1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.


Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by dangie, Nov 6, 2017.

  1. dangie

    dangie Senior Knobhead

  2. Geren

    Geren Well-Known Member

    Someone recently asked my (American) husband if he didn't miss America and if he saw himself ever moving back there. He just laughed. In his opinion the country is a broken mess, and not only because of, but in no small part down to gun ownership.

    I may have told this story before but his parents owned guns. When his father died we travelled over with our 9 month old son who was by then getting around shuffing on his bottom. He never crawled and this left his hands free to get into all sorts. He bum-shuffled over to his grandmother's wardrobe where he found his late grandfather's rifle. When I asked my husband to kindly remove it, he suggested that it might be an idea to also get rid of the two hand guns in the bedside tables. What the hell did my MIL need with handguns? We can leave aside the fact that the reason we were using her room was because she was now sleeping downstairs rather than lug her oxygen cylinders up to the first floor each night because she had advanced emphysemia, making any use of the guns in self-defense somewhat unlikely. She lived in on the edge of a small town with only the usual petty crime to worry about...but it was her RIGHT to have a gun and you have to exercise your rights doncha know.

    Makes me sick. And America simply won't do anything about it. The NRA will see to that.
  3. Footloose

    Footloose Well-Known Member

    Some Americans decide NOT to come over here because they aren't allowed to protect themselves with a firearm.
  4. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    I own guns; I like target shooting. All my firearms are in the USA and I haven't even seen them for years, including a Colt National Match and a 44 Ruger stainless-frame magnum.

    On the other hand I have had basic forearms training, and I see no problem with registration/background checks.

    Frances and I would never live in the USA again. Well, unless someone left us a minimum of $10 million on condition we moved there. The guns are a pretty minor worry, quite honestly: only a little more serious than terrorism. Health care is another matter.


    Zou likes this.
  5. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Really? How many have you met?


    Craig20264 likes this.
  6. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Which rather puts things into perspective.

    It doesn't make me any more pro-gun but it would be easy to concentrate on gun control whilst missing the more important requirement for an affordable health care system.
    Zou and Roger Hicks like this.
  7. Geren

    Geren Well-Known Member

    Let me be clear. I'm not against the idea of ANYONE owning a gun under ANY circumstances. I think that target shooting seems like a lot of fun. I think that there are probably farmers who can justify having a rifle for shooting pesky predators threatening their livestock. There are undoubtedly other examples where gun ownership might be considered legitimate. I just think there ought to be sufficient checks and balances to make sure that such guns are stored correctly and used correctly by the people who have the licence. For instance, I cannot think of one reason why someone like me should be able to waltz around Walmart with a gun in my handbag so that a toddler, reaching into the bag for a bit of a rummage could accidentally shoot me dead. I think if you want to shoot targets you should do it at a gun club, not in your back yard where, after an argument with the neighbour about the noise levels, you drunkenly decide to shut him up...permanently. It ought not to be possible for overly sensitive teenagers not getting enough attention at home and under the influence of late night trawls round the nether regions of the internet to purchase guns and ammunition with which to massacre their classmates. And if you have ticked all the boxes for legitimate gun ownership, I think perhaps there ought to be a cut-off point after which purchasing any more guns triggers a whole host of red flags. In my view, people may WANT guns but very few people NEED them, and no individual needs 60 plus killing machines spread around their three houses before booking into a hotel room and shooting into the crowds. But then, it's not guns that kill people.....

    As for healthcare, well yes. It's a massive issue. It probably directly affects more people than the guns do and in painful, debilitating and inhumane ways. It is probably the main reason why my husband would be hard pushed to go back to his home country. But it's symptomatic of the same mindset I think - everyone for themselves.
  8. miked

    miked Well-Known Member

    The guns are a pretty minor worry, quite honestly: only a little more serious than terrorism. Health care is another matter.

    This first sentence, Roger, could almost have come directly from the mouth of Trump.

  9. dangie

    dangie Senior Knobhead

    AGW, DaveM399 and Geren like this.
  10. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    What the Americans choose to do with their guns is irrelevant to me just so long as we continue to keep a tight lid on their use here.
    daft_biker and steveandthedogs like this.
  11. saxacat

    saxacat Well-Known Member

    It is all about vested interests; the 2nd amendment does not clearly state 'individuals' are entitled to own firearms ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."), but the gun lobby (read NRA) pushes their interpretation that it does.

    Likewise, it is the Health Insurance companies and a significant portion of the medical sector, who have a vested interest in keeping the current US system of healthcare. Allegedly, the Federal US government spends more money per head of population on healthcare, than the UK does; so someone is doing very nicely out of the current situation.

    The gun and medical lobbies donate many millions of dollars supporting politicians in an effort to maintain the status quo. Both are very wealthy and powerful, so I suspect nothing will ever change; when it comes down to it, it has more to do with making money than with rights.

    Post Brexit I suspect the Tories, in the shape of that buffoon Fox and the his mate Hunt, will happily sell the NHS off, in their eagerness for a trade deal at any price with Trump; so we may need to start getting up to speed on healthcare US style :(
  12. Geren

    Geren Well-Known Member

    I was going to hit the 'like' button but only to agree with much of what you say, not because I like any of it!
    peterba and saxacat like this.
  13. MJB

    MJB Well-Known Member

    I'm not anti guns. I just cannot get my head around the rationale that private ownership of assault rifles is a good thing.
    Trannifan likes this.
  14. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Mike,

    Hardly. In Trumpspeak (actually I initially mistyped Trumpspewk, which may be more accurate) Guns = NO PROBLEM. Terrorists = BIGLY PROBLEM, MOSLEMS. Also, it is meaningless (= Trumpian) NOT to take the first sentence in the context of the second.

    What I am saying is: Terrorists: small problem, but still well worth addressing. Guns: bigger problem, even more worth addressing. Health care: massive problem, essential to address far more urgently than terrorists or guns (though guns will come quite soon after health care).


    Last edited: Nov 6, 2017
  15. swanseadave

    swanseadave Well-Known Member

    On the other hand I have had basic forearms training...............

    What are your forearms now able to do then Roger?;)
  16. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Martin,

    But, in the context of the Second Amendment, assault rifles are the ones you can't ban. A militia armed with shotguns and revolvers is f*** all use against assault rifles.

    Once I asked HH Dalai Lama about the right to keep and bear arms in the context of the Chinese invasion of Tibet (in pre-invasion Tibet, "firearms control" meant "what you can afford" -- I have Tibetan friends who owned Bren guns). But as he pointed out, "Anything you can keep at home is useless against tanks and fighter aircraft".


    SqueamishOssifrage and Zou like this.
  17. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Dave,

    Yes, I know. Oh, bugger. Didn't spot the typo until it was too late to change it. Ah, well: can't win 'em all.

    Pistols at 20 paces to settle the argument?

    I'd advise against it, even though I'd probably win unless I deloped. (Good word, delope, but seldom used nowadays).


  18. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    My son in law was recently hauled over the coals by the health authority, because his practice is referring to many patients to the local hospital.
    It seems a private group has set up a clinic in portacabin with minimum facilities, where he is expected to refer patients, as it is cheaper than the hospital.
    His surgery is within 1/2 mile of the local hospital, and the portacabin is two bus journeys away and has to refer patients elsewhere for tests.
    He will retire soon but will still do the two sessions a week till his partner is able to retire. He will then likely to close the practice and sell the building. The three salaried doctors will then have to find new jobs, most likely with a private franchise.
    He is more that pissed off.
  19. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    We are not suffering any great loss there then.
  20. saxacat

    saxacat Well-Known Member

    I think the only hope for the NHS, as we have known it, is for a Labour government to gain power with a large majority; unfortunately, I'm not sure that will ever happen again :(
    peterba and Roger Hicks like this.

Share This Page