Well, what do we do about it all?

I firmly believe I have a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States to own a gun, rifle or shotgun for purposes of self defence, target shooting or hunting. I am a veteran of the Vietnam war (not a hero–I did not hear shots fired in anger). I have owned guns in the past and am comfortable with the thought that my neighbors might own them.

But I don’t believe at all that I have any right to park an Abrams tank in my driveway or a Humvee with a mounted fifty caliber machine gun. And the problem has nothing to do with the vehicles–it’s the attendant armaments that would scare my neighbors, cops and others.

Somewhere in between those two examples lies a balance that can be struck to guarantee our rights under the Second Amendment to the Constitution and the right to life delineated in its Preamble.

During training and operational exercises I witnessed the deadly power of automatic and semi-automatic rifles similar to the AR15 that has become the weapon of choice for mass shootings. I believe these weapons are on the wrong side of the balance sheet and should not be permitted in a civilian environment.

The Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled that the right to bear arms can be limited, both in terms of the types of guns available to the public and the individuals permitted to own or use them. Now, following a decade of mass shootings by madmen and terrorists (and?) we are engaged in a debate on where those lines should be drawn.

78% of Americans don’t own a gun. Half of the country’s guns are owned by 3% of its people. Most members of the National Rifle Association support strong background checks on all purchases, something that does not exist today.

I believe the limits can be drawn quickly and using common sense using those facts. Background checks for all gun sales, prohibition of gun ownership to convicted felons, convicted domestic abusers (there are shamefully some types of domestic abuse not classified as a felony), withdrawal of semi and automatic rifles from the market and a mandatory buyback of such weapons as are already in private hands.

For those conspiracy theorists fearing that the ‘guvmint’ will come and take their guns, three points:

  1. The background checks could be outsourced to a non-governmental third party–perhaps even the NRA. The government doesn’t have to know who owns the gun. Somebody just needs to cross reference the identity of the prospective purchaser with various databases of felons, abusers, those suffering from mental illness, etc.
  2. We are long past the point where individual firearms can serve as a check on potential government tyranny. The militarization of the various police departments across the country has led to a situation where an individual or a group of individuals stand no chance of opposing even a police department, let alone the country’s military. Conservatives called for–actually demanded–this militarization. The results have left us permanently at the mercy of our armed forces and law enforcement agencies.
  3. It is completely true that such regulation is very unlikely to change the overall statistics on murder and mayhem in the United States. Guns not regulated will be used, as they are today, for most murders and suicides. However, legislation can curb mass shootings, which are a small percentage of the total, but are horrific in both their frequency and effect.

The students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School have elevated the gun control issue to national attention (again), but with the marked difference that it is the survivors of the umpteenth mass shooting, not their parents or friends, that are making the case. Marches across the world yesterday support their pleas for common sense gun control.

We who did not march should support them too. They specifically do not call for gun confiscation or registration. They call for common sense controls similar to what I have outlined above.

Australia remains free decades after imposing very strict gun control laws. So does the United Kingdom. So will the United States.

Support Continental Telegraph Donate

176 COMMENTS

  1. During training and operational exercises I witnessed the deadly power of automatic and semi-automatic rifles similar to the AR15 that has become the weapon of choice for mass shootings. I believe these weapons are on the wrong side of the balance sheet and should not be permitted in a civilian environment.

    I am not sure the AR-15 is the weapon of choice for mass shootings. How many have they been involved in? Not Sandy Hook. Not the Aurora Theatre where the shooter used a shotgun, a Glock and a S&W. San Bernardino? Not sure. Not the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs. Where someone returned fire with an AR-15-style rifle. Not the Las Vegas shooting. So why should they be banned? Mass shootings get a lot of press attention but they result in a trivial number of deaths. Something like 18 deaths a year are linked to “assault rifles”.

    Now, following a decade of mass shootings by madmen and terrorists (and?) we are engaged in a debate on where those lines should be drawn.

    Some 30,000 people are killed by guns every year. Some 18 or so of them are killed by “assault rifles”. Why the f**k are you bothering? The facts are simple – America does not have a gun crime problem. It has a Democrat voter problem. Democrat voters shoot other Democrat voters. Mainly with illegal handguns. But because imprisoning Democrat voters is something the Democrats are loathe to do, they do not talk about Democrat gun crime. They pick on Republicans. Who own a lot of AR-15s. Which they use to shoot deer. A total ban on the 10 or 12 million AR-15-style rifles in America would do jack-sh!t to reduce deaths.

    You are virtue signalling and nothing else. Why do you bother?

    Most members of the National Rifle Association support strong background checks on all purchases, something that does not exist today.

    Depending on how you define “strong” and what leading questions you ask. Something like 3% of all lethal shootings are done with legally purchased guns. This would, again, do jack-sh!t for gun crime.

    Background checks for all gun sales, prohibition of gun ownership to convicted felons, convicted domestic abusers (there are shamefully some types of domestic abuse not classified as a felony), withdrawal of semi and automatic rifles from the market and a mandatory buyback of such weapons as are already in private hands.

    Mandatory buybacks? Most guns in America are semi-automatic – and when was the last time a fully automatic gun was used in any crime at all? That is expensive and frankly it is not going anywhere. The Supreme Court would strike it down and most gun owners would refuse to comply.

    Why should any form of domestic violence be counted as a felony? White Knighting acknowledged though – and laughed at.

    Most of the rest exist. Felons may not own guns. But here is a suggestion – enforce the laws you have before you ask for new ones. The Democrats do not like to jail other Democrats which is why you can be repeatedly caught selling semi-automatics illegally and get a few hours of community service. Call for these people to be jailed and we can talk. You don’t because you don’t mean to do a damn thing about gun crime but signal you have sold your conscience to CNN.

    We are long past the point where individual firearms can serve as a check on potential government tyranny.

    As the people of Afghanistan prove every day.

    The results have left us permanently at the mercy of our armed forces and law enforcement agencies.

    So we need to be disarmed in order to be even more at their mercy?

    It is completely true that such regulation is very unlikely to change the overall statistics on murder and mayhem in the United States.

    That is, you are signalling, not contributing a damn thing to the debate.

    However, legislation can curb mass shootings, which are a small percentage of the total, but are horrific in both their frequency and effect.

    Where is the evidence of that?

    it is the survivors of the umpteenth mass shooting, not their parents or friends, that are making the case.

    No it isn’t. It is Soros-backed astro-turf yet again.

    We who did not march should support them too. They specifically do not call for gun confiscation or registration. They call for common sense controls similar to what I have outlined above.

    No we should not. Yes they do. No they do not. Three for three. Want to try again?

    Australia remains free decades after imposing very strict gun control laws. So does the United Kingdom. So will the United States.

    Relatively free. The United Kingdom refuses to jail anyone for FGM. It refused for years to jail anyone for the gang rape of White girls in Rotherham. Jailing people who said a word. But it will jail someone for filming his dog making a Nazi salute.

    Not sure the word “free” means what you think it means.

    • You are incorrect: Adam Lanza stormed Sandy Hook Elementary with a Bushmaster AR-15, laying down more than 150 rounds in less than five minutes and slaughtering 20 first-graders. James Holmes wielded a Smith & Wesson “Military & Police” (M&P) AR-15 fitted with a 100-round drum magazine in his siege of a movie theater that killed 12 and wounded 58. The San Bernardino, California, shooters carried a pair of AR-15s in their ISIS-inspired rampage that left 14 dead. Orlando shooter Omar Mateen deployed Sig Sauer’s concealable “next-generation AR” to murder 49 and injure dozens more at the Pulse nightclub – the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history.

      As for the rest of your comment, tell your programmer that using the name Soros is a bit of a hint to human readers.

      • Any gun ban is the intro to bans of all. The type of gun is irrelevant bullshit.

        If all the above happened every single day it would have to go on for several thousand years to reach the total of those murdered by the armed thugs of socialist state in the last 100 years alone.

        80 protesters against Maduro shot dead last year in Venezuela with guns handed out by that turd to his socialist thugs. The lefts love of gun control vanishes double-quick when their scum are getting the shooters handed to them.

        Not to mention all the Antifa trash now buying shooters ready for their “revolution”.

        You have no answer for SMFS ‘s arguments Fully. So–as usual –you don’t answer them.

      • You are incorrect: Adam Lanza stormed Sandy Hook Elementary with a Bushmaster AR-15

        As usual I am not incorrect. Lanza used a Bushmaster XM-15 – a gun that looks like an AR-15 but isn’t. The black plastic military look has become very fashionable for a lot of people.

        James Holmes wielded a Smith & Wesson “Military & Police” (M&P) AR-15

        No, he used a shotgun, a Glock and a a Smith & Wesson M&P15 Sport rifle. Not an AR-15 anything. You really don’t know bubkis do you?

        Orlando shooter Omar Mateen deployed Sig Sauer’s concealable “next-generation AR” to murder 49

        No, he used a SIG MCX which is just a larger version of their sub-machine gun made to look like an AR-15.

        For an alleged military vet you really don’t know much about guns.

        A better case would be that immigration is the problem given that about the same proportion of immigrants go on to become mass shooters

        • In the thriving US civilian firearm community, “AR-15” is shorthand for the whole constellation of weapons derived from Stoner’s original design since the patent (last held by Colt) ran out.

          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/tag/ar-15/

          There are all-out holy wars about the best combination of upper receiver, lower receiver, trigger group, barrel… (and don’t even start on calibre, or direct-impingement versus short-stroke piston) in order to “build your own AR”.

          Technically it’s still a Colt’s Manufacturing trademark, but in practice it’s used as a generic term like “Maxim”, “Handley Page” and “Hoover” once were.

          “While Colt alone makes the official AR-15, variants and knock-offs are made by a huge number of gun manufactures, including Bushmaster, Les Baer, Remington, Smith & Wesson, and Sturm & Ruger, just to name a few. TacticalRetailer claims that from 2000 to 2015 the AR manufacturing sector expanded from 29 AR makers to about 500, “a stunning 1,700% increase.””

          http://fortune.com/2016/06/13/ar-15-mass-murderer-link/ (not at all prejudicial in the title, there…)

          • Don’t *tell* him. Tom is just a concern troll pretending to know something about guns. And I would guess pretending to be a Vet too.

            In this situation explaining his mistake only makes him a better concern troll.

          • I’d also throw in the question about whether the explosion in sales of firearms in general and AR-15 pattern rifles in particular after Sandy Hook has produced a corresponding increase in violent mayhem? Doesn’t appear to have done so on casual study…
            The biggest risk posed by virtually all the “modern sporting rifle” community is that they’ll bore you to the point of tearing your own ears off about the relative merits of Noveske versus Daniel Defense components…

  2. The reason gun owners are refusing to compromise an inch is because they know their opponents will take a mile, and once one concession has been made they’ll immediately start demanding another. This is how the left work across the entire western world, and gun owners are one of the few who see they are arguing in bad faith, and pretty much alone in refusing to engage with them.

      • Tom, Background checks are already mandatory, the feds just suck at keeping a database updated with all the excluded persons (another $100 million can’t fix that incompetence). The real argument for civilian armament as a deterrent against the tyrannical thirst for more government power over the citizenry is not that the citizens could defeat the military/police if it came down to it. It is more about making the prospect of those enforcing tyrannical overreach greater than it would be with a disarmed citizenry, hence discouraging the average military/police member from enforcing said overreach when they know we may be similarly armed. Unless someone can offer a more effective check on government power, no one is giving up their private guns.

      • The NRA is an association of millions of gun owners. Unlike the astro-turf groups run by Bloomberg and Soros. It pretty much represents gun owners, not dark money.

        So no, it is not that gun owners want to compromise. They do not. The Supreme Court tends to side with them these days. After all, if more laws were popular, America would have more laws. They are so unpopular that even the Democrats know better than to touch them.

  3. Why does every gun-grabber, including Hillary Clinton, need to start out with a statement of our rights under the Second Amendment? Rights that belong to the individual, predate the Constitutional expression of them, and do not require any particular purpose for owning weapons? Because the nature of this con is, “I am one of you. But let’s be reasonable!” “Common-sense” curtailment of the Constitution, by discovering other rights in our founding documents with which to “balance” it.

    And then you use a list of ways in which unprincipled officials have snipped away at this right to clear the way to make one more cut. If it is not the move that transforms America into a more overt tyranny, that doesn’t prove anything.

    The nations you list do not “remain free.” Data scoopers, IRS auditors, licensed professions, and the Department of Children and Families initiate force and fraud, create new problems, and act with impunity. Grabbing any more guns, in order to effect a new regulation that does not solve the problem (as even a total gun ban will not) will embolden government further. Seconding So Much For Subtlety above, you are not reasoning but virtue-signalling, trying to show the young, uninformed voices that Michael Bloomberg used as pawns in the weekend’s nationwide protests, that you are listening. No, you are being manipulated.

    • Oops, just saw the by-line. You are not being manipulated, you are joining in the manipulation. The con is “I am one of you” but you are not. I am here because I enjoy Tim Worstall’s ability to cut through the crap in the day’s newspapers – not to read new crap, targeted toward civil readers, from a leftie author who, underneath his last submission, got quite uncivil.

  4. ‘However, legislation can curb mass shootings, which are a small percentage of the total, but are horrific in both their frequency and effect.’

    And it can curb obesity, too.

    Would you be happier little girl if they used IEDs?

    ‘The students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School have elevated the gun control issue to national attention’

    They’re just kids; they can’t elevate anything. But your ilk is all too happy to exploit them in their anguish.

    The hell with democracy; let’s give control to some high school kids.

    • Democracy could give control to high-school kids. Some states and cities are toying with giving the local vote to 16-year-olds although 18 is the Constitutional standard for federal elections. Fortunately, we are not a democracy but a republic, in which the Constitution protects citizen rights, explicitly including the right to firearms, from majorities voting for their desired outcomes (no matter how improbable).

    • Hmm. One Ru-bot insists they are controlled by invisible, malign forces and now another Ru-bot fears that we shall be controlled by… gasp…. children, who (the horror) are gasp…. liberal!

      And sure, Spiky–I’m sure the bot program requires you to spit out your panic phrase about the right to firearms, no matter how many times your interlocutor says that’s not what they are proposing.

      All rights under the Constitution are subject to control, ranging from free speech (fire in a crowded theater) to search and seizure. My right to own a gun is equally subject to various controls. So says the Supreme Court. What I would be happy to discuss with someone who isn’t a Russian Idibot is the nature and extent of needed controls.

      • The kidz are young dumb snot being used by leftscum like you FS.

        Fuck the Supreme Court and any others who think to disarm. You know very well what this is about. The price of trying to coerce an armed populace is much higher for the scum of the socialistic state than the price of controlling –and murdering should the whim take them–a disarmed one.

        Arseholes like you–whose cup brims over with plans for the better organising of other peoples lives ( regardless of what those others might want for themselves)– can’t do to people who have the means to stop you what you would do if they had no such means.

        That is ALL gun control is ever about. The state has never hesitated to kill for its own purposes. Never. But they are to be the only ones with the power. Because you are evil enough to want them to have that power. And stupid enough not to realise that just because you want that power to serve your own evil does not mean you will be the ones in charge.

      • “ranging from free speech (fire in a crowded theater)”

        This is exactly why you are a shit.

        If there is a fire in a crowded theater, someone NEEDS to shout, “Fire.” If someone tries to shoot up a school, people need to be prepared to defend the kids.

        Your surrender is cowardice.

      • hat I would be happy to discuss with someone who isn’t a Russian Idibot is the nature and extent of needed controls.

        Except you start out by admitting the controls you want would do nothing to reduce the number of deaths. Nothing.

        So the controls are not needed. And you are not debating their nature and their extent. You are virtue signalling. You want to be accepted by all the Right People in the Smart Set. That is all. It is like saying you do not like porn so Hustler ought to be banned. Except that policy makes sense.

        • “You are virtue signalling. You want to be accepted by all the Right People in the Smart Set.”

          I think this may be where the argument goes wrong. You’re making tribal assumptions about why people believe different things to you. But tribal virtue-signalling is not the only possibility. It may simply be that because the two tribes never communicate (because if anyone from another tribe turns up invective and abuse is hurled at them until they go away), and therefore they don’t know about the same set of arguments, counter-arguments, sources, facts, and so on. If you only watch CNN, you’ll only know what CNN wants you to know.

          If you want to broaden your mind and hear the other side of the story, you have to go visit the other tribe, tell them what you believe, and see what they say. But few people are going to do that if they’re bombarded with abuse, and nobody is going to listen with an open mind if everything is peppered with constant insulting side-comments and assumptions about their motivations. When people are attacked ad hominem, they tend to fight back on the same level.

          So Tom’s here and trying to participate, and trying – when not being abused – to be polite about it. Look at it as an opportunity. You’ve finally found a leftist who wants to debate it with you, instead of shutting down contrary opinion.

          He might not understand the point of the Second Amendment, but there are a lot of people here who seem not to understand the point of the First. Free speech and freedom of belief apply even to people saying things you don’t like and don’t agree with.

          If Tom wanted to signal his virtue, he’d not choose to do it here! He’s preaching the wrong sermon to this audience! Or rather – here he’d say things that he knew the audience here considered virtuous. In other words – he’s doing the precise opposite of virtue signalling. He’s illustrating what happens here to someone who doesn’t signal their right-wing virtue. He’s expressing politically incorrect views (incorrect as defined in right-wing politics) and getting you to demonstrate to anyone watching that the right are as fierce at enforcing it as the left.

          • NiV March 26, 2018 at 11:06 pm

            I think this may be where the argument goes wrong. You’re making tribal assumptions about why people believe different things to you.

            Well no, I am not. I read his argument very carefully. The problem is that he admits his reforms – most of which already exist – would do nothing to reduce the gun death rate. As they wouldn’t. So he is not putting forward a good faith argument intended to reduce gun crime. As he himself admits. He is virtue signalling.

            Your arguments are usually bad and I invariably disagree with them but I do not accuse you of virtue signalling because that is not what you do. That is not praise by the way.

            So Tom’s here and trying to participate, and trying – when not being abused – to be polite about it.

            Tom is not trying to engage. He simply recites his mantra that everyone who disagrees with him is a bot. And yes Ecks can be a little harsh but Tom is no more polite with anyone else. He is neither participating or being polite. He is virtue signalling.

            He’s preaching the wrong sermon to this audience!

            But he is not signalling to us alone. He is signalling to the people whose approval he wants. Now he can go to them and tell them what a martyr he has become.

            No one here is trying to shut him up. That is the difference between people on the Left and the Right. There is no political correctness on the Right.

          • “The problem is that he admits his reforms – most of which already exist – would do nothing to reduce the gun death rate. As they wouldn’t. So he is not putting forward a good faith argument intended to reduce gun crime. As he himself admits.”

            Everyone does this. I made exactly the same point recently with regard to the 2.7m Muslims in Britain and the average six deaths per year caused bt terrorism. And yet we repeatedly see Islamic terrorism being cited as a reason to ban Muslims. You can say the same thing about fire alarms and peanut allergies. There are about 600,000 deaths in the UK each year. If you argue that we don’t do anything unless it saves a significant fraction of that number, there are a lot of things we’d stop doing.

            That it’s a small fraction of the total is not an argument. You need to consider cost/benefit, instead.

            “Tom is not trying to engage. He simply recites his mantra that everyone who disagrees with him is a bot. And yes Ecks can be a little harsh but Tom is no more polite with anyone else.”

            I disagreed with him, and he didn’t call me a bot. He was quite polite with me.

            I’ve not checked every instance, but I think the reason you have the impression he was impolite to everyone is that nearly everyone was impolite to him. Ecks more than most others, but he wasn’t the only one.

            Every time anyone disagrees with the orthodoxy here, they get call an SJW socialist responsible for the deaths of 150 million people, and treated to a stream of creative invective and insult, and sometimes a few death threats.

            Now, I don’t think that’s a problem, if that’s the standard of debate everyone is held to. It’s part of some people’s culture. But are you seriously complaining about Tom being “impolite” for calling someone a “bot”, on a blog where Ecks is routinely given free reign, with not a one of you saying a word about it?! And you expect anyone to accept your argument as being made in good faith?

            “But he is not signalling to us alone. He is signalling to the people whose approval he wants. Now he can go to them and tell them what a martyr he has become.”

            For what? “I write articles at a right-wing outlet”? “I argued with some conservatives on the internet”? He didn’t win the argument about the guns, or about liberty, or about government regulation. In fact, I think the only ‘victory’ he got out of it to crow about was that he demonstrated how even when you try to engage in open debate with conservatives, they’ll still throw mud at you – a victory you guys handed him. He only became a “martyr” because you made him one.

            Whereas if you guys had been reasonable and friendly, but *still* pointed out all his errors on guns and shooting, he’d not be so keen on citing it, would he?

            “No one here is trying to shut him up. That is the difference between people on the Left and the Right. There is no political correctness on the Right.”

            Ha! When I first commented here, one of the first comments in response was an appeal to Tim to ban the “troll”!

            Tim won’t, because he *does* believe in free speech, so the only way you can defend your territory here is to be sufficiently unpleasant to anyone who expresses opinions contrary to the political orthodoxy out here in the “peanut gallery”.

            The point about political correctness is that to those whose politics it is, it’s not “political correctness”, it’s just “correct”, and they don’t see the problem.

          • NiV, I am far from convinced that I have lost any of the arguments entered into here.

            I apologize to all for my absence–I haven’t abandoned the conversation. I’m just a bit busy right now.

            Entertain yourselves until I manage to sneak back over here.

          • “NiV, I am far from convinced that I have lost any of the arguments entered into here.”

            Fair point. It’s not over until it’s over. Let’s say, you might not have won *yet* then. 🙂

            Not that ‘winning’ is necessarily the point… Question is, was it a good, enjoyable debate?

          • Bogus charm and “politeness” are weapons.

            There can be no compromise with evil no matter how charming the offer to put the noose around your own neck is.

            FS started the ad homs off with his first response asking about who was “programming” SMFS. Because that is the Russia/Russia/Russia left-loony world he inhabits

            As for your cod “reasonable” approach NiV –bollocks to it.

            The world has been far too polite and reasonable to the Death Cult and its stooges for far too long. And the rise of extra-vile shit like Corbin is proof.

            Let the scum of the left get the power they seek NiV and you will get a very unwelcome lesson in just how polite and reasonable they really are.

          • And while we are at it those who endorse socialism ARE endorsing the murders of 150 million. Something that you NiV comment on as “boring”. While boo hooing about Desperate Dans in Drag suffering ribald remarks. And endless claims about supposed daily beatings that exist only in your own brainpan.

            Leesee–brutal mass murders plus torture, false imprisonment for decades and the total exercise of absolute tyranny over hundreds of millions VS ribald remarks and an occasional unfortunate yet non-fatal assault from the uncouth. Naw–you’re right NiV –who gives a shit about murders.

            I don’t give a rat’s arse what assorted leftists assure us that they don’t support. That kind of conceit would not be allowed to endure one second if it was National Socialism that they were trying to purvey. Another example of leftist hypocrisy.

        • So Much For Subtlety, that’s not quite correct. I want to separate mass shootings from other types of homicide. I concede that removing automatic and semi automatic weapons will not impact run of the mill homicides. However, it seems more than intuitive, it seems obvious, that their removal will at least lower the body count associated with mass shootings.

          I don’t know what you mean by the rest of your comment, and I doubt if you do either.

          • We would have to be fools indeed to concern ourselves with the “intuition” of death cultists.

            Your “intuition” can’t even warn you of what an evil crock socialism is. You are free and welcome to ruin your own life on such a basis.

            Not everybody else’s.

          • The does seem to be the crux of the debate isn’t it? is it worth taking steps to limit the means by which some whacko can inflict a large number of casualties in a mass shooting when mass shooting victims are a relatively small number of total shooting victims? There does seem to be some disagreement about that, though I suspect the screw has finally turned. I guess time will tell.

          • I want to separate mass shootings from other types of homicide. I concede that removing automatic and semi automatic weapons will not impact run of the mill homicides.

            So you are ignoring the 30,000 deaths a year in favour of the 18 or so caused by “assault rifles”? By the way, the category “semi-automatic” is huge and would include most guns sold in the US. There are some automatic weapons on sale in the US but their involvement in crime is trivial. You would probably have to go back to the 60s to find a crime committed with one. Which means any rational reform would continue to leave those guns alone.

            However, it seems more than intuitive, it seems obvious, that their removal will at least lower the body count associated with mass shootings.

            That is interesting but do you have any evidence that it is true? After all, the immigrant Seung-Hui Cho carried out the Virginia Tech shooting with two pistols – a Glock and a Walter P22. Dunblane was also carried out with some pistols. People use AR-15-style rifles because they are common. It is not that they are necessary for mass murder.

            So what is the evidence?

            I don’t know what you mean by the rest of your comment, and I doubt if you do either.

            Your intellectual limits are not my problem.

  5. ‘Australia remains free decades after imposing very strict gun control laws.’

    Free from responsibility.

    Australia is naked. Depending on the U.S. and Britain for protection. Obama would not have lifted a finger to help your white asses if China invaded. Britain is becoming too weak to help.

    I can see India and China partitioning Australia in my lifetime. Only question is will they do it N-S or E-W.

    Enjoy your decadence, Tom Fuller. It will be your demise.

  6. So Fuller-Shit is the new clickbait editor is he Tim?

    Listen up Tomo. Gun control is what has enabled scum who spew the same creed as you to murder 150 million people and ruin the lives , hopes and potential of hundreds of millions of others. In a decent society gun control freakery would bring T&S charges and some time for types like you in the glass house. Where you would get a very clear and direct lesson on what it is like to desperately need an effective means of self protection and be denied one. Something that decent law-abiding black folk in the major black majority, black leftist controlled shithole American cities have to live with every day. Remove those cities from the stats and America goes massively down the list of supposed violent countries and remove the leftist deceit of including suicide in the figures and it is one of the peaceful.

    Of course well-off leftist trash like Tomo don’t worry too much about crims as that is what nice gated communities are for eh.

          • The blog is smeared with your thought processes FS. A veritable dirty blanket protest of the mind it is.

            NiV –as tiresome as his SJW got-at mindset is on some matters– is generally sound on libertarian matters that don’t involve the left’s boo hoo client groups. So not likely a pal of your people-control plans. I can’t–nor would I want to–speak for him but it seems likely so.

          • Wow! I think that’s the nicest thing I can recall you’ve ever said about me! Thanks!

            Regarding Tom’s view on gun control, you are correct that I don’t agree with him, for a lot of the same reasons others have cited. My favourite argument along those lines is that if politicians think eliminating guns is such a great idea, they ought to start with the government. Have the police and all those secret service guys standing around the politicians disarm first, wait a year or so to see how that works out, and if people still think it helps maybe move on to the next stage – the country’s military! I think the usual reaction to that idea shows that these people don’t actually want to give up their guns – they know that would be terminally stupid. What *everyone* wants is to get guns out of the hands of potentially bad people they don’t trust, and leave them in the hands of generally good people they do trust. The only difference between the sides is that one set trust the ordinary people more, while the other side invest their basic trust in the government authorities.

            As a libertarian, I think you can work out which of the two I trust!

            However, I also think it’s a perfectly reasonable debate to have. I don’t have a problem with other people having different opinions to me, and expressing them so we can argue about it, and I don’t see why it can’t be done without all the nastiness. That’s just territorial poo-throwing to drive the rival set of monkeys off your patch. As a debating tactic, it doesn’t work very well. All that usually happens is that you get some of it thrown back – which I assume is what the “bot” comments are about. Kinda fun! But smart people will soon get bored of it.

            Tom, even though I don’t agree with you, I think it’s good to have people around we disagree with, so keep posting. Ecksy – you too.

  7. It’s an interesting debate. It is true that murder rates have fallen greatly since they peaked in the early ’90s, and are now about where they were in the early ’60s. Some portion of that, however, is attributable to greatly improved advances in trauma treatment and the proliferation of cell phones (a shot person or witness does not need to hunt for a pay phone and then hope they have some coins any longer). But I’ll acknowledge that the US for most Americans is probably about as safe as it was 60 years ago. That’s not to say that there aren’t some very unsafe areas, and blacks and Hispanics are more likely to live in unsafe areas than whites.

    However, these mass shootings are horrific even if they are a small number of the total murders each year. The weapon of choice is often a semiautomatic weapon, whether an AR-15 or not.

    The demographics of the country are changing rapidly. More and more people grow up and live their entire lives in cities and have not grown up with guns in the house or have never been hunting. The author notes that 78% of Americans don’t own a gun. I don’t know the accuracy of that figure, but I’d certainly believe that over half don’t own one.

    It is sometimes commented that while most Americans favor more gun control, they don’t feel passionately about it. For those that are opposed, they are passionately opposed, and such passion leads to action and financial contributions that keep politicians on their side. The question now is are those who favor gun control starting to become passionate about it? If so, it’s coming.

    There are already many restrictions on the use of firearms in the US. There are restrictions on magazine capacities and calibers or gauges on hunting guns. There are waiting times in many areas to purchase one. You can not easily just sell a gun to a person in another state.

    I’ll hazard a guess that the anti gun control people may finally be over playing their hand, ironic since murder rates are down. Severe restrictions on the ownership of semiautomatics with detachable magazines may be on the way. Another mass shooting or two may do it.

    • That is true; the would-be murderer is not as sure he can kill, and is not as sure he can survive the encounter. Massacres are indeed “horrific,” schoolyard massacres more so, and kennel massacres much more so and does everyone know how much I loooove puppies? The key is that we have no right to freedom from horror, and Having a Nice Day is not one of the functions of government.

      Accepting your figure that 78% of Americans don’t own a gun, it is never necessary that everyone own a gun – just that every would-be killer worries about it. That is not a 78% majority in favor of no one owning a gun but depending for our safety on the same Broward County morons who would not act against Cruz because their mandate was to assemble statistics to suggest that the races were identical no matter what the reality was. A huge majority of Americans have done no military service, but we are not in favor of shuttering the Defense Department.

      You don’t “hazard a guess,” you express a hope, as your reply was to cheerlead for gun control. The degree of passion of the pro- and anti-gun side is your hope that passion (of uninformed teenage protestors) can win out over reason. “Another mass shooting or two may do it.” It may carry the day for an anti-Constitutional bill you lefties cannot pass with facts and reason. In other words, “Let no crisis go to waste.” Evil.

      • I grew up in a rural area and spent much of my youth in the woods with gun in hand. I’ve a couple of bolt action rides and a double barreled shotgun that I’ve had since I was young. So, while I don’t hunt much any more I’ve been reluctant to sell the guns. I understand the attraction. I also grew up in an era when not a lot of people hunted with semiautos and were sometimes regarded with a bit of disdain by the old timers with their bolt and lever actions. I’ve nothing against bolt, lever and pump actions and still appreciate a fine double. (and I’m hardly a lefty).

        But 78% of Americans not owning a gun implies that a portion have no interest in guns and another portion are vehemently opposed to guns. You’re likely fighting a losing battle as some of those with little interest convert to being vehemently opposed.

        • Republic not a democracy. Limits on state power. Remember those?

          And the losing battle is against general tyranny. Gun control is only the symptom.

          And you only like guns that are the least use against said state’s goons. Hot diggity.

          • “And you only like guns that are the least use against said state’s goons. Hot diggity.”

            Yeah, that’s true. While I take the point the third world guerrilla fighters have given modern armies conniptions, these fighters are often young. A bunch of 60 year olds might not be as effective.

            I also doubt that it’s a winning argument to pull the almost 4/5ths of Americans who don’t own a gun over to your side, but hey, have at it.

          • I like the effort to smear everyone who supports gun rights as being old. Classy. But while 4/5ths of Americans may not own a gun, in the same way a lot more of them do not own Playboy magazine, that does not mean they do not support gun rights – the 2nd as well as the 1st Amendment.

            More gun control is a dead issue in America because it is not popular. That is why people like Bloomberg have to cynically exploit these children.

    • Another factor in the very real decline in murder rates is our recovery from long term lead poisoning. The correlation between environmental exposure to lead and violent crime is startling. It is well-chronicled by Kevin Drum over at Mother Jones, a publication I cite only to annoy some of the commenters here. 🙂

      • Glad you have an sound assessment of their level of accuracy and truth Tommyboy. Grade Z leftist cockrot. Although you certainly deserve an acute case of lead poisoning. Preferably at the hands of a illegal alien criminal with an illegal gun he got from Eric Holder.

        As for nuisance value–you’re the cunt who wastes his life reading their under-recycled toilet paper not us.

        If its going to be bot,bot,bot next I’ll go and make some tea.

        • Mr. Ecks, you write like a bot–why on earth would I treat you like something else? You do not engage with what I or others write. You just paste in crap copied from bot sites and throw in mindless insults.

          You act like a Ru-bot. So to me, Ru-bot you will be.

          Have a nice cup of tea.

          • What you mean by “engaged with” is “agree with”.

            Your “arguments” have been demolished several times over. SMFS did the work of demolishing your bollocks right at the start. But you have no others beyond boilerplate Party-of-Slavery-and-The-Klan rhetoric.

            You answered the one point about what weapons were used–in a FEW–of the killingS and then started talking about his “programmers”. Cos that is all you have leftist–lies and bullshit.

      • There isn’t such a strong correlation between lead and crime as it happens. But I do like it when Liberals admit that Blacks have massively higher crime rates. Something they usually call racism. But they do. So the only way to admit it is to argue for an external cause – lead. You can’t argue that it is genetics or culture or even that locking people up works. That is all racism. But you can blame the Man for the lead and demand a massive government programme of new housing in order to reduce crime.

        Steve Sailor has written on this and, as usual, he is very good.

  8. You are another US gun control stooge Tommydog. Indeed your appearances over here started with the last gun control piece back on the blog. As an astroturfer who used to shoot ..whatever.. but-who-is-now-slowly-seeing -the-light etc, etc. Quite a common lefttroll tactic.

    The demographics are changing. Americans are giving way to imports from assorted police states who are used to kissing the arse of tyranny but pleasantly surprised to be handed hard-working peoples money as well. Oh yeah–you bet they will crawl to their new paymasters. And America can become a lefitst shithole like any other.

    A couple more brazen false flags that TPTB are too lazy and incompetent to successfully hide anymore won’t do it numbnuts. The terminally dumb can’t get any dumber and using stupid fucking kids won’t do it either. Only numptys like you care. There are a lot of numptys but not enough.

  9. Gun control only “conserves” the thuggish and evil power of the state. Which is why leftist pricks like Fuller-shite love it. If you claim to be a conservative you should know better. Your piece sounded full of approval for the scum of the state being the only one with guns.

    • Here is the C++ code for shutting down a Ru-Bot:

      #include
      #include
      #include
      using namespace std;

      int main(int argc, char *argv[])
      {
      system(“color B2”);
      cout<<"****** Enter a number to do shown below ******"<<endl;
      cout<<"1= shut down all programs running now"<<endl;
      cout<<"2= Restart the computer"<<endl;
      cout<<"3= Shutdown the computer"<>x;
      for(;;){
      if(x==1){ system(“shutdown -f”); }
      break;
      if(x==2){ system(“shutdown -r”); }
      break;
      if(x==3){ system(“shutdown -s”); }
      break;
      if(x==51){ system(“shutdown -s -t 1”); }

      else { cout<<"enter again"; }
      }

      system("pause");

      • My C is a little rusty but isnt cout<<"3= Shutdown the computer"x; a syntax error? You need a call to cin.

        Also your code wouldnt work unless 1 was entered. The break statements would exit the for loop but are not within the ‘if’ block therefore if x=1 system(“shutdown -f”); will run but the next instruction will always be break and so the other options are not available.

        Personally I would have gone with a switch statement to make the conditions clearer, a default instead of the else (which only applies to the very last if for some reason) and while clearing up the code I would change the for to a while.

        As for the article I am pro gun, in the UK and if increasing restrictions on guns worked then the places with the highest restrictions would have the lowest gun crime.

  10. From his comments here, I don’t think that Fuller understands the NRA, why they are effective and why they usually win. There are no paid NRA lackeys. They don’t contribute anything to political campaigns. Instead, they spend all their money on get out the vote activities and advertising against candidates via PACs. They are incredibly effective at getting out the vote and are likely the reason Trump won. The reason that people vote with the NRA even though they are individually OK with limited gun controls is the same reason liberal vote with Planned Parenthood against any limits on abortion, even late term abortion. They understand correctly that if you give a little, you will eventually loose a lot, if not all. Yes, they are OK with better background checks and limiting sale to people with psych issues but they will not vote for gun control advocates.

  11. “The sheer breadth of campaign support provided by the NRA alone over the years helps explain just how deeply the organization is engrained in the election universe.
    Among the 535 current members of Congress in both the House and the Senate, 307 have received either direct campaign contributions from the NRA and its affiliates or benefited from independent NRA spending like advertising supporting their campaigns.
    Along with the eight current lawmakers who were on the receiving end of at least $1 million over their careers, 39 saw $100,000 or more in NRA money flow their way, while 128 lawmakers saw $25,000 or more.
    The top senator on the list is North Carolina Republican Thom Tillis, with nearly $2 million, while in the House, Colorado’s Ken Buck topped $800,000 in NRA support.
    In fact, the data show that only six current Republican members of Congress have not received NRA contributions.”

  12. “I firmly believe I have a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States to own a gun, rifle or shotgun for purposes of self defence, target shooting or hunting. I am a veteran of the Vietnam war (not a hero–I did not hear shots fired in anger). I have owned guns in the past and am comfortable with the thought that my neighbors might own them.”

    So he starts off with classic Astroturfing bullshit. “I am one of you –I support you–I’ve carried a gun for the Murderous State–I USED to own them”. He seeks to portray himself as on your side. And “gun” –by which he means a pistol presumably–“rifle” no doubt single shot “or shotgun” double-barrelled ( which you can still get –just about– even in the UK)–so he wants you to have guns that are of little use in protecting yourself against armed paramilitary thugs of the Police let alone the military proper. Standard leftist deceiving bullshit.

    “But I don’t believe at all that I have any right to park an Abrams tank in my driveway or a Humvee with a mounted fifty caliber machine gun. And the problem has nothing to do with the vehicles–it’s the attendant armaments that would scare my neighbors, cops and others.”

    You should have a perfect right to such. Although you could use none of those on your own. And nor could you afford the petrol for the tank.

    The state of other people’s feelings is none of your business. No one is in fact likely to be scared of some idiot poseur with a house full of military junk he can’t use by himself. Such things owned by illegal alien sanctuaries or thuggish cops would be a vastly more serious problem. But you are making no complaint about the vast increase in fire power being given by the scummy state to Americas BluBottles and Alphabet Paramilitary official goon squads. Because you want that kind of state stooge scum “empowered” to impose on ordinary folk.In the service of the left.

    “Somewhere in between those two examples lies a balance that can be struck to guarantee our rights under the Second Amendment to the Constitution and the right to life delineated in its Preamble.”

    The classic deceit-by-compromise. Half-a -loaf when you no right to so much as a crumb. Also the Constitution serves to limit the state’s power. It makes no comment viz a viz your “right” not to be shot by some mental case. Who is likely a scummy product of the welfare state and/or the breakdown caused in society by the welfare state and vile Marxist femminists “war” on boys and men.

    “During training and operational exercises I witnessed the deadly power of automatic and semi-automatic rifles similar to the AR15 that has become the weapon of choice for mass shootings.”

    So you were OK with killing on the orders of the state.

    ” I believe these weapons are on the wrong side of the balance sheet and should not be permitted in a civilian environment.”

    So what.

    I and many others don’t care about your opinion. Add to that the fact you have nothing to offer as a bottom line to contain the endlessly proven arrogance and mass butchery of the state should TSHTF. A matter you are too remiss or foolish to even consider. The rotten cause–socialism–to which you admit being an agent of, has already murdered 150 million people. Yet you ignore this without a thought.

    “The Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled that the right to bear arms can be limited, both in terms of the types of guns available to the public and the individuals permitted to own or use them.”

    It fucking shouldn’t have. Leftist scum no doubt who need to be tracked down and punished for their betrayal of both your Founders and all Americans. The Supes are largely –with a few honourable exceptions–a bunch of leftist pricks and state-sucking hacks appointed by political scum to advance the state’s agenda of creeping tyranny.

    “Now, following a decade of mass shootings by madmen and terrorists (and?) we are engaged in a debate on where those lines should be drawn.”

    No you are not. A crew of leftist liars are using every possible tactic and dirty trick to disarm those they wish to lord it over.

    Terrorists that leftists like you want let in without the same checks you squeal about for guns. And the madmen are mainly the products of fucked-up homes and chaotic lifestyles beloved of and actively encouraged by the left for 50 years. Now that the products of your disruption and deliberate sabotage of society are ever more apparent amongst us you call for more tyranny as a response.

    “78% of Americans don’t own a gun.”

    Most folk are short in the balls dept. What’s new? Call a copper and perhaps he’ll get the crim. If he doesn’t find beating and arresting you easier and more fun.

    “Half of the country’s guns are owned by 3% of its people.”

    And you want to ensure that a far smaller number of costumed thugs serving political power are the only ones armed. I’d say that made you stupid but I know that isn’t it.

    You are evil.

    ” Most members of the National Rifle Association support strong background checks on all purchases, something that does not exist today.”

    Source? And if they do they shouldn’t. It is pure state oppression and will allow would be confiscators a database. That you support it is no surprise.

    “I believe the limits can be drawn quickly and using common sense using those facts.”

    If you had any you wouldn’t be writing leftist crap.

    “Background checks for all gun sales, prohibition of gun ownership to convicted felons, convicted domestic abusers (there are shamefully some types of domestic abuse not classified as a felony), withdrawal of semi and automatic rifles from the market and a mandatory buyback of such weapons as are already in private hands.”

    No to all of the above. And it is high time that severe punishment came the way of all like you who advocate such wickedness. None of the above would have the slightest effect beyond establishing the precedent of killing the 2nd Amendment. Semi’s etc are needed to fight the state and its goons and at the very least die well and take some enemies with us rather than die like dogs in death camps as so many of the victims of statism and socialism have done.

    “For those conspiracy theorists fearing that the ‘guvmint’ will come and take their guns, three points:
    1.The background checks could be outsourced to a non-governmental third party–perhaps even the NRA. The government doesn’t have to know who owns the gun. Somebody just needs to cross reference the identity of the prospective purchaser with various databases of felons, abusers, those suffering from mental illness, etc.”

    Fatuous to the point of childishness. Given what we know of the NSA etc and their already illegal and on going domestic spying program is there any non-leftist anywhere dumb enough to believe that the database would not be in the states hands as fast as the info was typed in? Even you don’t believe such nonsense. But you think us gullible enough to.

    “2.We are long past the point where individual firearms can serve as a check on potential government tyranny. The militarization of the various police departments across the country has led to a situation where an individual or a group of individuals stand no chance of opposing even a police department, let alone the country’s military.”

    A grotesque exaggeration–tho I’m sure you’d like it to be true. The US has wasted 3 trillion dollars and still hasn’t been able to finally put down ill-armed Iraqis and Afghans. If a small percentage of gun owners died fighting the cops would turn their arses on the fighting double quick. The world around they only enjoy bashing those who don’t or can’t fight back. It is not clear that the US military would fire on its own. And enough people have friends and will act together to make it much more of a job than the US Army is up for. Esp after the high-tech junk starts to run out and it is man/gun against man/gun. The only alternative is death-by-socialism anyway so folk will fight.

    ” Conservatives called for–actually demanded–this militarization.”

    Cons generally have far too much respect for bluebottles. However political and bureaucratic scum are behind the tank-hand out ( funny how them cops don’t care about peoples feelings the way you claim to) not ordinary Americans. Who are waking up to the leftist shite going on.

    ” The results have left us permanently at the mercy of our armed forces and law enforcement agencies.”

    Despicable cowardly bullshit.

    “3.It is completely true that such regulation is very unlikely to change the overall statistics on murder and mayhem in the United States. Guns not regulated will be used, as they are today, for most murders and suicides. However, legislation can curb mass shootings, which are a small percentage of the total, but are horrific in both their frequency and effect.”

    So black crims and Mexican gangs will still kill. Which give you ammo–so to speak–for the final round of gun confiscation. The plan you put forward will have zero effect on mass killers and you know it. As witnessed by your bogus attempts to be “reasonable”. Islamics in Sweden have large supplies of both AK47s and grenades–things prev unheard of there before the beards arrived. And mental cases will still get what they need. Some bloke with a double barrel 12 bore killed 12 in the UK a few years back. So the massacres will continue.

    But that is your next stage isn’t it? “Since 12 bores and multiple pistols are still being used in mass killing and are no use against tyranny–you better hand those over as well”.

    “The students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School have elevated the gun control issue to national attention (again), but with the marked difference that it is the survivors of the umpteenth mass shooting, not their parents or friends, that are making the case. Marches across the world yesterday support their pleas for common sense gun control.”

    They are scum stooges for leftist agitprop. Being made to feel important for a while as they help to destroy their nation. Stupid snot-nosed juveniles should indeed be seen and not heard. But if Trump were wise he should be getting to the leftist trash behind these marches and charging them as child molesters.

    “We who did not march should support them too. They specifically do not call for gun confiscation or registration. They call for common sense controls similar to what I have outlined above.”

    No. “Commonsense” equals surrender to leftist submit-to-the-state evil.

    “Australia remains free decades after imposing very strict gun control laws.”

    Aus is now a collection of soy boy losers. Apart from crims who are still armed.

    “So does the United Kingdom.”

    Wrong again. The UK is a leftist run rathole where thousands of British girls are raped and abused by scummy imports and the police do fuckall on the states orders. A rathole where some bloke is likely to get a years jail for a joke that displeases the scum of cultural Marxism. Where Londinistan has had 30+ knife and gun murders in the last three months.

    ” So will the United States.”

    No America –don’t listen to the sly, deceitful leftist. Keep your guns and buy many, many more.

  13. @So Much For Subtlety, March 26, 2018 at 9:26 am

    +1

    Good post.

    .
    Then:
    @Tom Fuller March 26, 2018 at 4:09 pm

    As for the rest of your comment, tell your programmer that using the name Soros is a bit of a hint to human readers.

    First reply and you can’t restrain yourself and instantly resort to ad hominem attack & insults.

    Revealing your weaknesses once again. Well done.

  14. I’d be curious to know if Cliven Bundy was armed with semi-automatics and above in his standoff with the BLM. The wiki article doesn’t say. It seems to me that he successfully scared the agents of the State enough to make them stand down, so he did his bit to limit the power of the State.
    Would also be curious to know if anyone in SWI is seriously concerned that the State will abuse its power, and if they permit semi-automatics.
    In general though I agree with Tom’s premise, that there are already limits as to what private citizens can legally keep in their garage ( chemical weapons, howitzers, tanks are out ) and on how they are stored. It’s just where those limits are drawn.

  15. “For those conspiracy theorists fearing that the ‘guvmint’ will come and take their guns…”

    It’s hardly the stuff of “conspiracy theory”. In 1996, a mass shooting at a school in Scotland resulted in the deaths 16 young children and one teacher (15 others wounded). The killer had two pistols and two revolvers, i.e. handguns. In 1997, the UK government (Conservative then Labour) banned all handguns from private ownership in England, Scotland and Wales.

    The government came and took the guns.

    If a ban on semi-automatic rifles was passed in the US, and worked as intended, then the next (then the next…) mass shooting at a school would occur with handguns. What happens then?

    • PJF, as far as I know (and I admit I only lived in the UK for five years), England, Scotland and Wales are still free.

      Funnily enough, their homicide rates are a third of that found in the US. If you put it down to differing levels of intelligence or equanimity, I might agree. But I can’t help but wonder if the absence of arms might be a contributing factor.

      • One third of the population and –despite imports–no black majority cities controlled by black leftists for 50 years. Whose population of decent black people suffer the most from scummy black criminals manufactured by destructive and chaotic lifestyles caused by leftist welfare and handout programs. Plus drug prohibitions and other political nitwit schemes.

        Sans those America is more peaceful than most of Europe and vastly more peaceful than third world shitholes..

        • And you have been told several times that the UK is no longer a free country and have been given examples as to why. But you simply ignore all points you can’t cope with and go back to your bot bollocks.

      • Not free to own hand guns, Tom. Which was the point of my comment. The government came and took the peoples’ guns, and won’t let them have them any more.

        No conspiracy theory held by imagined deplorables who say “guvmint” (ad hom, much?); just a cold, hard fact.

      • Not sure why this statistic is connected to my comment, Tom. But, nevertheless, it likely means that 4 of the 10 deadliest mass shootings were carried out with handguns. If you successfully confiscate semi-auto rifles, then 10 out of the 10 subsequent deadliest mass shootings will likely be carried out with handguns.

        Given your statement about the higher order of the right to life of any potential victims, what will be your next move?

        • His next move is well known ” Oh Dear–that didn’t work. We’ll have to have them all then –sorry”

          Time for ALL gun regulations to be dissolved and active measures toi be taken against the gun-control gang.

          1st A gives them the right to speak. One inch beyond that–lobbying., snot-nose marxches ( I tapped the X by accident –but it seems an appropriate comment in itself so I ‘ve left it)etc –then jail time needs to beckon. Because it is high time that arrogant leftists got a taste of the hammer they are so keen to use on others.

  16. ‘Australia remains free decades after imposing very strict gun control laws. So does the United Kingdom. So will the United States.’

    The 2nd Amendment exists because having a gun is not just a right, it is a duty. The right must be preserved because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the state. You, as a citizen, are expected to be armed, ready to come to the aid of your family, your community, your state.

    You are not prepared to come to the aid of your family, your community, nor your state. You are a shirker. A piece of shit.

  17. Tom,

    Labelling anyone you disagree with as a “bot” simply makes you look inadequate. (Hint: most people are smart enough not to engage with stuff they can’t handle or is going to be too involved for them?)

    Your first response to SMFS (after the first paragraph) was just pathetic.

      • An average of 100000 people save their own lives through gun ownership and the mere threat display of the firepower.

        But submission to leftist orders is much more important than the lives of nobodies.

        Esp if those nobodies are decent black folk living in black leftist controlled crime-zone shithole cities who live with the reality of gun control under the rule of well-guarded leftist scum.

        • “There is far more research on the question of who is most likely to get killed when someone keeps a gun at home. In a 1986 study called “Protection or Peril?,” Dr. Arthur Kellermann, a University of Tennessee professor of medicine, and Dr. Donald Reay, chief medical examiner of King County in Washington, concluded that for each defensive, justifiable homicide there were 43 murders, suicides or accidental deaths. Out of 398 gunshot fatalities in homes in King County between 1978 and 1983, only nine were motivated by self- defense.

          The one-week survey by TIME found a similar ratio on a national basis: only 14 of the 464 gun deaths resulted from defensive firing. An alarming 216 were suicides, 22 were accidental, and many of the rest involved homicides among people who knew each other well rather than citizens gunned down by strangers.”

          http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,152446,00.html

          • This is missing the point. Most criminals do not want to die. So most defensive uses of guns do not involve a justifiable shooting. Or any other sort of shooting. They involve pulling out a gun and the perp running away. There are millions of such incidents every year.

            “The one-week survey by TIME found a similar ratio on a national basis: only 14 of the 464 gun deaths resulted from defensive firing. An alarming 216 were suicides, 22 were accidental, and many of the rest involved homicides among people who knew each other well rather than citizens gunned down by strangers.”

            So half of them were suicides. But interestingly enough you are about as likely to kill a criminal trying to do you harm as you are to die by accident.

            And of course they use that standard Leftist weasel phrase “people known to each other”. Gang bangers know each other too.

      • Tom,

        Re your 60/40 – does this help at all? It suggests perhaps a slightly higher percentage of men:

        http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/

        And also suggests that 58% of all rural households own a gun.

        Is there some good data at all for SMFS’s catchy assertion above: “The facts are simple – America does not have a gun crime problem. It has a Democrat voter problem. Democrat voters shoot other Democrat voters. Mainly with illegal handguns.”

        It’s very C/P-able, if there was data to back it up…

        • I have not been able to find a silver bullet answer to the question of party affiliation and gun crime. Obviously SMSF is wrong in his phrasing (is he ever right in his phrasing?) Most shooters are not affiliated with any party (so I guess you could call them independents…).

          However, from what I saw in the stats, it is probably true that more Democrats are convicted of gun crimes than Republicans, which is probably all SMSF cares about. Equally probable is that more Democrats are victims of gun crime than Republicans. For some reason I doubt if SMSF cares very much about that at all.

          Suggested as possible reasons: Poor people are a) more likely to be Democrats and b) also more likely to be criminals and victims. The same is true for minorities.

          SMSF would claim that as evidence for his point. I would disagree, saying it shows the consequences of inequality. But he’s not worth talking to, so I’ll just leave it there.

          • Tom,

            In the UK, we don’t usually mean affiliation (or “party membership”?) when we say voters (and SMFS is using UK terminology).

            But I think you nail it with the other possible reasons / associations. I guess I was curious as to what the raw data actually showed, but if that’s hard to come by, sure, I understand.

          • Actually I specifically said “It has a Democrat voter problem. Democrat voters shoot other Democrat voters. Mainly with illegal handguns. But because imprisoning Democrat voters is something the Democrats are loathe to do, they do not talk about Democrat gun crime.”

            Yes, gun crime is almost entirely committed by minorities and those minorities largely kill other minorities. Something that the Democratic party and all its Useful Idiots are entirely silent about. As you show here.

            Instead of doing something about “assault rifles” which are only used by rural Whites to kill deer and are utterly harmless, reform needs to concentrate on the actual criminals and their crimes. Urban young Black men with illegal handguns. But you won’t. Because this is all part of the Culture Wars and you do not care how many young Black men die.

          • The inequality here is your inability to do more than quote leftist bullshit and then refuse to talk to “bots” that you have no answer for.

            You do however repeat the truth despite yourself. That America’s major source of violent crime is black welfare induced criminals ( caused by leftist scum handing out other peoples money to the feckless and downright no goods to counter “inequality”-more socialist wank) violently preying on other blacks in shitholes ruined by 50 years of black leftist rule. Washington/Detroit/ Chicago/ New Orleans and worst of the lot Baltimore where even the bluebottles have given up the ghost.

            Subtract those and the plain deceit of counting suicides with guns and America is amongst the most peaceful countries on Earth.

        • Yes there is good data. Crime in America is highly concentrated. In a few counties:

          https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/

          The United States can really be divided up into three types of places. Places where there are no murders, places where there are a few murders, and places where murders are very common.

          In 2014, the most recent year that a county level breakdown is available, 54% of counties (with 11% of the population) have no murders. 69% of counties have no more than one murder, and about 20% of the population. These counties account for only 4% of all murders in the country.

          The worst 1% of counties have 19% of the population and 37% of the murders. The worst 5% of counties contain 47% of the population and account for 68% of murders. As shown in figure 2, over half of murders occurred in only 2% of counties.

          And which counties would those 5% and 2% be? Well they are mainly urban and Black. That is, Democrat voting. Places like Detroit and Baltimore. The 54% of the counties with no murders are, as the population figures make clear, rural. And White. And hence Republican.

          There is a graph at that link which shows the problem clearly. Also a very nice map.

          It is even more interesting in discussing how, within counties, gun crime is even more concentrated.

          In a study in the journal Criminology, David L. Weisburd has a paper titled “The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place” that shows for eight cities 25% of violent crime occurred on one percent of the streets and that about half occurred on five percent of the streets.

          America does not have a gun crime problem. A tiny number of neighbourhoods have a gun crime problem. There is no point taking guns from the 54% of America with no murders.

          • As you continue to make clear when you refuse to point out what justification for trying to disarm those nice deer-shooting Republican voting rural Whites. Why?

            Why are you so threatened by some farmers holding on to pieces of metal that do no harm to anyone? While ignoring large numbers of Black men who are making a very small number of streets run with blood every weekend?

            What is that but specious virtue signalling?

          • Because he and his leftist pals can’t do to a well-armed population what they can do much more easily to a disarmed one.

            That is ALL gun control is EVER about. People control.

          • Boiled down, my argument is:

            I propose limitations to the very real Second Amendment rights (yes, mostly of honest and law-abiding people who belong to a different political party than me). Limitations, not confiscation.

            I do so because the right to life of children, attendees of country music concerts and nightclubs is of a higher order than an unlimited right to bear arms.

            That’s it in a nutshell.

          • And you propose all the above crap knowing that it is a halfway house to full confiscation. Knowing and not caring that it would have zero effect on the actions of state-drugged madmen. Not caring because your agenda is one of assisting your fellow leftscum in the control of the population.

            Particularly sickening is the fact that most of these nutters are the products of welfarism and social damage created by the left’s antics in the first place.

            Defensive wars cannot be won. Decent Americans need to start going after the gun-control gang. 1A lets them say what they like. But attempts to organise, to lobby to pull stunts like the snot nose march etc needs to get them jail time. And a graphic personal demonstration of what it is like to need a blessed means of salvation from violence and be denied one by sneering tyranny.

          • “Limitations, not confiscation.”

            From the main article:
            “…withdrawal of semi and automatic rifles from the market and a mandatory buyback of such weapons as are already in private hands.”

            That’s confiscation right there. And in the comment thread:
            “Semi automatic weapons should not be in the hands of civilians, regardless of the manufacturer.”

            That is essentially all modern guns, including handguns, removed from civilian ownership. Confiscation.

            “I do so because the right to life of children, attendees of country music concerts and nightclubs is of a higher order than an unlimited right to bear arms.”

            The highest law in the USA is the Constitution. On this subject it says: “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

            “Limitations” are pretty infringey. The confiscations you propose are very infringey.

          • Mr Ecks:
            “But attempts to organise, to lobby to pull stunts like the snot nose march etc needs to get them jail time.”

            Eh? Supporting a cause by organising, lobbying and holding publicity stunts fronted by children are perfectly healthy expression in a free society. The 1st Amendment of USC exists to codify that the state should not imprison those engaged in such expression, and the 2nd Amendment exists to enable the people to shoot the state bastards if they try.

            In other words, don’t be a twat, Ecks.

          • Expressing your opinion is one thing. Speaking your mind is one thing.

            The whole gamut of leftist agitprop bullshit is something else. A co-ordinated message of leftist lies and evil thro’ every media and every possible trick of deceit is something else.

            Be very clear –with the lying leftist media and a lying leftist establishment working together the US constitution will soon be toilet paper . Obama tried to wipe his scrawny arse on it and very nearly succeeded.

            So unless the good guys start fighting back than everything goes down the bog.

            In other works , don’t be a fool, PJF.

  18. Timmy –

    I don’t know where you found this fool, but the unfortunate fact is that he doesn’t understand the subject at hand. It appears you’ve landed the Richard Murphy of firearms. As I said, that’s unfortunate.

    Tom –

    The fact that an “AR-15” was used in various shootings is irrelevant. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle. It is no more capable or lethal than most other semi-automatic rifles. The only real difference between the .223 AR-15 used at Sandy Hook and, say, a .223 Ruger Mini 14 is looks (and popularity). The rates of fire and ammunition capacity are, for all intents and purposes, identical. You should know that.

    And as you should also know, but evidently don’t, the ability to maintain a sustained high rate of fire with a semi-automatic firearm isn’t due to its design or the capacity of its magazines, but how many pre-loaded magazines the user has on his person. You don’t get off hundreds of rounds in a short period of time with one 100 round magazine, because re-loading a 100 round magazine takes several minutes (even with practice). And in any event, a high capacity magazine can be built for any semi-automatic firearm, irrespective of its design… The AR-15 offers no particular design advantage in that respect.

    If you’ve been around guns to the extent you claim, you should know and understand both of these points.

  19. “During training and operational exercises I witnessed the deadly power of automatic and semi-automatic rifles similar to the AR15 that has become the weapon of choice for mass shootings.”

    I can pull out my Ruger Single 10, and with use of speed loaders, sustain a relatively high rate of fire of 22lr with a revolver. Smith & Wesson, Ruger and Taurus (there may be others) manufacture 8 shot revolvers chambered in .357. Again, with the use of speed loaders, you can lay down a high rate of fire. Revolvers will never allow you the rate of fire of a semi-automatic, but a Single 10 and half a dozen speed loaders would allow the carnage to approach “AR-15” levels.

    Take away semi-automatics and what you end up with is the quickened evolution of the high capacity revolver.

    Again, the sort of thing you should know.

  20. “Most members of the National Rifle Association support strong background checks on all purchases, something that does not exist today.”

    An unsupported claim. Please explain, in detail, why you feel the present background check system is inadequate. What would you propose (again, in detail) to make it “strong”? For example, what would you add to the Form 4473? Are there other databases beyond the NCIS, NCIC and III that should be utilized? What are the shortcomings of three databases in use?

  21. “In March 2013, Lee Leffingwell, then the mayor of Austin, Texas, made a two-part claim that includes the claim Taylor made. He said 90 percent of Americans and 74 percent of NRA members support background checks of gun purchasers. PolitiFact Texas rated his claim True.

    The key evidence was an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine on a poll done in January 2013 by two entities at Johns Hopkins University — the Department of Health Policy and Management and the Center for Gun Policy and Research.

    The poll was conducted online among 2,703 adults — including 169 NRA members — through GfK Knowledge Networks, which specializes in working with academic and government researchers to do polling online. It recruits participants randomly via mail and telephone.

    The poll found that 74 percent (to be precise, 73.7 percent) of NRA members supported requiring background checks for all gun sales. (The margin of error was seven points.)

    This poll was the most on point that we could find in terms of Taylor’s claim. But we would also note two others done around the same time that included information on NRA households — in other words, the person responding to the survey or someone in that household was an NRA member at the time.

    A CBS News/New York Times poll, also from January 2013, found that background checks on all potential gun buyers were favored by 85 percent of NRA households. And a February 2013 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 74 percent of people in NRA households favored making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks.”

    http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/mar/18/lena-taylor/most-nra-members-back-background-checks-all-gun-pu/

  22. I thought I was clear, but evidently not. I was challenging you to detail what you would do to strengthen background checks over the present system. Color me less than surprised that you didn’t bother to offer any sort of concrete suggestions.

    • I’ll just color you blank, like your mind.

      TypicalBot
      discord.js
      online
      TypicalBot is an easy-to-use bot with commands that can be used for moderation, fun, and music!
      Owner(s): HyperCoder#2975
      Prefix: $

      From the weblog ‘A Guy With A Gun’: (http://www.upworthy.com/5-easy-common-sense-ways-to-fix-gun-control-and-the-2-reasons-why-theyll-never-happen)

      Enhance mandatory background check requirements and standardize them across all states, including for private sales.
      This is something people have been demanding for a while now, and there’s no reason it shouldn’t be able to happen.But if we were to actually standardize and adhere to the bare minimum ATF background check that’s currently on the books, anyone with a history of substance abuse, domestic violence, or other violent crimes would already be disqualified from purchasing a new gun.
      Of course, we could make the existing background checks more robust too.

      But in order to do this without punishing people who haven’t committed a crime or discriminating against, for example, people with psychiatric conditions or former military personnel who received other than honorable or bad conduct discharges, we would also need to establish a fair and efficient appeals process that could evaluate each individual on a case-by-case basis. And that’s a lot of work, which brings me to my next point.

      We should make sure the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is built for confidence, instead of speed.
      In states that do adhere to the very-very-very basic requirements of the FBI’s instant background check system, 90% of them come back immediately with a positive result. But thanks to something called the “default proceed” loophole, if a background check throws any red flags, the FBI has three days to resolve those question marks or a person can buy the gun anyway. And if it turns out they weren’t supposed to have access to one? The ATF has to actively seek out and reclaim the weapon that was already purchased. You know, because that’s a practical solution.

      This “compromise” that a bipartisan group of Republican and Democratic senators recently offered on the “No Fly, No Buy” bill also invoked this three-day rule. But here’s the thing: In 2015, nearly 16,000 ineligible gun owners were able to acquire firearms through the “default proceed” law — including Dylann Roof, who then went on to kill nine people in Charleston, South Carolina.

      • Cutting and pasting someone else’s lightweight suggestions isn’t what I asked for. I asked you some very specific questions regarding the present system, including suggestions regarding the 3 databases presently used in the system, as well as the 4473. So the real answer is simply that you don’t know.

        Another Murphyism… Referring to someone’s else’s work to cover the fact that you haven’t done the appropriate amount of work to discuss an issue in an informed manner

          • “I can’t be bothered with your questions, as they are beneath my gigantic intellect.”

            Another Murphyism.

          • “I can’t be bothered with your bullshit as you are obviously a fool.”

            Another truism. Call for your mum.

          • He’d be better off with yours.

            She obviously indulges overgrown and near senile ( says he was in Vietnam–what’s the line? “I was in Junior High Dickhead”) SJWs to the point of tomfoolery.

  23. “78% of Americans don’t own a gun.”

    A perfect example of a Murphyism. That isn’t 78% of the population that is legally entitled to own a gun, it’s 78% of the entire population… You know, everyone from three week old infants and prisoners sitting on Death Row.

    Under the circumstances why wouldn’t I compare you to Richard Murphy?

  24. NiV

    “I’ve not checked every instance, but I think the reason you have the impression he was impolite to everyone is that nearly everyone was impolite to him.”

    I think the tone for the thread was set with the very first response! SMFS was perfectly civil, engaged thoroughly, and was pointlessly dismissed with a puerile reference to his “programmer”?

    And no matter how Ecks and others respond, have you not found in your experience that the author of a thread will generally want to hold themselves perhaps to a higher standard than a bunch of anonymous responses, if they wish to remain credible. FFS, not even Richard Murphy descends to chanting “Ru-bot, Ru-bot, Ru-bot” at his dissenters – despite being “that twat”…

    • Randolph, if I can step in front of NiV, when SMFS lied about the weapon used at Sandy Hook I was annoyed. When he said America does not have a gun crime problem I was annoyed. When he said the teenagers from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School were a Soros backed astro turf organization, I began to see the light.

      He can paste in his conspiracy theories all he wants. But if he’s going to act like a bot, I’m going to call him a bot. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. I see lots of waste on this thread.

      • Son, you are really a glutton for pain aren’t you? I mean, when you know nothing – literally nothing – about guns, to lecture others in a condescending way is asking for pain. But to accuse me of lying is a whole ‘nother level of stupid.

        I did not lie. You claimed that an AR-15 was used. It was not. It was a Bushmaster XM-15. Exactly as I said. The point is that you are too ignorant of this subject to distinguish between an AR-15 and an AR-style rifle. Instead you invent a whole lot of new weapons! An Sig Sauer AR-15! Jason Lynch knew what I said. Because Jason Lynch, while having a nice office job being a military lawyer (I think off hand) has been in the military for longer than two minutes and so knows the difference between a style of rifle and a specific make. You claim to have served in Vietnam. But you did not know. You did not know anything actually. You seem to still not know anything about semi- and fully-automatic guns.

        It is a lie to claim I said that America does not have a gun crime problem because it cuts the context. As I said, America does have a Democrat voting gun problem.

        The present Children’s Crusade is entirely astro-turf. That too is entirely true.

        There was not one conspiracy theory there. You are just a pathetic poser who knows nothing about this subject but still wants to lecture us all. Why don’t you buy a gun. Learn to shoot. Learn the difference between a semi- and a fully-automatic gun. Then you might have some credibility.

        • Semi automatic weapons should not be in the hands of civilians, regardless of the manufacturer.

          You say the ‘Children’s Crusade is entirely astro-turf.’ Citation please? Otherwise, you’re banal comment about conspiracy theories is bogus.

          You wrote; “America does not have a gun crime problem. It has a Democrat voter problem. Democrat voters shoot other Democrat voters.” Actually, most shooters are not registered voters and are unaffiliated.

          I served in the military. I have owned as a civilian both handguns and rifles.

          Citation on the astroturf or don’t expect me to respond to anything you write in future. Which won’t bother me at all.

          • No semi-automatics at all? Good luck with that. Why should the police – who are civilians – not be allowed to use their Glock pistols? What is the logic behind that? Why should everyone be forced to give up their hand guns?

            But you miss the point – you know f*ck all about this topic. Nothing. You lied when you claimed to serve in the military didn’t you? Why I don’t know.

            Someone else has given you a citation. They fully admit it. So why are you denying it?

            http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/01/take-two-weeks-truth-emerge-parkland-students-astroturfing/

            “Otherwise, you’re banal comment about conspiracy theories is bogus.”

            Your. Not you’re.

            “Actually, most shooters are not registered voters and are unaffiliated.”

            That neatly misses the point. Try again.

            “I served in the military. I have owned as a civilian both handguns and rifles.”

            And I am Muhammed Ali.

            “Citation on the astroturf or don’t expect me to respond to anything you write in future. Which won’t bother me at all.”

            Of course not. As Denis says, getting called on your bullsh!t is painful.

  25. “But here’s the thing: In 2015, nearly 16,000 ineligible gun owners were able to acquire firearms through the “default proceed” law — including Dylann Roof, who then went on to kill nine people in Charleston, South Carolina.”

    All that tells me is that the FBI under James Comey was incompetent, and that Comey was ineffective. If they needed more resources to ensure the flagged purchases were thoroughly investigated within the three day window, Comey should have made it an issue with President Barack Obama. I don’t recall him ever doing that.

    Given that the FBI failed to follow protocol in following up on the warnings about Cruz prior to Parkland, I’m not convinced that giving the FBI more time is the answer. I’d suggest that before the FBI was handed more power over gun sales, we ensure that those within the FBI who are not executing present laws as they should be held accountable. Anyone at the FBI been fired for their failures related to Parkland? Any agents or supervisors terminated? Nope. Not one. You want an appropriate level of gun control? Try demanding government personnel properly enforce existing laws, and then demand those who don’t be punished and fired. Until you do, you’ll get no concessions on anything from me.

  26. I love the fact that Fuller proposes a ban and mandatory buy-back of semi-automatic rifles, but leaves semi-automatic pistols alone. So he’d take your 25 shot Ruger Mini 14 in the name of Safety, but let you keep your Glock 19 with the 33 round magazine.

    Makes perfect sense.

    Kind of like Richard Murphy claiming you can get a significant reduction in the tax gap by increasing the scrutiny on large corporations and large corporations alone…

  27. Brilliant thread!

    Thomas, you should do one on climate change; if I recall from loads of reading a few years back, that’s a real specialism of yours?

    And with a few provocative cross links to those over at the heart of the religion, that might really get Tim’s hit counter swinging…

    • I will probably do some posts on climate change, but I really wanted to write about a wider range of issues, which is why I badgered Tim to let me write on this forum.

      The great thing about climate change is that I’ll get Ecksy style feedback from both sides. But then I won’t be accused of killing a paltry 150 million–it’ll be BILLIONS I’m condemning to death, disease and destruction…

      • “The great thing about climate change is that I’ll get Ecksy style feedback from both sides.”

        If you’re as half-assed with climate change arguments as you are with gun control arguments, I’d say that’s a guarantee… Although why you seem so gleeful about it is a mystery.

        Then again, Murphy’s always been able to mangle two subjects (tax and economics) at a time, so why should I be surprised that his doppelganger can as well?

      • The “deaths” claimed for the ecowibble are just leftist fantasy.

        While the 150 million that your fellow cultists have whacked are– or were until your fellow scumbag believers got at them–real, living breathing beings.

        But nothing to do with you. You just believe and agitate for the same shite as their killers. Oh a mealy-mouthed supposed milk-and-water version in theory ( the way that that cocksucker Chavez started out)–but as I pointed out in a post above that fucking conceit would be accepted by nobody–including your own twisted gang–were it tried on by your fellow socialists of the “national” type.

        Except perhaps for the anti-Semitic bit as events are revealing.

  28. To sum up Tom Fuller’s argument:

    “Semi-automatic rifles scare me. Make them go away.”

    Given that it will be at least a few weeks before the legislation is passed, court challenges addressed and the buy-back program completed, I suggest we all pitch in and buy him a support animal until he really is safe.

    Give what we know about Tom so far, I’m thinking dung beetle.