Remove Your Guns And Ammo From Your Luggage!

[klfrodo]

I don't know the answer, but I do know the Status Quo is NOT working.

I don't want to take someone else's weapon, but I also don't want to send my grandchildren to school wearing protective vests.

The answer has to be somewhere in the middle. Both sides have to be willing to give.

[A2Mich]

1 hour ago, Sancho_proudfoot said:

 

 

Actually, not so. In 2016, there were  3.26 homicides per million of population in the UK, compared with 4.96 per million of population in the US. (Using knives or other bladed weapons) There has been a recent spike this year  but there are many, many countries out there with far worse knife crime statistics than the UK.

 

Did you bother to research where the majority of those statistics originate and by whom the majority of murders are committed by, or are you simply assuming that a statistic realistically defines every part of the nation?

[A2Mich]

2 minutes ago, klfrodo said:

I don't know the answer, but I do know the Status Quo is NOT working.

I don't want to take someone else's weapon, but I also don't want to send my grandchildren to school wearing protective vests.

The answer has to be somewhere in the middle. Both sides have to be willing to give.

 

Exaclty. BOTH sides. Sadly, it’s typically always one side gives, while the other side takes. 

[Sancho_proudfoot]

24 minutes ago, A2Mich said:

 

Did you bother to research where the majority of those statistics originate and by whom the majority of murders are committed by, or are you simply assuming that a statistic realistically defines every part of the nation?

 

 

The statistics  are real, independent and verifiable.  As has been said, the majority of knife crime in the UK is a) in London (not wholly, but a large proportion) and b) drug-gang related, usually turf wars.

 

I am not, in any way suggesting that the figures relate to every part  of the  country (or countries) or to any given state, city, county or community. 

 

However when a bald statement like "The UK leads the world in knife crime" is made it needs firstly investigating and secondly, if incorrect, challenging.

 

I actually love the States - own property there  and will immigrate eventually - and generally feel safe to walk the neighbourhood. As in the  UK there are areas in certain cities l would  not walk freely around after dark.

[A2Mich]

3 minutes ago, Sancho_proudfoot said:

 

 

The statistics  are real, independent and verifiable.  As has been said, the majority of knife crime in the UK is a) in London (not wholly, but a large proportion) and b) drug-gang related, usually turf wars.

 

I am not, in any way suggesting that the figures relate to every part  of the  country (or countries) or to any given state, city, county or community. 

 

However when a bald statement like "The UK leads the world in knife crime" is made it needs firstly investigating and secondly, if incorrect, challenging.

 

I actually love the States - own property there  and will immigrate eventually - and generally feel safe to walk the neighbourhood. As in the  UK there are areas in certain cities l would  not walk freely around after dark.

 

Exactly. There are some cities I have no problem with and feel safe in. There are other cities that I don’t. Crime is not evenly distributed across all areas. Some places have higher crime rates than others do. I live in Colorado Springs. Most places here are safe—there are a few areas that aren’t. I don’t live in fear and think the entire city is out to get me. 

[dkjretired]

4 hours ago, John Bull said:

 

 If you're going to make accusations of nonsense you should have the decency to say why. 

 

JB 

 

With all due respect you can blame your ancestors in England for our gun culture and 2nd Amendment.

[Grandma Cruising]

True, but in those days America was a very dangerous place, what with wolves, bears and native Americans!

[John Bull]

1 minute ago, dkjretired said:

 

With all due respect you can blame your ancestors in England for our gun culture and 2nd Amendment.

 

Hi djk,

Ha-Ha. It's easy to blame any country for creating a gun culture in America. 

How far back d'you want to go?

Pilgrim Fathers, a mix of Dutch & Brits?

The Spanish in the south-west?

The British colonists and their American-born loyalists in the War of Independence - or the French, who armed  and fought with the revolutionaries ?

Native Americans?

Was Billy the Kid a closet Brit?

 

The 2nd Amendment was adopted in 1791, two years after the Bill of Rights and fifteen years after the Brits were sent a-runnin', so I'm not sure that my ancestors had anything to do with that.

The 2nd Amendment is now centuries out-of-date.

When it was adopted, the guns of the day were flintlocks - rate of fire three rounds per minute in the hands of an expert. That's a l'il bit slower than today's fastest automatics - 6,000 rounds per minute.

So who needs a rate of fire that's even a fraction of 6,000 rounds per minute?

Security forces, criminals, and terrorists - that's who.

 

I'll happily spar with you or anyone else, but really I'm waiting for sft429 to justify their throwaway slur.

 

JB 

 

 

 

[sft429]

15 minutes ago, John Bull said:

 

 

I'll happily spar with you or anyone else, but really I'm waiting for sft429 to justify their throwaway slur.

 

JB 

 

 

 

 

 

All you did was post silly insults disguised as questions.   All that post deserved was a throwaway slur.

[John Bull]

12 minutes ago, sft429 said:

 

All you did was post silly insults disguised as questions.   All that post deserved was a throwaway slur.

 

I don't know why ordinary US citizens need big-magazine high rate-of-fire automatic weapons, so yes I gave some silly reasons.

You're now going to give some sensible reasons?

 

JB 

 

[sft429]

 

I assume you're talking about the evil AR-15 when you say "big-magazine high rate-of-fire automatic weapons"  The AR-15 is not an automatic weapon.  It is no faster firing than any other semi-automatic weapon.  One pull of the trigger = one bullet out the muzzle.  The AR-15 isn't a powerful weapon.  In some states you can't even use it for deer because it doesn't deliver enough firepower to reliably kill the deer.  It is a weapon used in less than 3% of gun homicides.  Much ado about nothing.  We  had a ban on "Assault Rifles" for 10 years.  It was a joke and was completely ineffectual.

 

Banning hi cap magazines is just another feel-good measure that, when eventually proven ineffective, will only provoke "just one more" gun control law.  The Parkland school shooting was carried out with 10 round magazines yet one of the laws proposed in reaction was a ban on hi capacity magazines.  Brilliant.

 

And the 2nd Amendment was ratified right along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, not two years after.  Not that it makes any difference.

 

Finally, it isn't the Bill of Needs.  It's the Bill of Rights.

 

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by sft429

[John Bull]

32 minutes ago, sft429 said:

 

I assume you're talking about the evil AR-15 when you say "big-magazine high rate-of-fire automatic weapons"  The AR-15 is not an automatic weapon.  It is no faster firing than any other semi-automatic weapon.  One pull of the trigger = one bullet out the muzzle.  The AR-15 isn't a powerful weapon.  In some states you can't even use it for deer because it doesn't deliver enough firepower to reliably kill the deer.  It is a weapon used in less than 3% of gun homicides.  Much ado about nothing.  We  had a ban on "Assault Rifles" for 10 years.  It was a joke and was completely ineffectual.

 

Banning hi cap magazines is just another feel-good measure that, when eventually proven ineffective, will only provoke "just one more" gun control law.  The Parkland school shooting was carried out with 10 round magazines yet one of the laws proposed in reaction was a ban on hi capacity magazines.  Brilliant.

 

And the 2nd Amendment was ratified right along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, not two years after.  Not that it makes any difference.

 

Finally, it isn't the Bill of Needs.  It's the Bill of Rights.

 

 

 

 

Hi,

No, I wasn't referring to the AR-15, or any particular gun - just any gun (and there are plenty) that can kill on a grand scale. And judging by your critique of the AR-15, if I wanted to be a mass-murdered it wouldn't be my weapon of choice.

 

I understand that when it was introduced the 2nd Amendment was to give the right to form an armed militia, and it's now used to give the right to hunt and to defend oneself. I can understand some folk feeling those needs, therefore I can understand the arguments for the keeping the right. 

 

But guns capable of killing dozens are only needed by the evil-minded.

Amending that anachronistic right would go some way in the need to reduce the scale of massacres.

On that matter, several sources on the web tell me that mass-shootings went down during the life of the assault weapon ban and went back up when it was repealed - so hardly a joke or completely ineffectual. Of course assault weapons wouldn't go out of circulation on the day they're banned, so it'd take generations to make a huge difference.

 

Bill of Rights, not Bill of Needs? 

If there's no need, why are you so keen to retain the right? 

 

On the dates of the legislation, yes, my bad.

I'm no expert on US history, and misinterpreted a quick (too quick) surf of the net. But an error of 2 years over 300 years ago ain't gonna change the argument. 

 

JB 

[dkjretired]

3 hours ago, John Bull said:

 

Hi djk,

Ha-Ha. It's easy to blame any country for creating a gun culture in America. 

How far back d'you want to go?

Pilgrim Fathers, a mix of Dutch & Brits?

The Spanish in the south-west?

The British colonists and their American-born loyalists in the War of Independence - or the French, who armed  and fought with the revolutionaries ?

Native Americans?

Was Billy the Kid a closet Brit?

 

The 2nd Amendment was adopted in 1791, two years after the Bill of Rights and fifteen years after the Brits were sent a-runnin', so I'm not sure that my ancestors had anything to do with that.

The 2nd Amendment is now centuries out-of-date.

When it was adopted, the guns of the day were flintlocks - rate of fire three rounds per minute in the hands of an expert. That's a l'il bit slower than today's fastest automatics - 6,000 rounds per minute.

So who needs a rate of fire that's even a fraction of 6,000 rounds per minute?

Security forces, criminals, and terrorists - that's who.

 

I'll happily spar with you or anyone else, but really I'm waiting for sft429 to justify their throwaway slur.

 

JB 

 

 

 

 

John:

 

I stand behind what I said and it goes back to the reasons for our revolution.  There are several areas of our Constitution that were put in place due to the actions of the British that led to the revolution, its in the writings of our founding fathers.    I will say this however, second Amendment ain't going anywhere.  Constitutional amendments are too difficult to change or eliminate.  

 

I'm not commenting on the various gun discussions since I am a retired Chief of Detectives and saw lots of gun violence during my career.  To put it plain, most of our politicians on both the left and right are clueless and only care about their next election and many on both sides don't have any solutions that in reality will work. 

Edited April 9, 2019 by dkjretired

[A2Mich]

3 hours ago, John Bull said:

 

I don't know why ordinary US citizens need big-magazine high rate-of-fire automatic weapons, so yes I gave some silly reasons.

You're now going to give some sensible reasons?

 

JB 

 

 

Big magazine high rate of fire automatic weapons?  Thank you for proving what some of us suspected. I’ll keep my AR-15, thank you very much. Need?😂

[A2Mich]

2 hours ago, sft429 said:

 

I assume you're talking about the evil AR-15 when you say "big-magazine high rate-of-fire automatic weapons"  The AR-15 is not an automatic weapon.  It is no faster firing than any other semi-automatic weapon.  One pull of the trigger = one bullet out the muzzle.  The AR-15 isn't a powerful weapon.  In some states you can't even use it for deer because it doesn't deliver enough firepower to reliably kill the deer.  It is a weapon used in less than 3% of gun homicides.  Much ado about nothing.  We  had a ban on "Assault Rifles" for 10 years.  It was a joke and was completely ineffectual.

 

Banning hi cap magazines is just another feel-good measure that, when eventually proven ineffective, will only provoke "just one more" gun control law.  The Parkland school shooting was carried out with 10 round magazines yet one of the laws proposed in reaction was a ban on hi capacity magazines.  Brilliant.

 

And the 2nd Amendment was ratified right along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, not two years after.  Not that it makes any difference.

 

Finally, it isn't the Bill of Needs.  It's the Bill of Rights.

 

 

 

High capacity mags=standard capacity.  I don’t own any mags less than 30 rounds, and many are 40.  Fun for target shooting on the weekend, for sure.  You can’t argue “rights” with some, as sone don’t understand the difference between being subjects from citizens. 

[Athankfulheart]

There is a little more info here. Looks like she is back in the US.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2019/03/29/madison-cruise-ship-passenger-facing-gun-charge-cayman-islands/3145338002/

[navybankerteacher]

14 hours ago, dkjretired said:

 

...

 

I will say this however, second Amendment ain't going anywhere.  Constitutional amendments are too difficult to change ...

 

Amendments are not the only way things change.The way courts view things also change.  Roe v. Wade (abortion question) is a prime example.  The Supreme Court found that restrictions on abortions represented a violation of the “right to privacy” assumed to exist between a woman and her doctor and were therefore unconstitutional. But the Constitution does not address any “right to privacy”.

 

It is not difficult to see a Supreme Court decision finding that the opening phrase of the relevant passage : “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA...” means that REGULATION concerning the types of arms citizens are entitled to “keep and bear” is indeed contemplated.  What is difficult to see is prolonged inability to recognize that reasonable regulation of some people’s right to keep and bear arms has become essential to preserving other people’s right to life.

[dkjretired]

37 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Amendments are not the only way things change.The way courts view things also change.  Roe v. Wade (abortion question) is a prime example.  The Supreme Court found that restrictions on abortions represented a violation of the “right to privacy” assumed to exist between a woman and her doctor and were therefore unconstitutional. But the Constitution does not address any “right to privacy”.

 

It is not difficult to see a Supreme Court decision finding that the opening phrase of the relevant passage : “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA...” means that REGULATION concerning the types of arms citizens are entitled to “keep and bear” is indeed contemplated.  What is difficult to see is prolonged inability to recognize that reasonable regulation of some people’s right to keep and bear arms has become essential to preserving other people’s right to life.

 

Not going to happen with current appointments to the court. Trump has appointed two SCOTUS Judges and 1/6th of the Federal Judiciary.  It is even predicted that in 2020 the 9th Circuit will be Conservative. That type of control will last for decades.

Edited April 10, 2019 by dkjretired

[John Bull]

14 hours ago, A2Mich said:

 You can’t argue “rights” with some, as sone don’t understand the difference between being subjects from citizens. 

 

"Subject" is a hang-over word from centuries back, when the king / queen was the supreme ruler.

Nowadays it's rarely used, primarily for allegiance - "for my queen and country" rather than just "for my country".

The phraseology is purely historic.

And my passport declares that I'm a "British Citizen".

 

But it's clear that I'm not going to change the minds of those who enjoy toting guns, and they're not going to change mine.

So I've had my say, and I'll leave it at that.

The discussion has been ....... errrr ........ interesting 

 

JB 

[A2Mich]

20 minutes ago, John Bull said:

 

"Subject" is a hang-over word from centuries back, when the king / queen was the supreme ruler.

Nowadays it's rarely used, primarily for allegiance - "for my queen and country" rather than just "for my country".

The phraseology is purely historic.

And my passport declares that I'm a "British Citizen".

 

But it's clear that I'm not going to change the minds of those who enjoy toting guns, and they're not going to change mine.

So I've had my say, and I'll leave it at that.

The discussion has been ....... errrr ........ interesting 

 

JB 

 

“Toting guns”. That’s laughable. Mine stay safely locked up in a safe unless I’m on my way to the range. But, thanks for assuming what you don’t know about. 

[dwayneb236]

Police officer here and i can carry in any state but would not even think twice about carrying out of country. Never a thought.

[John Bull]

7 minutes ago, A2Mich said:

 

“Toting guns”. That’s laughable. Mine stay safely locked up in a safe unless I’m on my way to the range. But, thanks for assuming what you don’t know about. 

 

The 5000+ kids injured and 1000+ kids killed annually in shooting accidents suggests than not all who have guns are as careful as you. 

(was gonna put a winking smiley after that sentence, but it seemed at bit inappropriate)

 

JB  

[sft429]

16 minutes ago, John Bull said:

 

The 5000+ kids injured and 1000+ kids killed annually in shooting accidents suggests than not all who have guns are as careful as you. 

(was gonna put a winking smiley after that sentence, but it seemed at bit inappropriate)

 

JB    

2

 

In the US? You should have put the winking smilie in unless you were intentionally lying.  Either that or you need to check your sources more closely.  Hint; 19 year old gang bangers aren't children.

 

From CBS News

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 74 minors died from accidental discharges of firearms in 2014, the latest year for which comparable data are available. The AP and USA TODAY analysis counted 113 for that year, suggesting the federal government missed a third of the cases.

 

 

[navybankerteacher]

2 hours ago, dkjretired said:

 

Not going to happen with current appointments to the court. Trump has appointed two SCOTUS Judges and 1/6th of the Federal Judiciary.  It is even predicted that in 2020 the 9th Circuit will be Conservative. That type of control will last for decades.

Conservative judges are not necessarily unthinking - I am inclined to believe that the entire Court are capable of understanding the concept of “WELL REGULATED” , as it becomes increasingly obvious that the absence of significant and appropriate regulation is contributing to the denial to many citizens of their right to life.

 

The fact that many states already have long-standing statutes on their books (New York’s Sulllivan Law for example) demonstrates that regulation is already acceptable.  

 

What is is needed is effective monitoring to enforce such acceptable regulation.

[A2Mich]

1 hour ago, John Bull said:

 

The 5000+ kids injured and 1000+ kids killed annually in shooting accidents suggests than not all who have guns are as careful as you. 

(was gonna put a winking smiley after that sentence, but it seemed at bit inappropriate)

 

JB  

Sadly, you are correct in the assertion that many people are careless with firearm storage, which is truly tragic. Thankfully, many more are careful with keeping firearms locked and away from children. That said, every gun control bill proposed in the US only restricts law abiding owners, and every single one neglects criminals and have no mention of how to disarm them.