Second amendment

[IMJ]

As if being insured against use is going to reduce the number of firearm owners out there in any capacity. "Are you insured for this shooting?"

"No, the guy attacked me, his family can pay for the funeral".

As for the other side, hoodrats and street shooters won't care about being insured anyway.

[Sumac]

What really puzzles me, its the way how lawmakers approach this whole thing.

They are trying to prohibit normal people from having guns, hoping that it will stop psychopaths and criminals from owning guns.

It doesn't make sense at all. Psycho doesn't need an official gun to commit a crime. He can buy it on a black market or build it himself, like that crazy killer did, who killed Japanese ex-prime minister. Likewise, criminals already beyond the law, so it just another meaningless text for them.

It leaves regular people who do not commit crimes or use guns for self-defense.

And if was not guns it would have been something else: UK doesn't allow people to have guns, to my knowledge, yet there is a big amount of crimes using knives. And government bans one type of knife after the other, but it doesn't really help. Though in case of UK it is to WHO exactly commits knife crimes. But still.

It is fighting a consequence and targeting people who do not want to break the law, instead going to the root of the problem and fighting people who are the type to commit those crimes.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Sumac

What really puzzles me, its the way how lawmakers approach this whole thing.

They are trying to prohibit normal people from having guns, hoping that it will stop psychopaths and criminals from owning guns.

It doesn't make sense at all.

I'm telling you I've explained this here over the years and I'd argue that most people mistake the honest observation as some kind of unbacked vitriol because I'm not using purely academic language while smiling and nodding gently.

But here it is again - It's because they are appeasing the peasant-thinker constituency who are so f'n dumb and locked into their thought-modality that they will yield votes on empty actions from politicians, while crucifying a guy like Trump who got things done. Because the lawmakers who do what you've described deliver platitudes that makes the peasant thinker feel good, while Trump gets more done than anyone else but he is challenging and terse.

I'm telling you - it's not a joke - I've presented it here for years at a certain communication level to make the point to the most obtuse of reader. There are. More peasant-thinkers. Than there are kings. And politicians cultivate votes from the bottom-feeder population as much as possible while making the bottom-feeder feel like he is somehow a successful American.

Tale as old as time, dude. Kings point their peasant-thinkers at an enemy before their army. And the peasant-thinkers feel good about it. Another word for these people is "patsy". Nothing makes a peasant-thinker comply more than patronizing them without them knowing it, and nothing makes a peasant-thinker an eternal enemy than showing them their place in the heirarchy-of-thinkers.

There are peasant-thinkers here who probably think that when I say "peasant-thinker" I'm somehow making a statement about poor people rather than emotionally driven fools who compute the world through the simplest of impulses (e.g., I don't like Trump and so he is evil and my enemy). They think that because they are peasant-thinkers.

This was not a rant. It was an honest-to-God explanation.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by IMJ

This was not a rant. It was an honest-to-God explanation.

In Russia such people called "Obyvatel" [o b i v a t e l].

Basically no-one of significance or particular intellect or convictions, who lives a very uneventful boring life, but thinks of himself as some great thinker, who is usually easily goaded by populists to support one cause or the other.

Effectively they are like cousins of SJWs, just without being activists or inherently supporting leftist "values", since they will support whatever make them feel good and smart at any given moment...

[Mayhem]

Originally Posted by Sumac

And if was not guns it would have been something else: UK doesn't allow people to have guns, to my knowledge, yet there is a big amount of crimes using knives.

Oh you can own guns here, you need a licence (which includes background checks and evaluations), and there is a general restriction about what you are allowed to own (mostly limited to some handguns, shotguns, and particular rifles). I will agree, knife crime needs to tackled more firmly, but given every day knives (you'd used in the kitchen etc) are used in a lot of stabbings, you can't just go banning them and be done with it.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Mayhem

Oh you can own guns here, you need a licence (which includes background checks and evaluations), and there is a general restriction about what you are allowed to own (mostly limited to some handguns, shotguns, and particular rifles). I will agree, knife crime needs to tackled more firmly, but given every day knives (you'd used in the kitchen etc) are used in a lot of stabbings, you can't just go banning them and be done with it.

Isn't it like Canada in the UK, though? Where you have to prove you "need" to have a firearm, and safety/protection is not a valid "need" in the court's eyes?

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Mayhem

I will agree, knife crime needs to tackled more firmly, but given every day knives (you'd used in the kitchen etc) are used in a lot of stabbings, you can't just go banning them and be done with it.

Something tells me UK government won't do anything about real reason of the stabbings and will try to ban knives and forks and stuff. It is easier and they won't be burnt in the social networks for being racists and whatnot.

It is the same logic, like in US - hope that banning something will stop criminals. Except criminals already operate outside of the law, so it won't make difference for them, but for regular law-abiding people.

[Mayhem]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Isn't it like Canada in the UK, though? Where you have to prove you "need" to have a firearm, and safety/protection is not a valid "need" in the court's eyes?

Not specifically, the ex copper over the road had a locked metal cupboard full of shottys and rifles under licence. Used for hunting, clay pigeon shooting and further. I would know, I used some of them for target and clay shooting myself when younger.

Considering the general low level of firearm ownership overall, yes safety/protection is not a valid need because most people here will never see a gun in their lives.

[joe-eyeball]

Originally Posted by Mayhem

Not specifically, the ex copper over the road had a locked metal cupboard full of shottys and rifles under licence. Used for hunting, clay pigeon shooting and further. I would know, I used some of them for target and clay shooting myself when younger.

Considering the general low level of firearm ownership overall, yes safety/protection is not a valid need because most people here will never see a gun in their lives.

I have always found it odd that the police can own guns over there but many are not allowed to carry while on duty? Has that changed?

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Mayhem

Not specifically, the ex copper over the road had a locked metal cupboard full of shottys and rifles under licence. Used for hunting, clay pigeon shooting and further. I would know, I used some of them for target and clay shooting myself when younger.

Yeah, that sounds like the same B.S. in Canada. To "why do you NEED a firearm?" you have to say something like, I come from a long line of hunters and it's a family tradition, and not "There's break-ins all over my city and I want to defend my family."

[Mayhem]

Originally Posted by joe-eyeball

I have always found it odd that the police can own guns over there but many are not allowed to carry while on duty? Has that changed?

Not so much that but there are specific firearm units that are deployed when required for situations requiring that level of response. As I said, most people here will never see a gun in their lives, let alone hold or use one.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Yeah, that sounds like the same B.S. in Canada. To "why do you NEED a firearm?" you have to say something like, I come from a long line of hunters and it's a family tradition, and not "There's break-ins all over my city and I want to defend my family."

Most burglaries happen with the occupiers away from the property, and for the times when that isn’t the case, the chance of the burglar not having a gun is about as likely as Trump losing the nomination this year. We are not all Tony Martin thankfully, which was an interesting case in legal analysis, convicted mostly because he shot them in the back. But he was driven to it because the police weren’t dealing with his repeated breakins.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Mayhem

We are not all Tony Martin thankfully, which was an interesting case in legal analysis, convicted mostly because he shot them in the back. But he was driven to it because the police weren’t dealing with his repeated breakins.

Shot them in the back? GOOD! You absolutely do not owe intruders a "fair fight." People breaking into your family's house in the middle of the night is not like a sanctioned UFC match or something.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Mayhem

We are not all Tony Martin thankfully, which was an interesting case in legal analysis, convicted mostly because he shot them in the back. But he was driven to it because the police weren’t dealing with his repeated breakins.

When someone breaks into your house, especially, if you have a family, no-one cares about fairness or what methods and weapons you gonna use to defend yourself.

No-one owes a burglar a fair fight or anything like that. Get into someone's property - get shot. That's the deal.