| Only in America on 19:40 - Aug 28 with 945 views | Davillin |
re: Phact0rri:
By far the most gratifying post on this thread -- probably on any thread on here ever analyzing "America" - is yours, below, for which I most genuinely thank you.
"But the terrorist thing, does bother me if I'm being honest. mainly because the US government is happy to label anyone that breaths in the wrong direction as "possible terrorist", so they are pretty much in line with what everyone here believes with us being a nation of terrorists. :) "
You might want to let Lifelong know that I, too, am in the "possible terrorist" category on the basis of the fact that I'm a veteran, all of whom have been so identified.
So are "fundamentalist Christians," of all people, although I don't qualify in that category as well, thank goddess.
p.s. Same comment to you about my always being respectful to you, so I don't have o keep repeating it. |  |
|  |
| Only in America on 19:56 - Aug 28 with 926 views | phact0rri |
| Only in America on 18:32 - Aug 28 by Davillin |
Still respectfully.
Well, now. I am genuinely surprised that you would be interested in hearing my views on "unfiltered access to weapons," given that I am a "violent psychopath," and now also one of "those NRA folks [who] do honestly frighten [you]."
Please reconsider your suggestion/request, or assure me that you will receive and consider my response with a fully open mind. Considering your hopefully inadvertent inclusion of me in those nefarious categories, and most of the attitudes you have endorsed in these two posts, I have to have serious doubts that that objectivity will happen.
p.s. Do you mean "unfettered access"? |
Well if you want to call yourself as such, it is by far your prerogative. I am sure you and yours have nice words for my type of vegan, equal rights politically minded sort too. Though its politics so we all generalize to a degree. It doesn't mean that I'm not open for a debate, and to be educated by those who don't agree. At least I like to know where other point of views come from if I agree with them or not.
But you don't have to showcase it to me. I've had loads of these conversations before. I just felt its proper to give you a soap box should you want it. But its not at all necessary. we can agree to to disagree and move on.
By unfettered access I mean the right to have full access to weapons with little to no safeguards or control in the process.
Cheers though. |  |
| |
| Only in America on 20:15 - Aug 28 with 906 views | Davillin |
| Only in America on 19:56 - Aug 28 by phact0rri |
Well if you want to call yourself as such, it is by far your prerogative. I am sure you and yours have nice words for my type of vegan, equal rights politically minded sort too. Though its politics so we all generalize to a degree. It doesn't mean that I'm not open for a debate, and to be educated by those who don't agree. At least I like to know where other point of views come from if I agree with them or not.
But you don't have to showcase it to me. I've had loads of these conversations before. I just felt its proper to give you a soap box should you want it. But its not at all necessary. we can agree to to disagree and move on.
By unfettered access I mean the right to have full access to weapons with little to no safeguards or control in the process.
Cheers though. |
Now you got a bit testy there.
I did not "call myself" those things. In fact, after I finish laughing at them, I have a different kind of reaction.
Why did you bring up "vegans, equal rights politically minded sorts"? If you don't know that in the States, those things are of no consequence, meaning negative consequence, then you're stuck with that.
I will respond to your penultimate sentence. The devil is in the details. We know -- because the anti-gun people have said so very publicly and specifically in almost these exact words," that gun "control" [or "safeguards"], in even the most limited forms, are not the intended end result.
As with virtually every other push from those who would take away our rights, they know that they cannot eat the pie with one bite, but that every nibble is one less bite they will need in order to finish it all.
As long as you don't know or recognize that implacable truth, you're operating in a faux world of violet- and jasmine-flavoured pap.
To paraphrase an interesting line, "The ox is slow, but the anti-rights people are patient." | |
| |
| Only in America on 20:17 - Aug 28 with 903 views | exiledclaseboy |
As a self-confessed "liberal leftie" it never ceases to amaze my how my fellow "lefties" who should be preaching tolerance and respect, are among the most intolerant and sometimes bigoted types I've come across. It makes no sense to me. |  |
| |
| Only in America on 20:18 - Aug 28 with 898 views | keeponrockin |
| Only in America on 20:17 - Aug 28 by exiledclaseboy |
As a self-confessed "liberal leftie" it never ceases to amaze my how my fellow "lefties" who should be preaching tolerance and respect, are among the most intolerant and sometimes bigoted types I've come across. It makes no sense to me. |
Yes!! Thank you |  | | |
| Only in America on 20:20 - Aug 28 with 888 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Only in America on 20:18 - Aug 28 by keeponrockin |
Yes!! Thank you |
I should have said "some" of course. But it's not a new discovery for me. | |
| |
| Only in America on 20:22 - Aug 28 with 885 views | keeponrockin |
| Only in America on 20:20 - Aug 28 by exiledclaseboy |
I should have said "some" of course. But it's not a new discovery for me. |
I've found many lefties to be incredibly intolerant and extremely racist on many occasions they just have different targets to their soul brothers on the extreme right | | | |
| Only in America on 20:26 - Aug 28 with 879 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Only in America on 20:22 - Aug 28 by keeponrockin |
I've found many lefties to be incredibly intolerant and extremely racist on many occasions they just have different targets to their soul brothers on the extreme right |
Indeed. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Only in America on 20:26 - Aug 28 with 877 views | keeponrockin |
| Only in America on 20:22 - Aug 28 by keeponrockin |
I've found many lefties to be incredibly intolerant and extremely racist on many occasions they just have different targets to their soul brothers on the extreme right |
It's no surprise to me many old labour voters are voting UKIP - they're hardly doing it based on their policies on public services | | | |
| Only in America on 20:53 - Aug 28 with 855 views | Shaky |
| Only in America on 20:22 - Aug 28 by keeponrockin |
I've found many lefties to be incredibly intolerant and extremely racist on many occasions they just have different targets to their soul brothers on the extreme right |
As Karl Popper correctly said the intolerant don't deserve our tolerance.
Ask yourself which category those calling for banning posters and using blanket censorship fall into? |  |
| |
| Only in America on 21:34 - Aug 28 with 851 views | phact0rri |
| Only in America on 20:15 - Aug 28 by Davillin |
Now you got a bit testy there.
I did not "call myself" those things. In fact, after I finish laughing at them, I have a different kind of reaction.
Why did you bring up "vegans, equal rights politically minded sorts"? If you don't know that in the States, those things are of no consequence, meaning negative consequence, then you're stuck with that.
I will respond to your penultimate sentence. The devil is in the details. We know -- because the anti-gun people have said so very publicly and specifically in almost these exact words," that gun "control" [or "safeguards"], in even the most limited forms, are not the intended end result.
As with virtually every other push from those who would take away our rights, they know that they cannot eat the pie with one bite, but that every nibble is one less bite they will need in order to finish it all.
As long as you don't know or recognize that implacable truth, you're operating in a faux world of violet- and jasmine-flavoured pap.
To paraphrase an interesting line, "The ox is slow, but the anti-rights people are patient." |
"Now you got a bit testy there"
Nah, I am just going to call it on it. If you kept wanting to call yourself the example there's no worries and I'll agree with you.
"Why did you bring up "vegans, equal rights politically minded sorts"? If you don't know that in the States, those things are of no consequence, meaning negative consequence, then you're stuck with that. "
I have to disagree, at least all the places in the US I've lived. I've been arrested five times for peaceful protests. I constantly get jibbed at for my political stances. There's all sorts of colourful words. Not to mention the government supporting companies to subjugate protesting and the current animal rights = terrorism bullocks.
Its cool your part of the states are much kinder, I've lived close to where you are before. I did two years of University in upstate New york, I lived in Pennsylvania as well and didn't see such things. At the very least Pro-gun legislators have more support than animal rights. Equal human rights however, thats starting to look good finacially. Unfortunately it really ends there.
As to our actual real conversation :)
I don't know if there's much we can say here. Its really mostly opinion. I can see where the fear comes from. But a compromise hasn't always ended in suffocation. Granted part of the problem is that it does have a bad rap. But I there are some political movements that run in a nibble. An honestly I hate it, but it doesn't accomplish much.
Almost every big political movement is all about little victories to fill their pockets, and has never resulted to an aimful end. Animal rights is a great example of that. | |
| |
| Only in America on 22:42 - Aug 28 with 827 views | Davillin |
| Only in America on 21:34 - Aug 28 by phact0rri |
"Now you got a bit testy there"
Nah, I am just going to call it on it. If you kept wanting to call yourself the example there's no worries and I'll agree with you.
"Why did you bring up "vegans, equal rights politically minded sorts"? If you don't know that in the States, those things are of no consequence, meaning negative consequence, then you're stuck with that. "
I have to disagree, at least all the places in the US I've lived. I've been arrested five times for peaceful protests. I constantly get jibbed at for my political stances. There's all sorts of colourful words. Not to mention the government supporting companies to subjugate protesting and the current animal rights = terrorism bullocks.
Its cool your part of the states are much kinder, I've lived close to where you are before. I did two years of University in upstate New york, I lived in Pennsylvania as well and didn't see such things. At the very least Pro-gun legislators have more support than animal rights. Equal human rights however, thats starting to look good finacially. Unfortunately it really ends there.
As to our actual real conversation :)
I don't know if there's much we can say here. Its really mostly opinion. I can see where the fear comes from. But a compromise hasn't always ended in suffocation. Granted part of the problem is that it does have a bad rap. But I there are some political movements that run in a nibble. An honestly I hate it, but it doesn't accomplish much.
Almost every big political movement is all about little victories to fill their pockets, and has never resulted to an aimful end. Animal rights is a great example of that. |
Well, that was a highly revealing post, indeed, and has convinced me that I'd best let it be.
I most sincerely thank you for your continued courtesy and your enviable ability to stay with the point of the discussion without straying into unpleasantness. I genuinely hope that you believe the same about me. [No need to respond to that.]
p.s. In the event that in your penultimate paragraph you were attributing "fear" to me, or to those who feel obligated to defend the Constitution, you may cease commiserating. So long as we're protected by the Second Amendment, we need have no fear of anything. | |
| |
| Only in America on 23:20 - Aug 28 with 809 views | jackonicko |
| Only in America on 19:32 - Aug 28 by Davillin |
Although I addressed my reply to Lifelong, I appreciate that you answered it.
Still respectfully!
Who the hell did you run with when you were over here? Did their last names all end in vowels, as my family's used to end?
Or were you on temporary duty with one or more law enforcement agencies?
As you might suspect, I have traveled fairly widely in my adult life, including New Jersey and Delaware [both unavoidable for a Pennsylvanian], and my clean record remained intact.
From my lifelong acquaintance with firearms, including some in the military, I can distinguish most of the different kinds and calibres. Out of completely respectful curiosity, how much experience with firearms are you willing to admit to? [PM me if you want to, to continue.]
I'm not going to keep repeating that I'm being respectful, and I ask that you understand that. I have no need to be disrespectful to you.
When you use the expression "semi-automatic (assault) rifles," you are using a "hot button" expression -- actually THE hot button expression of the people and groups who wish to take guns from law-abiding people.
To someone who understands firearms and wishes to be accurate, there are semi-automatic weapons, and there are assault weapons. They are not one and the same. Sadly, some of the most virulent anti-gun people are also the most ill-informed.
p.s. I'd worry more about your "imminent father-in-law" if he had grenades. ;-)
Now I'll have to tell Lifelong that by implicaton he can add "completely nuts" to his characterizations of me. The list grows. |
It's true that some of the people I "ran with" had Italian heritage. But it's also true that I've had more hair-raising experiences in the USA than in some of the more traditionally hot and dangerous countries of the world I've been to. And I've been to a lot of more traditionally hot and dangerous places.
But you are right in that I have limited firearms experience myself. Of course I have - I'm a brit! However, i may well have deliberately used the "assault" hot button in my post - spent enough time in your country to work out which buttons to push :)
PS I'm worried about those grenades as well... |  | | |
| Only in America on 23:39 - Aug 28 with 795 views | Banosswan |
| Only in America on 22:42 - Aug 28 by Davillin |
Well, that was a highly revealing post, indeed, and has convinced me that I'd best let it be.
I most sincerely thank you for your continued courtesy and your enviable ability to stay with the point of the discussion without straying into unpleasantness. I genuinely hope that you believe the same about me. [No need to respond to that.]
p.s. In the event that in your penultimate paragraph you were attributing "fear" to me, or to those who feel obligated to defend the Constitution, you may cease commiserating. So long as we're protected by the Second Amendment, we need have no fear of anything. |
And yet dav, I've stringently tried to avoid entering this conversation to relpy to you directly ( obviously not stringently enough any more). All I can say is that when anyone questions American gun laws, you don't address the question directly, you take any angle you can to take offence (offense if it helps you) and then question a perceived predudice we must have in the UK according to your beliefs.
The fact remains that ill-educated or not, we are allowed to question a country that allows a 9 year old to shoot a fully automatic weapon under the guise of bullets and burgers. Who else would that 'snappy' name target than young or naive individuals?
It may be an 'American' thing, or for you more than likely a ' lawyer ' thing. You twist things to your own agenda much like my father who was in the police for 35 years, whilst being 'respectful'.
If there's one thing I can advise a mature man, it's stop saying respectfully, it sounds patronising ( I hope you read that in the correct pronunciation). Say what you feel, we need people to counter the doomsayers as you do, just don't patronise them.
#disclaimer # yes I'm pissed and tired and yes, I've just done exactly what I've accused dav of! |  |
| Ever since my son was... never conceived, because I've never had consensual sex without money involved... I've always kind of looked at you as... a thing, that I could live next to... in accordance with state laws. | | Poll: | How do you like your steak? |
| |
| Only in America on 23:45 - Aug 28 with 784 views | Davillin |
| Only in America on 23:20 - Aug 28 by jackonicko |
It's true that some of the people I "ran with" had Italian heritage. But it's also true that I've had more hair-raising experiences in the USA than in some of the more traditionally hot and dangerous countries of the world I've been to. And I've been to a lot of more traditionally hot and dangerous places.
But you are right in that I have limited firearms experience myself. Of course I have - I'm a brit! However, i may well have deliberately used the "assault" hot button in my post - spent enough time in your country to work out which buttons to push :)
PS I'm worried about those grenades as well... |
I live in a small town hidden in the forest. Since I sat down for this computer session, I heard two gunshots separated by a half-hour or so [I did not time them]. Small calibre (undoubtedly a .22) rifle.
The only reason I had any reaction at all was because of your and my exchange. Not for a moment did I assume that anyone had been assaulted. Most likely a groundhog or rabbit raiding someone's garden.
It is so hard for me to imagine that anyone has had so many "hair-raising experiences in the USA." It just isn't a "hair-raising" place. Excepting Chicago, I guess. [Post edited 29 Aug 2014 0:05]
| |
| |
| Only in America on 00:01 - Aug 29 with 761 views | jackonicko |
| Only in America on 23:45 - Aug 28 by Davillin |
I live in a small town hidden in the forest. Since I sat down for this computer session, I heard two gunshots separated by a half-hour or so [I did not time them]. Small calibre (undoubtedly a .22) rifle.
The only reason I had any reaction at all was because of your and my exchange. Not for a moment did I assume that anyone had been assaulted. Most likely a groundhog or rabbit raiding someone's garden.
It is so hard for me to imagine that anyone has had so many "hair-raising experiences in the USA." It just isn't a "hair-raising" place. Excepting Chicago, I guess. [Post edited 29 Aug 2014 0:05]
|
Illinois is still on my list of unvisited states.
I'm being completely straight with you. I've been in Kazakhstan when the were army deploying tanks on the street to put down a coup. Kingston (Jamaica, natch) downtown, during a feisty period. The bad bits of Moscow, late at night. Mumbai, 2 weeks after the shootings, actually staying in the Taj in a room still riddled with bullet holes. Mexico City - in all the bad places (which were also the best places!), various other undesirable parts of the former Soviet Union during periods of unrest and some places in Africa I'd rather not remember.
Not once did I ever feel more at risk in those places than I did in trips to Wilmington and DC.
I still bloody love your country though! | | | |
| Only in America on 00:03 - Aug 29 with 758 views | Davillin |
| Only in America on 23:39 - Aug 28 by Banosswan |
And yet dav, I've stringently tried to avoid entering this conversation to relpy to you directly ( obviously not stringently enough any more). All I can say is that when anyone questions American gun laws, you don't address the question directly, you take any angle you can to take offence (offense if it helps you) and then question a perceived predudice we must have in the UK according to your beliefs.
The fact remains that ill-educated or not, we are allowed to question a country that allows a 9 year old to shoot a fully automatic weapon under the guise of bullets and burgers. Who else would that 'snappy' name target than young or naive individuals?
It may be an 'American' thing, or for you more than likely a ' lawyer ' thing. You twist things to your own agenda much like my father who was in the police for 35 years, whilst being 'respectful'.
If there's one thing I can advise a mature man, it's stop saying respectfully, it sounds patronising ( I hope you read that in the correct pronunciation). Say what you feel, we need people to counter the doomsayers as you do, just don't patronise them.
#disclaimer # yes I'm pissed and tired and yes, I've just done exactly what I've accused dav of! |
O.K., a couple of responses.
"A country" did not allow a 9-year old to shoot a fully automatic weapon," a parent did. And an "instructor" unworthy of the title or respect. I am truly and genuinely sad that he died.
I never heard of an instructor allowing a 9-year old, or anyone not an adult, to use an automatic weapon until this one, so the "country" can't be blamed any more than a country can be blamed when a teenager rams a car head-on into a truck. "A country" takes reasonable care to prevent accidents of all kinds. No government can legislate against abject "stupidity," however.
I have been in my share of shooting ranges and they all have been posted requiring age-limited users.
Of course, the country is "America," and any gun accident will be blamed on "America." N.B. I'm not any more biased on this than those who need to blame "America."
The reason I have been saying "respectfully" is because I have been repeatedly criticized (criticised if it helps you) for all kinds of imagined "attitudes" because of my language, and I have become tired of it.
I will follow your advice about that from this post on, and take my chances. Thank you for your appropriate and gentlemanly advice. [Can I say "gentlemanly"?] | |
| |
| Only in America on 00:10 - Aug 29 with 749 views | Tom1912 |
From what I read, Arizona has no age restrictions on using guns and a lot of US states allow it under supervision. So while they can't legislate against abject stupidity, they can legislate against people putting guns into the hands of children, which seems a bit of a no brainer to me. | | | |
| Only in America on 00:27 - Aug 29 with 740 views | phact0rri |
| Only in America on 00:01 - Aug 29 by jackonicko |
Illinois is still on my list of unvisited states.
I'm being completely straight with you. I've been in Kazakhstan when the were army deploying tanks on the street to put down a coup. Kingston (Jamaica, natch) downtown, during a feisty period. The bad bits of Moscow, late at night. Mumbai, 2 weeks after the shootings, actually staying in the Taj in a room still riddled with bullet holes. Mexico City - in all the bad places (which were also the best places!), various other undesirable parts of the former Soviet Union during periods of unrest and some places in Africa I'd rather not remember.
Not once did I ever feel more at risk in those places than I did in trips to Wilmington and DC.
I still bloody love your country though! |
DC is a crap hole, so is baltimore. I lived in some ghettos in my life, I remember East Philly and Cincinatti's Rhine and I'll even say to this day I remember some of the horrible things I saw in DC (it was the first place we lived when we came to the US).
But I think that its easy even for Americans who live here to imagine the notorious places looking like a Warzone. That there's gangs on drive bys every moment, and fire fights going on all the time and gangs killing each other. And I know you don't characterize it like that but it should be said it isn't really like that. It can be dangerous and there are "events". I work about thirty blocks from Compton. Which is so dangerous they won't even put a police station there, due to the insurance rates for cops operating in the area. But I'm never really afraid to pass through there. Keep my head down. Yes I'm use to it. I spent a good portion of my life in the bad parts. But its not as though there's a massive chance of stray bullet hitting me.
That being said, this sort of thing doesn't really factor into gun control laws. The guns on the streets are not legally bought. And even if the US banned guns I really doubt it'd stop the gangs that much. But its not as though the ghettos/projects here are like the wild west. | |
| |
| Only in America on 00:31 - Aug 29 with 733 views | Davillin |
| Only in America on 00:10 - Aug 29 by Tom1912 |
From what I read, Arizona has no age restrictions on using guns and a lot of US states allow it under supervision. So while they can't legislate against abject stupidity, they can legislate against people putting guns into the hands of children, which seems a bit of a no brainer to me. |
I guess you missed two words in your own post -- "under supervision."
And I'm sure the language is more specific than that, such as "under adult supervision," "under the supervision of a parent or guardian," or something similar.
Come now, if you lived in the States and had a 9-year old, would you allow her to fire a UZI? Law or no law?
We have, as I'm certain you do, a legal concept called "The reasonable man" standard [now "the reasonable person" standard. It is defined as doing what a reasonable person would do in the same situation. That poor little girl had parents and an instructor who didn't meet that standard. That's not "America's" fault, the state's fault, or the court's fault. It's the parents and the instructor's fault
One western U.S. state [might have been Montana, I don't remember] had an unlimited speed limit on certain limited-access highways. One of their U.S. Senators was asked by a smartass reporter why there was no speed limit
The Senator replied that there was a speed limit. It was to drive a reasonably safe speed.
The smartass hen asked him how a driver was supposed to know what a reasonable safe speed was.
The Senator asked him to stay out of Montana if he didn't know that.
p.s. one person's "no brainer" opinion might be interpreted by someone else as a "no brains" opinion. For heaven's sake, we have a country where an unelected person who happens to be married to the president has been dictating [through a government agency, of course] what kids should [not "may"] eat at school lunch. Nanny state. | |
| |
| Only in America on 00:33 - Aug 29 with 730 views | lifelong |
| Only in America on 19:32 - Aug 28 by Davillin |
Although I addressed my reply to Lifelong, I appreciate that you answered it.
Still respectfully!
Who the hell did you run with when you were over here? Did their last names all end in vowels, as my family's used to end?
Or were you on temporary duty with one or more law enforcement agencies?
As you might suspect, I have traveled fairly widely in my adult life, including New Jersey and Delaware [both unavoidable for a Pennsylvanian], and my clean record remained intact.
From my lifelong acquaintance with firearms, including some in the military, I can distinguish most of the different kinds and calibres. Out of completely respectful curiosity, how much experience with firearms are you willing to admit to? [PM me if you want to, to continue.]
I'm not going to keep repeating that I'm being respectful, and I ask that you understand that. I have no need to be disrespectful to you.
When you use the expression "semi-automatic (assault) rifles," you are using a "hot button" expression -- actually THE hot button expression of the people and groups who wish to take guns from law-abiding people.
To someone who understands firearms and wishes to be accurate, there are semi-automatic weapons, and there are assault weapons. They are not one and the same. Sadly, some of the most virulent anti-gun people are also the most ill-informed.
p.s. I'd worry more about your "imminent father-in-law" if he had grenades. ;-)
Now I'll have to tell Lifelong that by implicaton he can add "completely nuts" to his characterizations of me. The list grows. |
I didn't answer your thread Dav simply because there's not much point. We're just going over the same old ground repeatedly, with all due respect you seem to be in denial that a firearm problem exists in the US.
I remember about 3 years ago when the shooting in Arizona took place the same arguments ensued then. There are numerous sources of statistics regarding the amount of American citizens killed by firearms, I was reading one recently which stated that in 2011 over 8500 American were murdered by the use of firearms. That's just an incredible statistic and by way of some sort of comparison, in Japan in the same year, who have a very strict gun control policy, the total amount of people killed by firearms amounted to 7.
By the way, I don't think you're completely nuts, nuts maybe but not completely.  |  | | |
| Only in America on 01:57 - Aug 29 with 691 views | phact0rri |
| Only in America on 00:33 - Aug 29 by lifelong |
I didn't answer your thread Dav simply because there's not much point. We're just going over the same old ground repeatedly, with all due respect you seem to be in denial that a firearm problem exists in the US.
I remember about 3 years ago when the shooting in Arizona took place the same arguments ensued then. There are numerous sources of statistics regarding the amount of American citizens killed by firearms, I was reading one recently which stated that in 2011 over 8500 American were murdered by the use of firearms. That's just an incredible statistic and by way of some sort of comparison, in Japan in the same year, who have a very strict gun control policy, the total amount of people killed by firearms amounted to 7.
By the way, I don't think you're completely nuts, nuts maybe but not completely. |
Well in america we get tired of real change after too long and we get interested in something else. We were on the gun control after like six high profile mass shootings occured in a 12 month period. But now were on Police brutality. Which is completely awful but has been a problem for decades here.
But really I get the feeling the news really want to lay the light off of one topic to get people behind something else. then when things begin to move the nation will suddenly be told about some other hot button issue and there will do that one. Its really how they temper the hostility of a nation splitting at the seams.
Guess for those trying to handle the situations and dull down the masses its great that we have multiple really bad things going on. In about a month we'll probably go back to either armed forces jacking up stuff they shouldn't be, or maybe problems with immigration.
What a world we live in. | |
| |
| Only in America on 02:05 - Aug 29 with 688 views | SwansNZ |
| Only in America on 00:03 - Aug 29 by Davillin |
O.K., a couple of responses.
"A country" did not allow a 9-year old to shoot a fully automatic weapon," a parent did. And an "instructor" unworthy of the title or respect. I am truly and genuinely sad that he died.
I never heard of an instructor allowing a 9-year old, or anyone not an adult, to use an automatic weapon until this one, so the "country" can't be blamed any more than a country can be blamed when a teenager rams a car head-on into a truck. "A country" takes reasonable care to prevent accidents of all kinds. No government can legislate against abject "stupidity," however.
I have been in my share of shooting ranges and they all have been posted requiring age-limited users.
Of course, the country is "America," and any gun accident will be blamed on "America." N.B. I'm not any more biased on this than those who need to blame "America."
The reason I have been saying "respectfully" is because I have been repeatedly criticized (criticised if it helps you) for all kinds of imagined "attitudes" because of my language, and I have become tired of it.
I will follow your advice about that from this post on, and take my chances. Thank you for your appropriate and gentlemanly advice. [Can I say "gentlemanly"?] |
The US government, be that central or state, has legal minimum age limits to drive, consume alcohol or get married. I cannot understand why there is no such law for the minimum age for firing a weapon.
I believe that shooting range, did have posted age-limits — 8 years and over, surely whilst no self-respecting parent would allow a child that young to fire a gun, the US government are happy to allow such a thing.
Whilst it’s sad, I can understand an adult might want a pistol for self-protection and of course some rifles for hunting wildlife, but I cannot understand the need to legally possess or fire a weapon capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute — why are these weapons legal, even for a fully grown adult to own? |  |
| |
| Only in America on 02:13 - Aug 29 with 679 views | phact0rri |
| Only in America on 02:05 - Aug 29 by SwansNZ |
The US government, be that central or state, has legal minimum age limits to drive, consume alcohol or get married. I cannot understand why there is no such law for the minimum age for firing a weapon.
I believe that shooting range, did have posted age-limits — 8 years and over, surely whilst no self-respecting parent would allow a child that young to fire a gun, the US government are happy to allow such a thing.
Whilst it’s sad, I can understand an adult might want a pistol for self-protection and of course some rifles for hunting wildlife, but I cannot understand the need to legally possess or fire a weapon capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute — why are these weapons legal, even for a fully grown adult to own? |
There are age requirements I think 16 to buy a hand gun and 21 for a long arm or something around those. There are also age limits to be liscensed to carry at 21 I believe. however there are private property laws in the states that counteract these laws much like a ten year old can drink an old fashion whiskey at their home and the police aren't busting in for arresting.
however the gun and firearm laws are beyond sketchy. I will admit ignorance if it is actually illegal for a minor who is not licensed to actually fire a a weapon in a public space (like a fire range). And private lands like say hunting fields often have many people who aren't actually licensed to carry their weapons. But I don't really know how all that works out. I don't hunt and I don't own any guns so..... | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
