Gun Control in the United States

View Comments

• 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.

      • Ru-bot, Ru-bot.

        • QED

    • 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...

    • Nikolas Cruz used 10-round magazines.

• "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."

  And who is pulling their strings?
  https://sultanknish.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/who-runs-march-for-our-lives.html

  • I don't know if you are a bot or just have a bad heart, but that is just crap.

    • It's CRAP!!!. Snotnopes and his Mother Jones told him so.

      Talk of "bad heart --from a death cult supporter like you FS? Wash the blood off yourself before you talk of other folks "bad hearts" you sanctimonious poltroon.

      • Ru-bot, Ru-bot.

        • You write for the Washington Post don't you?

          I 'm sure I caught your last piece "My Alzheimers and what I dqwbvdqwertyyuu..."

• 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.

  • But large majorities of gun owners support mandatory background checks. It is not gun owners refusing to compromise an inch. It is the NRA and their paid lackeys. There is a big difference.

    • And you know this how? The background bit that is--the cockrot about the NRA is boilerplate agitprop.

    • 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.

• 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.

  • Oh, okay. Australia and Great Britain are not free. They lost their liberty the same time as they lost their guns. Right.

    Ru-bot.

    Backing away slowly now...

    • Backing away slowly now--right up your own lying leftist arsehole.

      The UK is a country where a man is likely to be jailed for a bad joke and where imported shite mass rape and molest young girls with leftist granted immunity. The fact that a few pockets of open exchange still exist doesn't alter the truth.

    • Australia, the ultimate nanny state yeah. Free speech is illegal in Great Britain. But continue?

• '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?

        • What's your assessment?

        • 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.

• '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.

  • As someone who served alongside Australians, I can only say you're another Russian IDIbot.

    • I served alongside Aussies
      You are a BOT,BOT,BOT etc

      You want to fill in the missing pieces of that syllogism Digger?

      Served --in a brothel?

    • "As someone who served alongside Australians"

      Another declaration of orthodoxy.

      And what's this Russian shit?

    • You're really not getting the existential catastrophe for Australia that gun control is.

      India and China have 2.7 billion people. Australia sits down there with immense land available. You have a nominal military, and a disarmed citizenry.

      You are naked. As naked as Pearl Harbor in 1941. Another Obama in the U.S., a pacifist in the UK, and you are dead. Seriously, completely, permanently dead.

      • And yet Australia has retained its sovereignty and yes, even its liberty despite the disarming of its citizenry.

        How can that be?

        • Because the invasion hasn't started yet.

          You are on borrowed time. Enjoy life, you've got maybe tens years left.

        • And the boogey man hides under your bed.

          Or as Martin Mull used to sing back in the days of disco...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxTRnrhrBM4

        • NO. A carry melted Colt Lightweight Commander in .38 Super hides under my bed.

          And it will stay there when Australia is invaded. You are on your own. Got a pitchfork? Good luck! The other guys will have guns.

        • Whether or not the Chinese try their luck Aus is an increasingly soyboy leftist shithole with sunshine. Much like Kalifornia.

          Be it the Chicoms or their own political scum the inhabitants of Aus will have a future kissing the arse of their masters. And increasing poverty and collapse as the scum of statism and socialism fuck their lives up.

          But--so long as they can't fight back--what do leftscum care.

  • https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5912359/china-sends-massive-navy-for-south-china-sea-war-games-after-president-xi-jinping-vowed-to-wage-bloody-battle-for-world-domination/

    • Note the word 'games'. Don't worry, though. It was the Sun that won it. Can't believe you are quoting that rag.

      • While you suck on trash like the WAPO. Or the NYT--telling lies on behalf of socialist tyranny since 1933.

        The lying leftist scum of the Earth accusing everybody else of being liars.

• 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.

  • Ru-bot, Ru-bot. Boring...

    • Remember to thank NiV for your inspiration parasite. You can't even think up your own comebacks.

      • Ah--NiV noticed your programmatic tendencies first? He does seem like a clever fellow. Perhaps great minds just think alike. But at least we think, Rubot.

        • 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.

• 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.

• 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.

  • Ru-bot, Ru-bot.

    • At least you are moronic in short compass Tomo.

    • All the ad homs are a last-resort admission that you have lost the argument. I've run across you somewhere else, possibly the old lukewarmist page? and remember you as a reasonable person. Some of your replies here are also eminently reasonable, but ru-bot, ru-bot is just plain childish. Get a grip.

      • "All the ad homs are a last-resort admission that you have lost the argument."

        All the ad homs are a direct response to Ecksy's ad homs. You can't have it both ways. Either 'ad hominem abusive' (as used by Ecks and others) is a legitimate mode of argument here, or it isn't.

        • NiV, I wanted to ask if you're the same NiV that was active in the climate conversation. Is that you?

        • Yes, that's me.

        • I'm really happy to encounter you again. You were one of the few cogent voices in the climate conversation.

      • Hi Southerner,

        Yes, I authored two climate blogs as a Lukewarmer and commented on many others.

        I'm very familiar with commenters like Mr. Ecks. Take most of his comments and search and replace Soros with Koch Brothers and he's a climate alarmist--hey presto! Do similar search and replaces and he's a climate skeptic.

        His responses are canned--repetitive to the point of losing all meaning. Hence the bot label.

        • Whereas your cheese strings of SJW clichés are closely reasoned argument.

          As far as you know.

  • Actually, I posted a number of times on Mr Worstall's blog going back a few years into his Forbes days. I'm probably one of the most conservative economic commenters here, hence why I enjoy Worstall's sites so much.

    • Hi Tommydog, me too. I have been reading Tim's other blog for a long time. That's why I asked if I could contribute here.

• 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");

    • Once again your powers of argument just leave the reader stunned. Aristotle himself could not follow or stand against such brilliant refutation.

    • 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.