after dealing with these little shits all day pulling out the gun and blasting some kids.

The police in the US are armed... there was even a heavy police presence at the school where the shooting was. What happened with all of these armed police? They were too scared to actually act when there was an active shooter. They sat around the car park scratching their arses, harassing the concerned parents of children stuck in the school with the gunmen, and waited for Border Patrol (for some reason) to turn up and deal with it.

What the fuck is an untrained teacher going to do? Also are the guns going to be secure? If it's not secure, there's the risk of kids getting those guns that should be held by teachers and shooting other people. If it is secure, that takes away from the possible response time a teacher would have if a gunman stormed into their classroom.

And again... it's an untrained teacher. Not a military trained sniper. Not even a poorly trained police officer. If those cops with assault rifles and body armour were too fucking scared to respond to an active shooter... what on earth would ANYBODY expect some random teacher to do in that situation?

On 30/05/2022 at 02:02, OrangeKhrush said:

bluntforce objects, bladed weapons, IEDs.

the issue is demented people shouldn't be able to get guns.

Aside from demented people, who obviously should not be able to get guns... there's just too many guns in the US that don't really serve the purpose gun owners claim they need. Why does anyone need an AR-15 or an AK-47 other than for killing people? Not hunters - they're not good weapons for hunting. Not people who "want to defend their families," something like a shotgun would probably do just fine for that - effective at defense, needs less ammo, easier to aim, easier to clean, less likely to jam, etc.

Assault weapons are designed to just make killing people as easy as possible for combat. Your average everyday arsehole off the street doesn't need an AK-47 to protect themselves, they don't need it to hunt, the only real reason to have one is to kill people. There's no reason why these weapons should be able to be purchased by ordinary people, they belong in the hands of military troops and specially trained police.

[Dr. Gonzo]

On 28/05/2022 at 08:19, Spike said:

Only number one could work but only moving forward, the rest would never work. Your being naive about the US culture and their gun laws. Chicago has a 100% ban on guns and it doesn't matter how many police seize there are 10 times more unregistered guns with unknown ownership.
 

How would cops even know who to visit after a buyback? Most gun ownership is anonymous. Your practically asking for cops to engage in shootouts with civilians. Americans are literally conditioned from childhood to be distrustful of the federal government, but love the USA, they have an intense double-think of patriotism and fear and every time guns are attempted to be regulated it triggers a 1776 mentality.

There'd need to be a federal standard, rather than relying on states to police themselves locally.

The issue with Chicago is while Illinois has really strict gun laws, there's states like Indiana next door that have some of the lightest restrictions on gun ownership in the US. So if you're a criminal that wants a gun quickly in Illinois, you've just got to have the patience to drive far enough if you REALLY want a gun you're not going to get in the state you're in. And then you just need to drive it back.

Gun control in the US leaves so much open to the individual states and to an extent, I think that's alright and is the right idea... but there needs to be a higher baseline standard of gun regulation in a country where mass shootings are so common and where it's so easy for people that shouldn't have access to guns to get guns.

[Waylander]

I recall Lee Child the Jack Reacher author talking about Montana where he now lives. He said there is not a police station for 200 miles.

Now I could understand you wanting firearms being so remote though a pistol and hunting rifle is probably sufficient as opposed to an assault rifle.

However if you live near the Mexico border with drug gangs coming across an assault rifle might be a better idea. 

To police those states that do want stricter laws you might need state border customs to confiscate guns from cross state traffic. 

No easy answers. 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Waylander said:

However if you live near the Mexico border with drug gangs coming across an assault rifle might be a better idea. 

I live near the Mexico border currently and I must say, I think that's one of the silliest things I've ever heard . The cartels coming in use tunnels and boats mostly, a lot of the illegal immigration done by land is mostly just migrants trying to get away from the gang violence in Mexico and South/Central America.

Combatting drug trafficking creating crime in the US isn't going to be solved with AK47s and AR-15s in the hands of people that have no business owning them  - organised crime thrives because drugs create a black market they control. So combating that crime would require doing more with US drug policy and taking control away from the cartels and gangs that run the market for drugs.

But really it's a wholly separate issue from the constant mass shootings the US faces now. Most mass shootings have nothing to do with anyone needing to protect themselves - it's someone with a gun that's decided to go out and kill people.

Guns by themselves make it easy to kill people, but assault rifles are designed to make it as easy as possible to kill as many people as someone can before they need to reload. Nobody needs one for protection unless they're in the military and are meant to be protecting something for military purposes. People buy them because they think assault rifles are cool or because they want to kill people.

[Spike]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I live near the Mexico border currently and I must say, I think that's one of the silliest things I've ever heard . The cartels coming in use tunnels and boats mostly, a lot of the illegal immigration done by land is mostly just migrants trying to get away from the gang violence in Mexico and South/Central America.

Combatting drug trafficking creating crime in the US isn't going to be solved with AK47s and AR-15s in the hands of people that have no business owning them  - organised crime thrives because drugs create a black market they control. So combating that crime would require doing more with US drug policy and taking control away from the cartels and gangs that run the market for drugs.

But really it's a wholly separate issue from the constant mass shootings the US faces now. Most mass shootings have nothing to do with anyone needing to protect themselves - it's someone with a gun that's decided to go out and kill people.

Guns by themselves make it easy to kill people, but assault rifles are designed to make it as easy as possible to kill as many people as someone can before they need to reload. Nobody needs one for protection unless they're in the military and are meant to be protecting something for military purposes. People buy them because they think assault rifles are cool or because they want to kill people.

Also the USA is the reason why Mexico is fucked. They put a trade embargo on them unless they banned a heap of shit and those bannings allowed the cartels to create black markets. Also the USA is the number one place for illegal guns going into Mexico.

The USA fucked Mexico not the other way around.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, Spike said:

Also the USA is the reason why Mexico is fucked. They put a trade embargo on them unless they banned a heap of shit and those bannings allowed the cartels to create black markets. Also the USA is the number one place for illegal guns going into Mexico.

The USA fucked Mexico not the other way around.

100% - it's something that should be a bigger issue in US national politics, but I think is really something that's more of an issue in border states... but really mostly in border communities rather than the states at large.

It's not surprising there have been many instances of Mexican cartel members coming into the US COMPLETELY LEGALLY, getting guns quite easily, and then getting caught in Mexico trying to illegally cross the border with those guns they obtained in Mexico.

Mexico can be a dangerous place if you're not careful because Cartels have serious control there... but the US making it so easy to get guns is a big part of why Mexico is so bloody dangerous in the first place (especially coupled with the US's war on drugs - which drugs are winning).

But weirdly when border security does reach the national focus of politics, it's usually done in a way that border cities and towns seem to disagree with. Probably because they don't actually solve any of the actual issues they have to deal with and are more just targeted at people who don't live in those areas that are just scared of Mexicans (for reasons known only by themselves).

[Waylander]

Recently the BBC showed one of the tunnels crime gangs had constructed under the US-Mexico border. It was 4ft wide with rails and carriages allegedly to transport drugs though easily big enough to carry weapons and even small children.

I do agree the US has put economic stress on Mexico at times though they would be wise to stop illegal traffic of drugs and whatever else is being smuggled.

I have read Mexican gangs operate in the US and they will use assault rifles or at least carry them for protection. 

Will take a lot of police to stop that and there is no political will to do it.

[OrangeKhrush]

19 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don't understand what arming teachers would do... other than result in some teacher that has finally snapped after dealing with these little shits all day pulling out the gun and blasting some kids.

The police in the US are armed... there was even a heavy police presence at the school where the shooting was. What happened with all of these armed police? They were too scared to actually act when there was an active shooter. They sat around the car park scratching their arses, harassing the concerned parents of children stuck in the school with the gunmen, and waited for Border Patrol (for some reason) to turn up and deal with it.

What the fuck is an untrained teacher going to do? Also are the guns going to be secure? If it's not secure, there's the risk of kids getting those guns that should be held by teachers and shooting other people. If it is secure, that takes away from the possible response time a teacher would have if a gunman stormed into their classroom.

And again... it's an untrained teacher. Not a military trained sniper. Not even a poorly trained police officer. If those cops with assault rifles and body armour were too fucking scared to respond to an active shooter... what on earth would ANYBODY expect some random teacher to do in that situation?

Aside from demented people, who obviously should not be able to get guns... there's just too many guns in the US that don't really serve the purpose gun owners claim they need. Why does anyone need an AR-15 or an AK-47 other than for killing people? Not hunters - they're not good weapons for hunting. Not people who "want to defend their families," something like a shotgun would probably do just fine for that - effective at defense, needs less ammo, easier to aim, easier to clean, less likely to jam, etc.

Assault weapons are designed to just make killing people as easy as possible for combat. Your average everyday arsehole off the street doesn't need an AK-47 to protect themselves, they don't need it to hunt, the only real reason to have one is to kill people. There's no reason why these weapons should be able to be purchased by ordinary people, they belong in the hands of military troops and specially trained police.

guns for people experienced with them, hobbists and hunters i feel is fine as long as they do the competency evaluations.    i have military training and i have a hunters licence,  i own an AR-10 chambered in .308 but im not shooting people with it.  i also own a FN mk20 in .338 both are mid to large game rifles.    Add to that a CZ P10 and 12G.   i had a house break once and the one trespasser fired a baretta and i shot him with the 12g with non lethal bean shot, lets say he didnt want more of that.   the third shot was a rubber shot which would hurt a lot more.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, OrangeKhrush said:

guns for people experienced with them, hobbists and hunters i feel is fine as long as they do the competency evaluations.

Yeah, sure - that's a hell of a lot more regulation though than the US currently has though.

I still think nobody needs an AK47 or AR15 when they're not in the military. Perhaps for the firearms enthusiasts who want to try out these killing tools (but not on people), they should allow them to be owned by gun clubs that people could join to get access to their firing ranges/cooler guns - and allow members to use the club's facilities/weapons. But then I think any gun registered to those gun clubs that gets used in any crime would ultimately make the gun club and those at the top liable for the wrongful death of any victims of that gun.

[Waylander]

One of the videos I saw from the US during the BLM movement was thought provoking.

On one march near one town centre was an impressive property with immaculate lawn and the owner and his wife were getting annoyed or worried that protestors were advancing towards his property showing pistols did not work they had pistols too, it was the AR15 type weapons that seemed to encourage the protesters to leave their property. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

54 minutes ago, Waylander said:

One of the videos I saw from the US during the BLM movement was thought provoking.

On one march near one town centre was an impressive property with immaculate lawn and the owner and his wife were getting annoyed or worried that protestors were advancing towards his property showing pistols did not work they had pistols too, it was the AR15 type weapons that seemed to encourage the protesters to leave their property. 

The family who threatened to shoot the protestors who didn't even attempt to get on their land? 

[OrangeKhrush]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yeah, sure - that's a hell of a lot more regulation though than the US currently has though.

I still think nobody needs an AK47 or AR15 when they're not in the military. Perhaps for the firearms enthusiasts who want to try out these killing tools (but not on people), they should allow them to be owned by gun clubs that people could join to get access to their firing ranges/cooler guns - and allow members to use the club's facilities/weapons. But then I think any gun registered to those gun clubs that gets used in any crime would ultimately make the gun club and those at the top liable for the wrongful death of any victims of that gun.

i can understand your points, ill just differ on on the point of owning gun x is not logical.   owning an AK47 is more a novelty item.  I have been shot at by AK47s, the running joke is that fortunately it was an AK47.

 

i remember our captain saying that if you run out of ammo, dont pick up a fallen enemys AK, rather use a blade its more accurate.

 

anywho what has come out about that salvador guy is alarming.   he paid 2k more than 3x the rate for his rifle, and had something like 16 mags which is most likely black market.  the more you regulate something the more black markets arise.

 

for me smerica needs to revise its licence policies and ensure only competent handlers can own firearms.   it has become surreal but i think it is by design