Singapore Expats

Well, looks like they should REALLY keep the gun law. This will benefit all of us not living in the US. Rest of the world not having this shooting rampage problem will really look good now, thanks to the US.

Talk about externalities...

I have no idea what that means ^^^.

But I am saddened by the news out of the US and wish 'the right to bear arms' and 'gun control' would stop getting so mixed up. They have nothing to do with each other.

I'm afraid I will once again have to agree with you sprite! On both counts (I also don't have a clue as to what the OP's on about). While I'm not a card carrying NRA member, I grew up on a farm and on the southern end of the Atlantic Flyway on the Chesapeak Bay. Have owned and still own quite a few guns of varying types for 50 of my 60 years (1st was a 16 gauge Mossburg which I still have). In all those years I've only ever killed one person by pulling a trigger. (and that was legally and in self defense in November 1968).

sundaymorningstaple wrote:In all those years I've only ever killed one person by pulling a trigger. (and that was legally and in self defense in November 1968).

That's before I was even born!

I can't help noticing that it's the young people who go on these shooting sprees. What's the age requirement for having access to guns in the US? Isn't it a simple solution to make guns available only to those stable enough to own one, like those in their 50s? Okay okay, I actually meant that seriously. Why should teenagers have easy access to guns?

Therein lies the problem with the whole mess. In the US you are legally an adult at 18 years old. Even if they were to use psychological profile testing in order to issue a gun this would not stop anything (might postpone it for a day but most of those types will not stop until they get a gun or a bomb as it were. You can locate a seller of a "Saturday Night Special" in hours if not less than an hour in the major cities without a problem. These are stolen guns with the serial numbers filed off or for that matter homemade guns. Half the Guns turned in during the Timor Leste independence were homemade weapons as well. Anybody with a machine shop can make a lethal weapon. But to say that an adult cannot own a weapon in the US is nothing short of treason. Gun Control NOT Banning Guns is the way to go. But, as I said, anybody wanting a gun bad enough will break the law in order to obtain one.

Wait until you're 50? While I understand what you are saying, if you think a bit further......

How about the man who has been a heavy investor and suddenly loses it all? Especially if he feels he's been done in by the public. Or, as in the case a couple of years ago, one walked into the courthouse and cut loose? Off the deep end they goes..... Bang. There's not an age limitation on losing it! It's just because the last couple were kids but the guy who went around a couple of year ago in Virgina wasn't a kid. Quite a few weren't kids but it's kids who make the headlines. Like the one in Tasmania a year or so ago.

Too easy to obtain (illegal or otherwise) I agree. But you can have MY guns when you pry them out of my cold dead fingers!

Wind In My Hair wrote:own one, like those in their 50s? Okay okay, I actually meant that seriously. Why should teenagers have easy access to guns?

But is sms stable?.

Plavt wrote:But is sms stable?.

According to him, he is short and round, ergo low centre of gravity, ergo stable.

That's why I've been in Exile for the past quarter of a century!

Well I am all for supporting the legality of guns at, the age of 18!

The UK have made it very difficult to own weapons, but what good as it done....There are more weapons on the street now in the UK, than ever before...

And the only misuse of weapons, I have ever noticed, and that should have been stopped in the UK, is the police force! Many illegal shootings, by the police force of innocent people, yet not one policeman have been convicted.

So I agree with Sprite and SMS on this one, what happend in the USA, happens in other places too, banning guns, doesn't stop it, and neither will psychological profiling!

ksl wrote:So I agree with Sprite and SMS on this one, what happend in the USA, happens in other places too, banning guns, doesn't stop it, and neither will psychological profiling!

Maybe I wasn't clear:

I believe 'the right to bear arms' has been misinterpreted for profit in the US. I believe the gun lobby and the NRA are in essence, evil. I believe gun control would be a good thing. The quantity of guns, the type of guns, and who gets them, should all be strictly controlled. I don't really care how.

A society that has perpetuated an unrealistic sense of entitlement +
a mind-set of instant gratifiation +
the availability of assault weapons =

more deaths by firearms in the US than all other industrial countries combined

sprite wrote:
more deaths by firearms in the US than all other industrial countries combined

Guess we should ban the automobile as well, lots more deaths than by firearms and no psychological profiling needed there either. Also, quite a few murders by vehicle per year as well! Driving cars into rivers with children on board. Being run down in the driveway by a spouse deliberately, or for that matter being forced off the road. Road Rage. More deaths by four-wheeled weapons than by guns.

No I didn't misunderstand you. I'm all for more gun control and making it harder to obtain one. But I do not agree on the banning of guns outright be it handguns, rifles or shotguns. However I do draw the line at fully automatic weapons like AK-45's Armalite 15's, machine pistols etc. The selling of those that have been modified to no longer fully automatic should also be banned as it's too each to convert them back to fully automatic. There is absolutely no reason for any member of the public to have a fully automatic weapon (unless they are a licensed and controlled collector).

The overwhelming majority of gun problems in the US is not from legally obtained weapons anyway. (although I hate to admit it, most crimes of passion are from legal weapons - usually a handgun in a drawer in the table beside the bed.

Unfortunately, this is a no win discussion as those for and against will argue till both are blue in the face and nobody will be converted. I grew up respecting guns and still do. I am a responsible user and would never use one in anger (my self-defense was not a result of anger). But I'm not everyone else especially those who have never owned or even handled a weapon so therefore are afraid of them.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Be it with a gun, knife, car, brick or baseball bat. People were killing each other before gunpowder was even invented.

sprite wrote:

ksl wrote:So I agree with Sprite and SMS on this one, what happend in the USA, happens in other places too, banning guns, doesn't stop it, and neither will psychological profiling!

Maybe I wasn't clear:

I believe 'the right to bear arms' has been misinterpreted for profit in the US. I believe the gun lobby and the NRA are in essence, evil. I believe gun control would be a good thing. The quantity of guns, the type of guns, and who gets them, should all be strictly controlled. I don't really care how.

A society that has perpetuated an unrealistic sense of entitlement +
a mind-set of instant gratifiation +
the availability of assault weapons =

more deaths by firearms in the US than all other industrial countries combined

Thanks sprite, yes I understood and I agree, that all weapons should have these controls, but I just think it is wrong to ban the majority of weapons from users, like in the UK...I used to love hunting...and I have also been a weapons instructor on arms for many years, in the military, I deplore, the negligence of shooting innocent victims, by police in the UK, which has been far too often in my eyes.

Although once you have a shoot to kill policy, many will take it for granted, which is pure murder in my opinion, although my understanding of psychological profiling, makes me believe, we are hiding far too many nutters, in our government services...which of course, does attract the potential killer, into a protective environment, hiding safely away, don't you think?

Its always been my way of thinking, that a paedophile is likely to seek employement close to children, killers, in the police and military, along with homosexuality, it satisfies their desires of chance taking, the chance to get away with a crime...I believe many countries ignore the possibilities of what is probably happing in our societies...doctors and nurses killing patients, it never comes to light until one starts to investigate, how easy it is, to get these positions of power, if one is dedicated to killing in the long term with the minimum of risk.

A shoot to kill policy is in my opinion, irresponsible in many cases, although i do see, situations, were it is required, one still shouldn't take life, until it is 99.9% sure, there is a need to.

There are many alternatives to putting 7 or 8 rounds in a person and saying my life was at risk, especially for professionals, that are highly trained in tin pan alley!

One can argue, the facts, that training and reality are far from each other, and although i have been a hunter in my youth, I have only taken kills, for food, I would be against anyone, that kills for the fun of killing..when stalking the prey, is just as exciting! So yes controls are needed, total bans are not, and do not help!

sundaymorningstaple wrote:

sprite wrote:
more deaths by firearms in the US than all other industrial countries combined

Guess we should ban the automobile as well, lots more deaths than by firearms and no psychological profiling needed there either.

That's a worn out, old excuse sunday, that didn't make sense 10 years, 50 years or 100 years ago. I, for one, am too tired to listen to that rhetoric anymore. One wonders how you could cram anymore cliches in your post? It reads like NRA propaganda.

Ah well, what amazes me is that you chose to live in Singapore when you clearly enjoyed your right to a gun so much. Weird that.

Why is it weird? A guy has to make a living don't he. When I go home I go hunting. I eats what I shoots. I don't shoot for sport but for the table. Tell me what is wrong with that? I have a farm that is overrun with deer and geese. Why shouldn't I partake of the bounty being provided by nature? Or should I only eat domestic animals? I have special guns for duck, geese, deer, rabbit, quail & pheasant, as well as trap/sheet guns. Now, as I own a farm, why shouldn't I be allowed to harvest what is on my farm?

As far as cliches are concerned, your comment is also the same tired cliche trotted out by the anti-gun lobby as well when they cannot make the points that they so desperately want. They did it 10 years ago, 50 years and a 100 years ago and they are still tilting at windmills. Guess they will never learn. That's why I said it's a no win situation. So, basically, I agree to disagree. Meanwhile, I'll keep my guns, thank you very much. I don't have to be a card carrying member of the NRA to know the obvious difference. The problem is the rabid anti-gun people who really don't have a clue. Just like anything else, there are right ways and wrong ways to deal with the problem, but banning guns isn't one of them.

Sorry sprite but it's a no-win discussion so let's leave it at that. The do-gooders without a clue haven't been able to change it yet and they never will. The worst part is most of them are also anti-military service as well. I just hope to hell I never have to depend on them to defend my country.

Guns good, people bad?