Grim

User avatar
jack
Social outcast
Posts: 3757
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:58 pm
Location: ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ oʇ ƃuıʌoɯ ƃuıɹǝpısuoɔ
Contact:

Grim

Post by jack » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:35 am

It's like this. I was bought up in a shooting family - my mother was a national-level target shooter and I've shot all my life... at targets.

Been a range officer and shot a lot of different weapons... at targets. Nowadays, when I get the chance (not often) I shoot some clays (have an automatic radio-operated clay trap in the garden).

From the first day I used a gun (before then actually) safety was always number #1 by a mile. The slightest hint of someone behaving in an unsafe way, and they were out - e.g. having a misfire then turning round whilst fiddling with the gun.

Our kids were never allowed even toy guns - kids visiting us were not allowed toy guns - even a toy gun pointing at someone is an anathema to me - I can't do it or allow it in my presence.

For the same reason, I can't go paint-balling - "playing" at shooting people, even with paint, seems completely wrong to me.

I cannot understand how someone could point a gun at another person (yes, I know about war etc. - that's not the point here).

I also understand why, after Dunblaine, all small arms were banned in the UK - I wasn't happy about it, but I understood, and like all the other target shooters in the country, we handed our guns in to a local firearms dealer (in my case, Fultons at Bisley).

So, I like many others, switched to clays.

I have lived & worked in North America and for the life of me cannot understand why ANYONE should privately own fully automatic or assault weapons. I have friends in the NRA who cannot understand my position - to them it's normal. To me, it is and always was a horror story in waiting.

This guy seems to have passed all the required checks from the FBI - that still allowed him to buy a huge arsenal of full-bore military weaponry (42 guns). Where is the logic in that?

Truly, I despair when it comes to the USA. Intelligent people do live there - I've met some - but many are blinkered, narrow minded, fuckwits, especially the NRA and their rabid cohorts.

Tragic.

Here in the UAE, there is no private ownership of firearms, even for Emiratis (who are only 8% of the population).
Vivitur ingenio, caetera mortis erunt

User avatar
ed
retired
Posts: 4339
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:01 pm
Location: yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Grim

Post by ed » Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:55 am

Well posited treatise imo....

Contrary to Nick’s assertion that guns don’t kill people, it’s the fault of physics, how about a bit from logic 101:

the brain is a computer
computers malfunction at times
the brain is a body part
body parts malfunction at times
the brain controls the body machine

if the brain malfunctions(they do, there’s evidence) the machine is unpredictable

an unpredictable body machine could harm another individual(s) but not many before being subdued.

If the body machine is in control of a weapon of mass destruction(a gun), when unpredictable, then what?

Just a bit of pseudo risk analysis...

Yes Nick(DS) I don’t see the logic behind the NFA argument either
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be

User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 12727
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: Grim

Post by Nick » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:15 pm

Just so you are certain, I think the private ownership of assault rifles is insane, and that any firearm ownership should be heavily regulated (as it is in the UK), but Ed's risk analysis could be just as easy to apply to the ownership of a car. See the recent use of vehicles in attacks in Europe.
Resistance isn't futile it's V / I.

IDM
Old Hand
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 5:50 pm

Re: Grim

Post by IDM » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:41 pm

That's true Nick, but cars were designed for and have an alternative prime purpose. Gun's don't. So I don't think your logic follows.

User avatar
ed
retired
Posts: 4339
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:01 pm
Location: yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Grim

Post by ed » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:43 pm

Nick wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:15 pm
Just so you are certain, I think the private ownership of assault rifles is insane, and that any firearm ownership should be heavily regulated (as it is in the UK), but Ed's risk analysis could be just as easy to apply to the ownership of a car. See the recent use of vehicles in attacks in Europe.
absolutely agree...

but it could be argued at this point(not that I am) that cars may have achieved that critical mass that makes them a necessary evil...some may argue that private guns are not and never will be a necessary evil.

also, in terms of maximum damage I'm pretty sure guns outrank cars....but we're wandering away from my little exercise in logic.
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be

User avatar
IslandPink
Oooo, Roberts Radio's sound nice
Posts: 7992
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 7:01 pm
Location: Denbigh, N.Wales

Re: Grim

Post by IslandPink » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:46 pm

I keep wondering in all of this if the US has any specific responsibilities internationally. It's one thing being pig-headed about how you run your country for your own citizens, but do they have anything eg. under the UN to make sensible efforts to protect the lives of people visiting from the rest of the world ?
"Peridots and periwinkle, blue medallions Gilded galleons spilled across the ocean floor" ( Mitchell )

User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 12727
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: Grim

Post by Nick » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:01 pm

IDM wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:41 pm
That's true Nick, but cars were designed for and have an alternative prime purpose. Gun's don't. So I don't think your logic follows.
Not mentioned in Ed's post, so yes the logic does follow.

And just to continue your point, guns are designed to throw projectiles, they are not designed for any other purpose. If someone decides to use them to throw that projectile at people, then its not the gun or its design that does that.
Resistance isn't futile it's V / I.

User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 12727
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: Grim

Post by Nick » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:04 pm

ed wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:43 pm

but it could be argued at this point(not that I am) that cars may have achieved that critical mass that makes them a necessary evil...some may argue that private guns are not and never will be a necessary evil.
Yes, but that’s a different point. if you would prefer I argue against things you haven’t said then it would be a different discussion.
Resistance isn't futile it's V / I.

User avatar
ed
retired
Posts: 4339
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:01 pm
Location: yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Grim

Post by ed » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:07 pm

would it be wise to start a conversation about the risk analyses associated with cars, at this point?

please note the use of the plural....

sorry posts overlapped....

so I was putting forward a risk analysis based on gun use.....it was you that introduced the concept of cars, a thing I hadn't intended to duscuss..but I am happy to do so.
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be

Michael L
Old Hand
Posts: 532
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:10 pm
Location: Shrewsbury

Re: Grim

Post by Michael L » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:13 pm

The statistics for mass shootings are awful in the USA but what I find even more disturbing are the accidental shootings of children or adults by children barely old enough to pull the trigger. The numbers of suicides using guns is staggering too.

User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 12727
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: Grim

Post by Nick » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:15 pm

The problem (IMHO) with that sort of Daily Mail risk analysis is that it doesn't address the potential benefit and match the probability of the two occurring against each other.

What is the benefit * likelihood of private gun ownership against cost * likelihood of the same.

What is the same ratio for a car, the difference is then clear, but this was not addressed in the post.
Resistance isn't futile it's V / I.

User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 12727
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: Grim

Post by Nick » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:18 pm

ed wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:07 pm
it was you that introduced the concept of cars
As an example, there are millions of other examples that would equally work. Beer, Aspirins, Soldering Irons and so on.
Resistance isn't futile it's V / I.

IDM
Old Hand
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 5:50 pm

Re: Grim

Post by IDM » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:24 pm

And just to continue your point, guns are designed to throw projectiles, they are not designed for any other purpose. If someone decides to use them to throw that projectile at people, then its not the gun or its design that does that.
Sorry Nick that's not true. The gun was not developed and then the inventor thought now what can this be used for? Like many inventions it came about through innovation an research into more efficient and better ways of killing. It was certainly not invented "as a method of throwing projectiles". The musket was a direct development beyond the bow and arrow.

User avatar
ed
retired
Posts: 4339
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:01 pm
Location: yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Grim

Post by ed » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:26 pm

Nick wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:04 pm
ed wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:43 pm

but it could be argued at this point(not that I am) that cars may have achieved that critical mass that makes them a necessary evil...some may argue that private guns are not and never will be a necessary evil.
Yes, but that’s a different point. if you would prefer I argue against things you haven’t said then it would be a different discussion.
hang on a minute....how could I prefer that you argue against things I haven't said...you couldn't do that, and I wouldn't expect you to do it because you wouldn't know what the proposition was...
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be

User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 12727
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: Grim

Post by Nick » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:30 pm

IDM wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:24 pm
And just to continue your point, guns are designed to throw projectiles, they are not designed for any other purpose. If someone decides to use them to throw that projectile at people, then its not the gun or its design that does that.
Sorry Nick that's not true. The gun was not developed and then the inventor thought now what can this be used for? Like many inventions it came about through innovation an research into more efficient and better ways of killing. It was certainly not invented "as a method of throwing projectiles". The musket was a direct development beyond the bow and arrow.

Yes, but was it for killing people or for food?
Resistance isn't futile it's V / I.

Post Reply