America's unique gun violence (Dick Cheney, Congress, illegal, weapons)

[lifeexplorer]

Originally Posted by KenFresno

Except the laws do work, which why you don't see stinger missiles being used or hand grenades. When was the last time dynamite was used in a crime? If assault rifles aren't available they can't be used. Its really that simple.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack

1981 Iraqi embassy bombing, Beirut, Lebanon (not ramming pedestrians: ramming a specific building then exploding)
1983 Beirut barracks bombings, Lebanon (building ramming + exploding)
2001 Azor attack, Israel (ramming people, mostly soldiers)
2001 Jammu and Kashmir legislative assembly car bombing (building gate ramming + exploding + gunfire)
2002 Lyon car attack, France (building ramming + fire)
2006 UNC SUV attack, University of North Carolina, United States (ramming people)
2007 Glasgow International Airport attack, Scotland, United Kingdom (building ramming + detonating gas cylinders)
2008 Jerusalem vehicular attack , Israel (ramming vehicles and people)
2008 Jerusalem bulldozer attack, Israel (ramming people)
2011 Tel Aviv truck attack, Israel (ramming vehicles and people)
2011 Tel Aviv nightclub attack, Israel (ramming + stabbing)
May 2013 Murder of Lee Rigby, London, England, United Kingdom (ramming + stabbing)
2013 Tiananmen Square attack, China (ramming people + bursting into flames)
May 2014 Ürümqi attack, China (ramming + throwing bombs off the vehicle)
2014 Jerusalem tractor attack, Israel (ramming people + bus)
2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack, Canada (ramming)
October 2014 Jerusalem vehicular attack, Israel (ramming people)
November 2014 Jerusalem vehicular attack, Israel (ramming + hitting with a metal crowbar)
2014 Alon Shvut stabbing attack, West Bank (failed ramming + stabbing)
2014 Dijon attack, France (ramming people)
2014 Nantes attack, France (ramming people)
2016 Nice attack, France (ramming people + gunfire)
2016 Ohio State University attack, United States (ramming + stabbing)
2016 Berlin attack, Germany (shooting truck driver + ramming people)
2017 Jerusalem truck attack, Israel (ramming people)
2017 Westminster attack, London, England, United Kingdom (ramming + stabbing; some victims were thrown off Westminster Bridge by the ramming)
2017 Stockholm attack, Sweden (ramming people)
June 2017 London Bridge attack, England, United Kingdom (ramming + stabbing).[31]
2017 Finsbury Park attack, London, England, United Kingdom (ramming people)
June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack, Paris, France (ramming a police car)
2017 Levallois-Perret attack, Levallois-Perret, France (ramming soldiers)
File:2017 Charlottesville vehicle-ramming attack.webm
Video of the vehicular ramming at the Unite the Right Rally that killed one person and injured 19
2017 Charlottesville attack, during the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, United States (ramming people)
2017 Barcelona attack (ramming people)
2017 Cambrils attack (ramming people)
2017 Edmonton attack, Canada (ramming + stabbing) [32]

[Natnasci]

Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker

Of course we will not, we are polar opposites.

But facts are facts and without the United States the war would have been lost. This in no way is meant to diminish the contributions of other nations. But you can not win a war without food and supplies of which the United States supplied more than any other nation.

I don't really care what the rest of the world thinks. I'm sick and tired of them putting us down including yourself. A resident of Canada telling us how to run our country. As far as I'm concerned a lot of countries are a bunch of ingrates who will never acknowledge all of the good that the United States has accomplished. They're envious of our lifestyle and freedoms. They want to see us brought down to their level with all of this globalization and one world government BS. The UN is nothing more than a useless organization whose mission is to accomplish that goal.

Sorry if that offends you.

Trust me, most aren't.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by KenFresno

2.) A comprehensive physiological evaluation prior to purchase of any weapon.
.

I want to implement a physiological evaluation before you can post on the internet.

[LearnMe]

Originally Posted by Gungnir

Which weapons could Paddock have had access to (without removing all rifles) that could have prevented this?

Bump fire stocks are a red herring, you can bump fire without one, they also don't violate the NFA because it's specific that automatic fire only applies to weapons that fire more than one round per trigger pull. Paddock carefully selected his location so he had a large area of a mass of people and only had to keep the rifle (s) pointed in a general direction (not easy, but not impossibly difficult). Could have done it with the venerable M1895 lever action.

I'd like to know which weapons he should have had access to that would have prevented this without removing rifles or firearms with more than 1400' range.

I'm not the gun enthusiast or expert like some of you who frequent these threads are, but I don't agree bump fire stocks are a "red herring," and even if they are, I would appreciate the justification for their sale too.

As the police began reporting what they knew about Paddock's arsenal, they frequently emphasized the use of fully automatic weapons. I am fully aware how you and others can spend all sorts of time splitting hairs over what constitutes what types of weapons, something like how Clinton famously asked the meaning of "is."

I would leave it to you and the experts to better determine and define what sort of weapons allowed Paddock to do what he did in such a short time, the sort of weapons that can fire off like we all have heard in those videos. Those are the weapons that citizens should not have access too.

Regardless how impossible it may be to PROVE what lives are saved or not, the justification for such weapons is entirely too weak if not nonexistent -- all considered -- to allow for sale to and/or possession by average citizens.

[Oklazona Bound]

We could ban white men or casinos.

[Natnasci]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

"What good is it for the average citizen if most of the wealth stays at the top?

It is EASIER to GET TO THE TOP in the U.S. then any other country for the average citizen.

"The number of high-net-worth individuals – those whose assets are worth at least $1m (£750,000) excluding their primary residence – increased by 7.5pc last year, to a record global high of 16.5 million people."

"The United States continues to dominate with the number of millionaires in the country."

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/nu...121750670.html

I love tennis....ball now in your court

U.S. lags behind peer countries in mobility | Economic Policy Institute

[LearnMe]

Originally Posted by Roboteer

Click the link that's in your quote. I already changed my post in case someone like you asked to be spoon-fed, it now contains the actual text of the post. Repeated by special request. But the link that you quoted before I changed it, still goes to the relevant post.

Sorry I put you to the trouble before I realized you went on to "spoon feed" me. My sympathies as well...

Hopefully you have got over all that and maybe considered my reply to what you fed me before I spit it out.

[Cruithne]

Originally Posted by scarabchuck

You have it at "culture of violence" , guns are just the tools. Take those away and you will still have violence, you have to go after the root cause to solve a problem.


We see a lot of homes being firebombed here in Detroit, I'm guess it is due to those that don't have a firearm. Driveby or firebomb, people still die.


The left is always telling us you can't judge a whole religion over the actions of a few, well maybe they should heed their own advice. Again, don't like it. Start calling your politicians.

You messed up the quote feature, if you can go back and correct, and not mess with my quote, thanks.


The root cause of the problem is violence exacerbated by guns AND a mentality that guns are not part of the problem.

Look at Australia and the UK.
Guns are not illegal in Australia or the UK, they are just strictly regulated, both after gun massacres.

In the UK at least the push for strict regulation came from the British people themselves! In a similar way Australians saw that gun regulation was a sensible thing to do. No gun massacres in either country since. THIS is the problem here. The people aren't behind it because they just flatly refuse to see that there is another way. If gun regulation was tightened and mass shootings dropped, people would see the sense in it. It's not going to happen the other way around.
There are more guns in this country than people and guess what? - it's not working.
We've tried your way. Time to try another way.

[Roboteer]

Originally Posted by LearnMe

" ... But I know, also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times."
--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

I heartily agree. And that's why the Constitution (with its flat ban on govt making any law that infringed the people's right to keep and bear arms) has another section, that provides a way to change it.

Wisely, that amendment process involves the people farthest from the Central government. The President has no role at all. And even Congress can only propose amendments. They must be ratified (that is, implemented) by the individual states, and then a 3/4 majority of them. It's about as close to the often-diverse "the people" as you can get in a Federal document.

And who could better evaluate "the human mind... becoming more developed, more enlightened", than the people themselves? It's their minds Jefferson was talking about, after all.

We The People have had this opportunity to modify any part of the Constitution, including the 2nd amendment, for more than 200 years. And we have decided NOT to modify or repeal the 2nd, for the entire period. We The People have decided there has NOT been sufficient change in our own development and/or enlightenment, to justify giving government the authority to control our person weapons.

Don't agree with the people of this country? Fine, talk to them and try to change their minds. Or, alternatively, move to a country where the govt has full authority to control the population's guns. Then you can experience first-hand the paradise you think this would create.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by KenFresno

When was the last time dynamite was used in a crime?

You don't need to buy dynamite, diesel fuel and fertilizer.... First attack on the WTC and the Oklahoma city bombing. If you want to kill a lot of people there is multiple ways to do it. It's not the object that dictates effectiveness but the planning and the limits of your imagination.