Trump moves to ban bump stocks

That's vastly incorrect. There have been 34 mass shootings this year alone in America, and we're not yet at the end of February. There were 346 mass shootings last year..

Go edit Wiki then. I assumed that their figures and definition were broadly correct:

"The United States has more mass shootings than any other country. A mass shooting is commonly defined as a shooting resulting in at least four victims, excluding the perpetrator. When the definition is restricted to four or more people killed, data shows 146 mass shootings between 1967 and 2017, with an average of eight people dead including the perpetrator. The perpetrator generally either commits suicide or is killed or is restrained by law enforcement officers or civilians."

Other categories of shooting are not central to the original debates, which were focussed on random shooting spree murders in schools or workplaces.

The article on overall gun violence seems quite comprehensive:

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia


Whether the broader US population really are justified in running scared is debateable, given that the chance of becoming a non-gang related shooting casualty is about a quarter of that of becoming a road accident fatality - something that most people tend not to even contemplate on a day-to-day basis.
 
That is the biggest load of outdated crap I have read for a while.
Do you really seriously think that your vaunted US military would be stopped by Cletus and his mates?

If so then you are in deeper shit than suspected.
You assume the US military is going to go along with this?
 
That was the National Guard, not Federal Troops, and worked great Apart from the pretty seismic political fall out that lasted decades, and that was not assaulting ordinary law abiding people’s homes and shooting them down to take await their 2nd Amendments rights,
We are talking about an hypothetical limited dictatorship remember. There would be no political fall out and the nay sayers would just be ignored or vilified in public opinion.

You still seem fixated on the idea that "they is gonna take away our guns and make us all slaves".
Very odd mind set but as I said above - if a few hundred dead children each year is the price you are prepared to pay then that is your choice.
Just don't expect the rest of the civilized world to take anything you say about morals or rights all that seriously.
 
$3.1bn is still a tidy sum, even in sterling. Hardly a "very bad businessman".
It is when you consider that (apparently) overall he's made a considerable loss as opposed to a profit. Anyone of us on here would be in the same (the majority of us in a better) position if you'd have been surrounded by the Trump empire from birth. Let's not place him in the same category as real self-made men (Bill Gates, Richard Branson etc).
 
You assume the US military is going to go along with this?
Well they quite happily rounded up and incarcerated a couple of hundred thousand of your own citizens before and I am fairly sure that if ordered to stop Billybob Fuckwit and his mates "Slaughtering innocent civilians" then they would be on board?
 
...He is successful because of 'Yes men and other people with business acumen'? Very counter intuitive - Seems the media has done a bang up job of indoctrinating you.......
Not at all. Had I been a US citizen there's no way I would have voted for Clinton, but in the same vein I was not drinking Trump's Kool-aid either. His whole election campaign was taken from the script of Family Guy:

Trump Speech Writer

I fully support the 2nd Amendment and know of many people who carry a PPW in the UK.
 
The peasant, only worth $3,100,000,000 or maybe $20 ,000,000,000 :)
The difference being that HE believes he's worth $20bn and not $3.1bn. It's not the amount of money that's the problem, it's his lack of grip on reality.
He's still under the impression that if he says it, it must be true.
It's the way he's been brought up.

Did he ever release his Tax returns? The IRS audit (excuse) was in 2016 - genuine question.
 
There is a fairly easy solution to the problem.

Anyone found with a firearm in their possesion during commission of a crime (any crime) gets a mandatory life imprisonment.
If you use or threaten to use a firearm during commission of a crime then you hang.

Simple.
Which would lead to a massive surge in murders as perps kill witnesses.

Pretty obviously.
 
The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
In the last 200 odd years Uncle Sam has obtained drones, M1 tanks, AH64 and MLRS.

Good luck fighting that.

His statement is antiquated guff. And obviously so.
 
Unfortunately to support your argument you would have to produce statistics that go back pre-97.
To further support...

Trend over the last ten years os for a reduction. Its your argument so maybe one for you to evidence?
 
The argument over whether the US Military could defeat it's own citizens if the decision was made to disarm them is pretty pointless. The Military gets most of its recruits from the same communities that own most of the guns and support for the Second Amendment amongst Military personnel (and Police) is generally very high.

So never mind how unlikely a scenario it is, the idea that the Military would actually fight their own families to achieve an aim that few of them support is nuts. The civies wouldn't even need the ability to win, they would just need to make it clear they would fight.
 
To further support...

Trend over the last ten years os for a reduction. Its your argument so maybe one for you to evidence?
Not my argument, just pointing out that you countered it with evidence that did not support your side.
In that there may have been a reduction in the past 10 years but that does not disprove that the figures pre-increase in legislation (1997) where lower than post, which was your assertion.
 
Not my argument, just pointing out that you countered it with evidence that did not support your side.
In that there may have been a reduction in the past 10 years but that does not disprove that the figures pre-increase in legislation (1997) where lower than post, which was your assertion.
You said:

What worked? UK gun crime has increased in inverse proportion to tightened restrictions on legal gun ownership.
Can you evidence, please?
 
In the last 200 odd years Uncle Sam has obtained drones, M1 tanks, AH64 and MLRS.

Good luck fighting that.

His statement is antiquated guff. And obviously so.

And it’s against US Federal law to use Federal Troops in the Continental United States against its citizens.

So good luck with you’re fantasy Of using the US Army, required by the Constitution to uphold the Constitution to deprive the citizens of their Consitutional rights.
 
The argument over whether the US Military could defeat it's own citizens if the decision was made to disarm them is pretty pointless. The Military gets most of its recruits from the same communities that own most of the guns and support for the Second Amendment amongst Military personnel (and Police) is generally very high.

So never mind how unlikely a scenario it is, the idea that the Military would actually fight their own families to achieve an aim that few of them support is nuts. The civies wouldn't even need the ability to win, they would just need to make it clear they would fight.
Which is why the argument that citizens need guns to fight off the government is complete horse hockey. They don't need semi-automatic weapons in calibres that are designed for the sole purpose of killing human beings.

It's also the reason why no-one in the UK is clamouring to be armed to the teeth. We don't expect our neighbour who's joined up to be shooting at us on the say so of government, especially considering we have laws against deployment of troops on the streets and their allegiance is to the monarch.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top