tangent
IPCT Contributor
- May 12, 2016
- 4,620
- 3,973
Attempted invasion of my neighbor's house
- Thread starter RJF
- Start date
CCTVCam
Known around here
- Sep 25, 2017
- 2,830
- 3,708
I know. I just couldn't resist the opportunity of a bit back.
According to MSNBC, 82% of mass shootings in the US involve legally held guns. Personally, I'm all for legally held weapons. The flaw in the US system as I see it is poor background checks and a lack of guns security. By contrast, this is the 15 page form / declarations that need to be made in the UK for an application, plus the police check criminal records, police cautions, police reports including motoring offences and domestic violence not leading to the previous, known associations including terrorist groups, and require 2 referee statements from people who've known you at least 5 years, and a medical report from your GP, plus details of all addresses you've lived at for the past 5 years and any previous names. You're checked by MI5, the equivalent of the NSA before being given clearance:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/667450/Form_201_-_21_Nov_2017_-_PDF.pdf
fenderman
Staff member
- Mar 9, 2014
- 36,892
- 21,408
this is a GREAT example of how MSNBC manipulates statistics...assuming the 82 percent is true, that applies to MASS shootings only, which make up and insignificant number of deaths by gun per year, it doesnt even register on the radar. So again, even if you completely eliminated mass shootings, it would not significantly change the death rates. Total for 2017 was about 300 so you have what amounts to 250 deaths by lawfully purchased handguns...that is statistically insignificant. ...700 were killed in chicago alone, those were not mass shootings...those were not legally owned weapons...you goota stop drinking the koolaid..
The is NO systemic FLAW in the background checks. Similar checks are done here in the US.
There is no flaw in the US system but for letting criminals roam the streets with these weapons...the law abiding citizen who is applies for a license was never and is NOT a threat.
PapaBill
Pulling my weight
I totally agree with you, about 10 years ago, we hired this mexican guy who said he was licensed and all that to paint our house, well when i saw him painting he was using some off the wall brand and he only used about 15 gallons to paint a 1440SF house, why? because he took each can and watered them down to about 50/50 making him 6 buckets instead of 3 or how ever many he used.
And I checked on the net afterwards when i found the lic check site and NOPE NO LICENSE.
And I have a old ass house now with a bad paint job.
and another fine illegal story for ya, 31 years ago, back in 1986 I went to a wood pallet company through the local employment office, me and a mexican kid both walked up at the same time, the boss looks at us and the kid looked like crap, he tells me to go home and hired the kid, my nephoew is half mexican and he went to work there about 6 years later and found out they only hire mexicans and illegals because they will not ask about raises and time off and breaks.
He asked them when they get a raise and was fired on the spot without a explanation.
PapaBill
Pulling my weight
25 years ago when i first started driving truck, a friend to ld me about a recruiter he saw that was looking for drivers to pull the trains across Australia, at the time is was 100k per year with a 1 year contract.
Dunno if he was B.S'ing me or what but back then it would've been nice if I wasnt married with 2 kids.
I know y'all do have the freight train runs there though.
PapaBill
Pulling my weight
NoloC
Getting comfortable
- Nov 24, 2014
- 682
- 458
I like my firearms like Leftist like their illegal immigrants - Undocumented.
And don't expect you UK folks to get the second amendment. You are after all, the reason the Founding Fathers wrote it.
And don't expect you UK folks to get the second amendment. You are after all, the reason the Founding Fathers wrote it.
CCTVCam
Known around here
- Sep 25, 2017
- 2,830
- 3,708
According to UK media, there are around 11,000 gun deaths per year in the US. Taking into account population that represents, 30 times the UK rate: Statistics behind US violence
Believe me your background checks don't even compare to ours. It will take a min of 3 months for MI5 to investigate you, including personal face to face interviews with police officers in your own home. Overall, it takes anywhere between 3 months to 1 year to be granted a certificate. As, I also said above, even minor infraction such as speeding offences can lose your licence as it shows a disrespect for the law and therefore a tendency towards criminal behaviour. Personally, I think the latter is a bit extreme, but other examples of what can lead to a refusal - if the police have ever been called out in recent history (last 5 years) to a domestic argument at your home, a military background - they're very wary of PTSD, any psychological condition reported by your doctors report - some are a permanent refusal, others will require a detailed report from a forensic Psychologist who works for the police, a criminal conviction that led to a custodial including a suspended sentence of between 3 months and 3 years results in a 5 year ban on applying for a licence, any sentence of over 3 years is a permanent lifetime ban, there's also the area you live in, certain high crime areas may be deemed too prone to crime to allow the guns to be kept safely so you may be refused simply because of where you live. House alarms and gun safes are mandatory although there's a little leeway with the former although you'll have to prove your home is secure with high security locks etc. Then even if you can pass all the above, you have to show "good reason" to hold a firearm. You can't simply have one because you want one.
Finally having been granted one, the police will inspect your property to ensure you property is fully secure and that there's a gun safe installed to their requirements which is basically out of sight and meeting a set of criteria aimed to prevent it's removal including requiring it to be rawl bolted into a brick wall and positioned so it cannot be jemmied off, plus the safe itself has to meet a whole set of criteria which in the case of a firearm (as opposed to a shotgun), including a separate locking compartment for ammunition which is also subject to safekeeping requirements - you can lose your licence / be prosecuted for having a single round outside of the safe, and many have been.
The UK requirements are here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...achment_data/file/117794/security_leaflet.pdf Although it's "guidance", you'd be very lucky to get a grant with anything less than an approved and inspected cabinet and would in any event require at least one of the measures.
All automatic weapons are prohibited with the exception of semi automatic rimfire rifles and shotguns (latter limited to 3 shot magazine). All centrefires have to be single shot bolt or pull action although they can be magazine fed.
I'm not saying the UK is perfect, just that the best position probably lies somewhere between the US and UK positions.
fenderman
Staff member
- Mar 9, 2014
- 36,892
- 21,408
Wow that's a lot of drivel...let me Help you...in that large post of yours you cite zero evidence that background checks significantly reduce deaths... because you can't.... because they don't...even if they did we have the second amendment..
Your data is all wrong as well since it includes justified police and other self defense shootings as well as suicide....
Also note that most of the country has zero gun murders
Murders in US very concentrated: 54% of US counties in 2014 had zero murders, 2% of counties have 51% of the murders - Crime Prevention Research Center
Deaths are heaven concentrated in areas with you guessed it, strict gun control rules....
You are right on one point, the UK is not perfect...the best solution will not focus on costly useless background checks, but rather on suppressing criminal conduct and making it easier for law abiding citizens to protect themselves....
Last edited:
looney2ns
IPCT Contributor
FlipNJ
Pulling my weight
- May 3, 2016
- 363
- 131
They're work but..... a big ass Rottie or Shepard on the inside shaking the door would have ended it quicker.
Cljs
Young grasshopper
- May 21, 2014
- 48
- 19
This is my best deterrent to criminals, and probably the only recourse if you live in DC, getting a license to own a gun there is next to impossible.
CCTVCam
Known around here
- Sep 25, 2017
- 2,830
- 3,708
If you're going the dog route, I'd recommend a large Rhodesian Ridgeback although you need to be a good / experienced owner to keep control as they're quite independently minded dogs. Varying opinions on suitability with kids.
However, as a burglar, you wouldn't want to mess with one though - were bred to corner lions in the days of big game hunting. Imagine a dog that can vary in size from Labrador to almost great dane, with the muscle of a pit bull, unbelievable speed, has no fear (it chases lions after all!), and unbelievable stamina - they've been recorded running non stop for over 40 miles at 20+mph, and even outpacing cars at 35mph. They are built for non stop endurance and wearing prey down.
Here's a med sized one running next to the owners car, not at the end it's not even out of breath (according to the owner, the car was doing 47kph / 30mph):
Not sure what happened to the doberman here, but doberman on right, larger built ridgeback on the left:
Another pic from google that shows off the muscle build on too larger fit dogs:
However, as a burglar, you wouldn't want to mess with one though - were bred to corner lions in the days of big game hunting. Imagine a dog that can vary in size from Labrador to almost great dane, with the muscle of a pit bull, unbelievable speed, has no fear (it chases lions after all!), and unbelievable stamina - they've been recorded running non stop for over 40 miles at 20+mph, and even outpacing cars at 35mph. They are built for non stop endurance and wearing prey down.
Here's a med sized one running next to the owners car, not at the end it's not even out of breath (according to the owner, the car was doing 47kph / 30mph):
Not sure what happened to the doberman here, but doberman on right, larger built ridgeback on the left:
Another pic from google that shows off the muscle build on too larger fit dogs:
Our Constitutional right to "keep and bear" firearms passed down to us was not primarily intended as a burglary deterrent, anyhow. Though it works well for such purposes when used responsibly. Private firearms ownership here has a deeper, almost sublime connection with personal freedom and autonomy. It's admittedly difficult for many/most Europeans to fathom. But I think that's the way our founding fathers intended it to be. Pretty much an American thing.
Parley
Known around here
You lost all credibility when you used MSNBC as a data source.
Ditto's to that. MSNBC has no credibility in my book.
looney2ns
IPCT Contributor
It was so the citizens had the ability to protect themselves against a tyrannical, overzealous government. Which the founders had already experienced on the other side of the pond.
J Sigmo
Known around here
- Feb 5, 2018
- 996
- 1,336
Exactly. The 2nd amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms in the US is/was intended to protect the citizens FROM a tyranical government.
And keep in mind the meaning of the word "constitution". It is the document "constituting" (defining, or setting forth) the US federal government. And as such, it is not a list of what the federal government cannot do. Instead, it is a list of what the federal government CAN do.
Therefore, since the constitution does not mention anything about the federal government having the power to regulate firearms in any way, all federal gun regulations are, of course, unconstitutional. It is a mistake to assume that private gun ownership somehow relies on the 2nd Amendment.
Even most gun owners/advocates forget this, and fall into the trap of believing that the 2nd Amendment is somehow necessary to justify private ownership of any sort of arms. That is not the case at all. And it is incorrect and dangerous to believe that the constitution is a document outlining the rights of the citizens. To the contrary: It was intended as a document granting powers to the newly-formed federal government - with the intention of limiting that government's powers very carefully. Remember: These people had just fought a war against an oppressive government, and were in no mood to create another similar monstrosity.
There was great debate about federalism itself, and the constitution was the result of the compromises reached. They realized the new nation needed some kind of federal government to "unite the states", but most were extremely wary of, and uncomfortable with, granting this federal government too much power.
Don't fall into the trap of letting the anti-gunners make you believe that the 2nd Amendment is our only guarantee of the right to bear arms. That is not true!
The slow, steady erosion of our civil liberties over such a long period, has left people unaware of how radically things have evolved away from what the founding fathers intended.
People in other countries may well have a difficult time understanding the point of view held by many Americans. But the way this country came into existence was by bloody revolution against a tyranny irresponsible to its citizens. While some here are all too willing to allow our government to evolve into that same type of tyranny, and are willing to give up more and more of their rights, there are a many who find this disturbing.
They don't teach history in our schools anymore, because it doesn't suit the agenda of those who wish to be in control.
My God! I sound like a real redneck there!!
And keep in mind the meaning of the word "constitution". It is the document "constituting" (defining, or setting forth) the US federal government. And as such, it is not a list of what the federal government cannot do. Instead, it is a list of what the federal government CAN do.
Therefore, since the constitution does not mention anything about the federal government having the power to regulate firearms in any way, all federal gun regulations are, of course, unconstitutional. It is a mistake to assume that private gun ownership somehow relies on the 2nd Amendment.
Even most gun owners/advocates forget this, and fall into the trap of believing that the 2nd Amendment is somehow necessary to justify private ownership of any sort of arms. That is not the case at all. And it is incorrect and dangerous to believe that the constitution is a document outlining the rights of the citizens. To the contrary: It was intended as a document granting powers to the newly-formed federal government - with the intention of limiting that government's powers very carefully. Remember: These people had just fought a war against an oppressive government, and were in no mood to create another similar monstrosity.
There was great debate about federalism itself, and the constitution was the result of the compromises reached. They realized the new nation needed some kind of federal government to "unite the states", but most were extremely wary of, and uncomfortable with, granting this federal government too much power.
Don't fall into the trap of letting the anti-gunners make you believe that the 2nd Amendment is our only guarantee of the right to bear arms. That is not true!
The slow, steady erosion of our civil liberties over such a long period, has left people unaware of how radically things have evolved away from what the founding fathers intended.
People in other countries may well have a difficult time understanding the point of view held by many Americans. But the way this country came into existence was by bloody revolution against a tyranny irresponsible to its citizens. While some here are all too willing to allow our government to evolve into that same type of tyranny, and are willing to give up more and more of their rights, there are a many who find this disturbing.
They don't teach history in our schools anymore, because it doesn't suit the agenda of those who wish to be in control.
My God! I sound like a real redneck there!!
looney2ns
IPCT Contributor
mat200
IPCT Contributor
- Jan 17, 2017
- 15,379
- 25,925
Ah... have you looked at what is going on in asymmetric warfare?
Russia Offers New Details About Syrian Mass Drone Attack, Now Implies Ukrainian Connection
