Connecticut Gun Registration Lines “Looks Like Weimar Germany”

Freeborn
reply to post by FatherStacks

 

Did you read your own source?

400 Deaths?
Wrong.
11 people killed in 4 months.

Granted, that's 11 people too many but it's a massive difference to the 400 you allege.

I'm not getting involved in the gun control argument again but I will say that I think alldaylong is simply saying that if further restrictions on gun ownership were placed on those deemed to have mental issues there would be FEWER killings, not eliminate them.
Wouldn't that be a good thing?

ETA.

Just to add, I don't think anyone denies there is a growing problem with knife crimes in parts of the UK and it needs to be addressed. Imagine how bad things would be if we had increased availability of guns?
What's right for the US isn't necessarily right for the UK.

I'm sure there are things that can be done in the US to reduce the number of gun related deaths without infringing on the Second Amendment.

edit on 3/1/14 by Freeborn because: Add ETA

I admit, I did skim through that article pretty quickly. It is inevitable, if I'm on here long enough I usually end up making a fool of myself- how embarrassing. Thank you for the correction. But I still stand behind the point I was trying to make.

beezzer

alldaylong
reply to post by nighthawk1954

 

It looks like The US maybe at last taking some long overdue action to try and prevent lunatics running around with guns in their hands.

Absolutely!

Because, as we all know, gun registration reduces mental illness.

Oh, but of course dear bunny! Lets examine a few of the most gun restrictive cities and states in the United States! Why, first on the tour we have such bastions of safety and gun free living as Chicago, Detroit, New York and Los Angeles! As true innovators and leaders in the most extreme gun laws across our land, they should shine as beacons to the success of that approach, right?

Do they shine? err.. even a little bit? (Okay, the liquid sheen to the spot someone peed on a public wall doesn't count..I said shine, not shame. )

alldaylong
In the UK your GP has to verify you are "Sane" before a firearms license can be issued. I suppose that could be a starting point.

I'll grant that it may well work in the U.K. and Continental Europe for that matter. Your society across the pond is night/day different and a radical departure from ours. I imagine just putting a 1911 .45 on a belt clip before walking out to go shopping would be a really extreme idea there. Criminal, to be sure. Insane, quite possibly.

Here? It's called the step after grabbing the keys and before opening the front door. Nothing special and nothing remarkable outside of chats like this.

Filter gun purchase by sanity check? Here is the problem with that.... Michael Savage wrote a book a while back called " Liberalism is a Mental Disorder " (Dr. Savage, by the way, tho he's among that rare breed which doesn't put the designation on his name for every public reference)

Now I know people, some actually IN positions of local Government, who think Dr. Savage was literally accurate with that premise. Some could be in a position for helping determine "sanity" in such a test for firearms........and no liberal would ever come close to a firearm in their area of control again.

See how quickly that idea would run clear off the rails here? Committed mental patients are one thing..but subjective sanity checks? Hey, that could be fun if we're on the right side of the counter. It's a screaming violation of the 2nd, at least, otherwise.

The reality about the state of gun crimes the majority of crimes where firearms are used, happens to be with handguns.

I think many forget that the strictest guns laws were generally for hand guns for that reason.

alldaylong
reply to post by nighthawk1954

 

It looks like The US maybe at last taking some long overdue action to try and prevent lunatics running around with guns in their hands.

95% of the people causing the gun crime in this country are the thug gang bangers, not ordinary law abiding citizens. This law will change nothing except a win in "their" favor towards disarming.
Firepiston

alldaylong
reply to post by nighthawk1954

 

It looks like The US maybe at last taking some long overdue action to try and prevent lunatics running around with guns in their hands.

Maybe next they could get guns out of the hands of low-IQ, steroid abusing LEOs with god complexes.

About 15 years ago my buddy that is a fellow Vol. Firefighter woke up about 2:00 AM to his front door being broken down... he has 2 small children at the time he grabbed his pump shotgun and confronted the intruder that was very much high and waving a .45 pistol...he told to drop the weapon 2 times at that point he pointed the 45 at my buddy... he shot him with three rounds killing him!
As Firefighters we have seen a lot of gore...I asked him if he felt bad ,his reply dame straight.. I had to clean up the blood and had to do a lot of replastering to the to the wall. LOL!
The cops did not charge him as it was self defence.

I have the same gun!

reply to post by VictorVonDoom


Sounds good to me.. If we disarm all the cops? Well.. That will simplify matters, eh? No one left to call and no one to care about crime committed against us or those we love.

So..burglarize me? I'll have to go shoot the guy. No cops means no prosecution. Not much else can be done. Purse snatcher? Well...a running target is a challenge, I admit..but we can give it the good 'ol college try! (Extra points for a clean shot on the run)

Then again? Maybe we should rethink that idea a moment and allow that Police Officers do serve a very necessary purpose in society. I wouldn't personally miss them...because I already DO take my personal safety as my personal responsibility, to include use of deadly force, if forced.

I know very few who do tho...and those few will do as well as I will. The rest will learn to fight and kill or they'll learn to be victims and serve those who will kill to live. There isn't much inbetween for a lawless society ..and without law enforcers, there is no law worth mention.

KingIcarus
With the greatest of respect, the 'others' comparing this scene to Weimar Germany clearly don't know much about Weimar Germany - or indeed the reasons for their gun confiscation. No-one is about to disarm the American government.

You do realize just like in Germany the first steps to confiscation is registration. Do you really think they told the people in Germany they were going to take there guns away.




Better yet read the history from the people who lived it. I remember a few months ago a women who lived during the rise and she said it looks exactly the same and to not let them do it. She lived it you did not. You are putting your personal truth forward as fact.

reply to post by alldaylong


Add that to the long list of great reason why the US removed itself from England.

You can keep your crap over there. It is not welcome here.

Say, how are those violence stats coming along over there?

alldaylong
reply to post by nighthawk1954

 

It looks like The US maybe at last taking some long overdue action to try and prevent lunatics running around with guns in their hands.

Nah, if they really wanted to do that, they would take them away from the police force who kills more innocent people every year than terrorists..........

macman
reply to post by alldaylong

 

Say, how are those violence stats coming along over there?

They are falling nicely. And thank you for asking.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Unlike the US were they have increased by 15%

theeconomiccollapseblog.com...

Oh by the way The 13 former "British" Colonies removed themselves from Britain, not England

I've always said MORE guns are the answer. Before you start in with the "Here's another gun-nut" I don't even own a firearm.

I merely assume the following:

The first year or so of giving EVERYONE (mentally stable) a firearm and you would naturally see a spike in crime and murders. Most likely this is temporary and will almost as rapidly decline back to normalcy, if there is such a thing.

I would say within the first three years, society would reach a point where those whom are left would really give thought to the words that came out of their mouths to others, as well as how they treated people.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert A. HeinLein

alldaylong

QUANTUMGR4V17Y

alldaylong

beezzer

alldaylong
reply to post by nighthawk1954

 

It looks like The US maybe at last taking some long overdue action to try and prevent lunatics running around with guns in their hands.

Absolutely!

Because, as we all know, gun registration reduces mental illness.

In the UK your GP has to verify you are "Sane" before a firearms license can be issued. I suppose that could be a starting point.

Please tell me more about how criminals follow laws.

Having stricter gun laws will not and never has removed the guns from the criminals.

As my last post stated, take a look at Chicago and New York, some of the strictest gun laws in the country.... And they have some of the highest gun / crime in the country as well..

Coincidence? I think not.

Lets look at 2 categories

1) Mentally ill gun owners who have obtained gun licenses through the proper process.

2) Criminals who use guns for crime and those guns by and large are obtained through "The Black Market)


The mentally ill are the ones who go on mass shooting sprees.

Why not make a start by reducing category 1. ( as outlined in my previous post)

Criminals will always obtain guns no matter what country they reside in. They are less likely to go into schools and start blasting away; would you not agree?

So rather than institutionalizing the few people who are mentally instable and dangerous, we restrict the civil liberties of everyone. That makes no sense.

reply to post by alldaylong


You sure about the crime rates there?
www.dailymail.co.uk...

As for the Britain vs England thing. Really??? Is that what you are going to state.

reply to post by alldaylong


I see your blog suggesting something, and raise you info from a non-blog source.
www.nssfblog.com...

NavyDoc
So rather than institutionalizing the few people who are mentally instable and dangerous, we restrict the civil liberties of everyone. That makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense when working with the knowledge that the country is one big asylum.

reply to post by macman


Jack Straw hasn't been Home Secretary since 2001.

Did you actually read the article you linked to?
It has to be at least 12 or 13 years old!

And yes, it's Britain not just England...but of course you must surely know better than us who actually live here.

ETA

In fact the article makes it pretty clear that it's 1999 figures.

macman
reply to post by alldaylong

 

I see your blog suggesting something, and raise you info from a non-blog source.
www.nssfblog.com...

Why are you sending me a link to a blog that deals with gun crime? You wanted to discuss violent crime did you not? ( violent crime does not only include gun crime)

As for that Daily Mail article you linked, it is 12 years out of date. My article was dated April 2013. Nice try but pic fail.

Support for limiting the availability of guns to the mentally ill comes from across the board - some staunch advocates and supporters of The Second Amendment understand the need for it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...