Had Enough

[xplanery 250]

Why is the country even discussing this trivial matter? Because it distracts the population from the fact that the world's economy is close to complete collapse, and the end result will be world wide poverty as never seen before.

That could be a good thing really, world is currently incredibly messed up place full of selfishness and worship of money, I would love to see total collapse of worldwide economy and capitalism. Current ways will only lead to war, misery and in the end near complete destruction of humankind unless something changes.

 

Yeah sure it would cause poverty, but with resources of this planet running out quicker and quicker it's only matter of time until that happens.

[Great Ozzie 101]

Talking head on Fox saying that having doctors talk to their mentally disturbed patients about guns was a violation of the amendment. Give me a break.

 

Are you sure that is what he said?

 

Or was it more along the lines of a doctor asking during a routine visit if the patient had guns in the home?

 

I don't know how increased knowledge about firearms would add anything of value to the discussion

 

Because then you would not see people display their ignorance and lose credibility ("do your homework") when posting a picture of the weapons used (in this case Sandy Hook) and thinking somehow it fits the definition of "assault weapon" they post. Or e.g. the information in the picture grossly mis-stated.

 

I prefer intelligent converse as opposed to dealing with a simplistic "guns = bad" mentality.

 

 

Those of you my age or older surely remember the fear underlying life during the height of the cold war. You seem to be suffering unwittingly the same problems with your liberty to carry small arms--

 

I would see more along the lines of... "so you want to confiscate my baseball bat... you realize baseball is one of my passions... so some nuts have murdered with ball bats and it is time to call for a ban???"

 

And you could apply the very same thing (as has been said) to cars, fertilizer, racing fuel, knives...

 

It just so happens there are both Federal & State Constitutional protections for gun ownership.

 

Generally, we know that if we lose a firearm, and it's subsequently used in a violent crime, we are likely to suffer severe penalties.

 

I can see how that would be a very effective deterrent on a number of levels. No idea how one would craft a law here that would not be declared unconstitutional.

 

increasing their prevalence and availability in an attempt at safeguarding yourselves against their illegal use.

 

Oh just the very (resurrected) notion of an "assault weapons ban" has been very effective at doing that.

 

I don't think you can put a price on a child's life.

 

No of course you can't.

 

But the genie out of the bottle here. Even if you could get two thirds of the House and Senate to vote against... and then 3/4 of the States... their legislatures to ratify a repeal (good luck btw)... How do you confiscate 300 million guns? Or register (so many millions) of them... one at a time? Then you still have e.g. the southern U.S. border to deal with (importation of).

[lthendrix 25]

Why is the country even discussing this trivial matter? Because it distracts the population from the fact that the world's economy is close to complete collapse, and the end result will be world wide poverty as never seen before. To end this, the world must engage in mass war for economic stimulation. It happens throughout history.

 

But none of that is important when we can argue about three extra bullets in a clip. We're doomed by an illiterate voting populous and corrupt politicians.

 

 

 

Well put could not agree more.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

.......Because then you would not see people display their ignorance and lose credibility ("do your homework") when posting a picture of the weapons used (in this case Sandy Hook) and thinking somehow it fits the definition of "assault weapon" they post. Or e.g. the information in the picture grossly mis-stated.

 

I prefer intelligent converse as opposed to dealing with a simplistic "guns = bad" mentality.

 

I think you're mincing words here and subjecting people to a litmus test to validate your opinions and your definition as to what qualifies as "intelligent converse". Guns are bad, I say that having one pointed at my head during an armed robbery. I say that having my car windshield shot at with my daughter sleeping in the back seat--I never saw the shooter but was told by the police there had been many such incidents in the area. Guns have one purpose--to kill. Guns like Glocks have one purpose--to kill more efficiently. I consider it an assault weapon. While I agree there is no way to get them off the streets, I do feel limiting the supply or the supply of ammo will keep the situation from getting worse. Ask any police officer, and they will likely agree with me. I don't consider them "unintelligent" for having that opinion. We can't continue to have an arms race in this country. No one here has said we wish to go into homes of law abiding gun owners to take their weapons. But something has to stem the tide of these weapons getting on the streets. If we continue to make more or import more, more will get on the streets. Yes, cars can kill, pitchforks can kill, can openers can kill, and so on. But they aren't designed for that purpose. I don't have to own a gun to have an intelligent opinion. I've been a victim of guns, and lost a brother to a gun. That's enough to have an opinion, in my book.

 

John

[Dave Morgan 68]

Hi.

 

I would see more along the lines of... "so you want to confiscate my baseball bat... you realize baseball is one of my passions... so some nuts have murdered with ball bats and it is time to call for a ban???"

 

You are absolutely right; it's a matter of degree. Here, if I walked down the main street with a baseball bat (or cricket bat, maybe, for the UK) and met a police officer proceeding the other way, I'd certainly be subjected to a 'conversation' regarding my intended use of said object, my name, where I lived, where I was going et c. et c.

 

But the genie out of the bottle here. Even if you could get two thirds of the House and Senate to vote against... and then 3/4 of the States... their legislatures to ratify a repeal (good luck btw)... How do you confiscate 300 million guns? Or register (so many millions) of them... one at a time?

 

That's appears to be the second greatest hindrance in the States, (entrenched disagreement being the first). As you imply, it would be close to impossible to police such a change over, never mind the subsequent criminalization, in such a large nation. And worse, a hand-it-in amnesty would be murderously one-sided.

 

I can see how that would be a very effective deterrent on a number of levels. No idea how one would craft a law here that would not be declared unconstitutional.

 

As above. Sadly it would probably only work in a small country. There must be a mutually acceptable solution, but I can't see it.

 

Oh just the very (resurrected) notion of an "assault weapons ban" has been very effective at doing that.

 

That I don't understand, but then I've had a brain-fryer of a day.

 

Best regards,

D

[brant 12]

We can discuss a political issue but cannot discuss, at our own risk, our assertedly legal use of P3D.

 

 

i almost fell out of my chair reading this.

 

:lol:

[realpilotsimpilot 11]

Are you sure that is what he said?

 

Or was it more along the lines of a doctor asking during a routine visit if the patient had guns in the home?

 

 

Yup. See here at about the 2:43 mark it starts.

 

http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/01/17/foxs-napolitano-sees-grave-threat-to-second-ame/192296

 

He says that it isn't a doctor's business to determine if his crazy patient is fit own a gun and it is an infringes gun ownership. I'm not sure if he said that just to be provocative or toe the Fox News line, but that's really a mind blowing assertion to me.

 

To some on the "pro-gun" side of this debate, it seems that even the most modest regulations are an infringement. The NRA opposed the current national waiting period and background checks and basically every attempt at modest regulation including the Brady Bill. As I noted above, the Supreme Court allows limited or no constitutional protection for certain types of speech and allows cops to conduct searches without warrants in certain circumstances, etc. So, some level of gun control is not a constitutionally prohibited "infringement". A Bush-appointed federal judge said (in an interview) that he thought the right approach was banning current possession of "assault weapons" (in quotes because I realize that can be a loaded term for some), with no grandfathering of current owners and that caused no constitutional problems as far as he was concerned. Is that the right approach? Is his constitutional analysis correct? I don't know, but it simply goes to my point that not every restriction is infringement.

[simmerhead 885]

Anybody remember the movie starring Michael Douglas called "Falling Down". To me it has always been a good argument against owning weapons. You can be perfectly healthy the day you go out to buy an arsenal of firearms, but then you get into a fight with your neighbour, your wife divorces you and you lose your job or whatever... then snap!

 

On the other hand, if I lived in the US I would probably sleep better with a Smith & Wesson under my pillow knowing I am surrounded by gun nutters of all kinds...

[razorhog703 15]

I am pleasantly shocked and surprised that we have been able to discuss both sides of this issue. I never thought this topic would have reached almost 3,000 views and so many responses. Although people may or may not have changed their points, it is very interesting to read the comments so far. Thank you MODS for allowing the discussion to take place. I realize that this may not be related to AV Simming. We all are real people even if we are virtual pilots. I hope that we can at the end of the day not take our personal feelings out and enjoy simming as always. I do appreciate the viewpoints of everyone, Americans and other countries, as we see this issue raised to the United States government. May God bless and guide their decision for our future, whatever it may be.

[Christopher Low 5,354]

"The right to bear arms" is no longer a valid part of the American Constitution. The vast majority of the general public do not need projectile weapons. As someone else has already pointed out, you are not living in the Wild West anymore.

[ray hughes 165]

What a 200 year old constitution says or doesn't say is not a point you should all be arguing over when it comes to guns.

The carrying of arms in a civilian population is always going to be a point of contention and it should be debated not a in bi-partisan manner, nor be subjected to heavy handed full page and television lobbying by one group or another. It should be debated by the whole nation in a fair and even handed way. Have experts from both sides point out the pit falls and misconstrued 'facts' and try and present no irrelevant bias.

 

The video clip link introduced to this debate seems a little too generalised and doesn't take into account the baby boomer curve as a possible reason why some of the figures are static or in decline. When you start using spreadsheet numbers as a means to an argument someone is always going to point out you are missing relevant or vital data and therefore your conclusions are misrepresentative.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"The right to bear arms" is no longer a valid part of the American Constitution. The vast majority of the general public do not need projectile weapons. As someone else has already pointed out, you are not living in the Wild West anymore.

 

Since the right to bear arms hasn't been repealed, it is still a valid part of the constitution. I had a home broken into, and had I been home I would have had a need for a weapon to protect my family. Most home invasions where homeowners are unarmed have ended up with the homeowners getting assaulted or killed--at least in the big city where I live. And living next to a country that's flooding my state with illegal immigrant smugglers who arm themselves to the teeth to smuggle human bodies through, it is very much the wild west.

 

John

[realpilotsimpilot 11]

"The right to bear arms" is no longer a valid part of the American Constitution. The vast majority of the general public do not need projectile weapons. As someone else has already pointed out, you are not living in the Wild West anymore.

 

What a 200 year old constitution says or doesn't say is not a point you should all be arguing over when it comes to guns.

 

While I understand this position and I, in fact, agree with you regarding the availability of guns in this country, what a 200 year old document says is actually an important aspect in this debate. Like it or not, the Constitution provides some level of protection for gun ownership. That guns are not common in civilized society is very true, but unfortunately largely irrelevant in the analysis as to whether such and such gun restriction is permitted. I would be inclined to try and amend the constitution in this regard, but I'm so pessimistic about such an attempt I figure it isn't really worth trying. I know it sounds screwy to non-Americans, but at some level the Constitution is a "warts and all" document. Not everything protected by the constitution is necessarily a good idea. I might have the right to protest in an offensive manner (think Westboro Baptist or flag burning) something I don't like, but it isn't necessarily wise to do so. I put owning most guns in that category of "things that are legal, but not wise."

 

That said, as you meander through this thread, I think you see that America has a fairly widespread, but certainly not universal, belief in the rugged individualist/Wild West mentality. That somehow, owning guns will make you safer in the rare event that the government tries to do something or a mob of armed criminals is coming, or whatever. No matter how obscure the chances of something happening, that it could happen means owning guns is somehow a good idea. If you have been taught or believe that owning guns is somehow essential, then you're not changing that person's mind. I don't think it is a particularly healthy attitude, and it seems to me to be one that is exclusively American. My sense is that it is prevalent enough to prevent any amendment to the constitution on this topic.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

"The right to bear arms" is no longer a valid part of the American Constitution. The vast majority of the general public do not need projectile weapons. As someone else has already pointed out, you are not living in the Wild West anymore.

 

You need to read the news coming out of the U.S. a little closer Chris. The west today in the U.S. is arguably as wild as the west was of the 1800's. As John points out, when you have armies of smugglers coming over the border armed to the teeth and willing to shoot first, you are going to lose your argument very quickly. You do not have that problem in the U.K. (or you didn't when I was there last in 2011) unless drastic changes have taken place.

[realpilotsimpilot 11]

Since the right to bear arms hasn't been repealed, it is still a valid part of the constitution. I had a home broken into, and had I been home I would have had a need for a weapon to protect my family. Most home invasions where homeowners are unarmed have ended up with the homeowners getting assaulted or killed--at least in the big city where I live. And living next to a country that's flooding my state with illegal immigrant smugglers who arm themselves to the teeth to smuggle human bodies through, it is very much the wild west.

 

John

 

That is not entirely accurate. You are more likely o be killed if you have a gun. And, more likely by your own gun. For home protection, the safest use of gun is an unloaded shotgun. Racking one produces a distinctive and will have an intruder jumping out the nearest window. And there isn't any chance of you accidentally killing yourself or a loved one.