US Politics Thread | Page 624 | Vital Football

US Politics Thread

Yes, sorry Sig, I was talking no further than it being a barrier to ownership.

There should be a fee for background check, permit, every hoop you can find even if it only delays the inevitable and some people have to wait a week before they can save up and pay it.

AGREE! It should be significantly more difficult to own a gun. You shouldn't be able to walk into a store and walk out with a gun. You shouldn't also be able to purchase as many guns as you want. There should be a national/state gun register, take classes, tests, and if your gun was used in a crime and you don't report it as being stolen you are held accountable.
 
AGREE! It should be significantly more difficult to own a gun. You shouldn't be able to walk into a store and walk out with a gun. You shouldn't also be able to purchase as many guns as you want. There should be a national/state gun register, take classes, tests, and if your gun was used in a crime and you don't report it as being stolen you are held accountable.

Literally! Annual or bi-annual testing at a minimum. Perfect fit for America too, an entirely new industry that guarantees repeat business!!!
 
Just out of curiosity, do any of our US based friends have guns?

@SiggyBrownie @CDX_EIRE @gmvillan

My brother has the guns my dad had while we were growing up and has them stored the correct way. My dad grew up in Iowa and was an avid hunter. My aunt and uncle have guns, my father in law has a concealed weapon permit and definitely SHOULD NOT. He is bipolar, not on meds and paid $50 to someone to say he took the class and passed the test. As for friends with guns I do have a few but don't know exactly how many.

I'm actually a pretty good shot, first time with a 12 gage shotgun I got 5 out of 7 clay pigeons. But see no reason to have a gun, I don't live in an area where I'm scared for my life, I don't have any enemies and I'm not terrified of people breaking into my house and stealing my things or harming me or my family. I just don't see the point.
 
My sister lived in Chino Hills, Ca for nearly 20 years. At the time of the LA riots in 1992 my brother in law was working in LA. He was advised to buy a gun and keep it in the car with him just in case. Now being from England my brother in law was horrified at the very thought of going to buy a gun let alone keeping it in the car. He did what was suggested but knowing my brother in law I doubt he would ever have used it no matter what the situation.
 
Just out of curiosity, do any of our US based friends have guns?

@SiggyBrownie @CDX_EIRE @gmvillan

Nope, the missus has wanted one because she is afraid of home invasions. Last year and all the craziness spooked her and I can't blame her. I am honestly way too afraid to have one in the house.

With the state of the country, I'd have to break California law to ensure I always had a gun when I actually needed it. CA does not permit concealed carry without a permit and they rightly make it very difficult. The most in danger you're going to be is when you leave your home. So what I am saying is I'd be a lunatic carrying a gun too if it made sense because I am cynical and I dont trust anyone.

At the end of the day, you're at the mercy of chance.
 
Loads that you can do with false deterrents - even down to daft stuff like:

1623622980474.jpeg1623623068352.png

And then loads of simple little tricks that you can't see depending on how far you want to go.

The absolute balance is never make your home visibly look like it's as secure as Fort Knox, because then people wonder why - it's not a deterrent, it becomes counter productive and attractive.
 
Loads that you can do with false deterrents - even down to daft stuff like:

View attachment 49514View attachment 49515

And then loads of simple little tricks that you can't see depending on how far you want to go.

The absolute balance is never make your home visibly look like it's as secure as Fort Knox, because then people wonder why - it's not a deterrent, it becomes counter productive and attractive.

Jack Russell's are little sh*ts. They are good for biting invaders ankles and scaring people half to death

I remember my deceased ex PiLs Jack Russel called Bob too well

He went a bridge to far when he for no reason decided bare his teeth at my eldest who was 18 months who had done no more than toddle into the kitchen.

The in laws were out and the ex was picking them up when it happened.

Needless to say I booted the dog outside and told them either the dog stays outside whilst we here until eldest KK goes to bed or we go home
 
Nope, the missus has wanted one because she is afraid of home invasions. Last year and all the craziness spooked her and I can't blame her. I am honestly way too afraid to have one in the house.

With the state of the country, I'd have to break California law to ensure I always had a gun when I actually needed it. CA does not permit concealed carry without a permit and they rightly make it very difficult. The most in danger you're going to be is when you leave your home. So what I am saying is I'd be a lunatic carrying a gun too if it made sense because I am cynical and I dont trust anyone.

At the end of the day, you're at the mercy of chance.
It's all about the training and understanding what you're doing. Much of the fear is based on the unknown. Too many people think just going to the range once a month is training. It's not. Learning how to shoot correctly and blowing off some steam at the range is the fun part of ownership. Taking a proper course, understanding the circumstances, having a home protection system (lights, alarms, locks, a dog etc), having a family action plan in the event of home invasion, burglary or active shooter situation is the key to it all. I took a series of courses before my purchase. Even in Arizona, where gun laws are considered to be especially relaxed, the law will not protect you, even if you shoot someone in "self defence" if it cannot be proven that you were in imminent danger and had no opportunity to retreat to a safe space. Even de-holstering your firearm in a public place will land you in jail. Legally it's known as "brandishing." Two things that are great eye-openers are taking a proper training course and doing a ride-along with LEOs. You are taught that use of a firearm when in a life-threatening situation is a decision that WILL change your life.
Of all the people I know, both military and long-tenured LEOs, I know of just one who has ever had to actually use his firearm, and only a handful of others who have actually drawn their weapon (they never needed to fire).
Think of the millions (literally) of legal, responsible, safe gun owners, and then see the media coverage of the bad situations. But everyone tends to be drawn to, and scared by, the media coverage with their examples of when firearms were used by LEOs and it resulted in a fatality (you can probably name all of them). Still yet to find too many examples where the victim wasn't either resisting arrest or in the process of committing a crime.
Hollywood doesn't paint a real picture, shocking I know! I find it so ironic (hypocritical) that many of these actors and public figures who speak out have no problem making millions from movies and TV shows where the irresponsible use of guns is glorified (for example, ask anyone with even the slightest amount of training if one-handed shooting is taught or considered effective). Nor will these actors or sports stars leave their homes without their armed security detail(s)...
"Walls and guns don't work" unless they happen to be protecting you in your Malibu or Westchester mansion.
Ask any NYPD officer what they think about shows like 'Blue Bloods' or Law & Order. You won't get a polite response.
The US is a vast open land, and once you get outside the coastal cities, law enforcement aren't getting to you inside half-an-hour, so self-defence is the only effective deterrent. And in 99.99% of cases that's all it ever is - a deterrent. Even a moronic criminal will move on to the next house if he knows/thinks the homeowner is armed....
 
Think of the millions (literally) of legal, responsible, safe gun owners, and then see the media coverage of the bad situations. But everyone tends to be drawn to, and scared by, the media coverage with their examples of when firearms were used by LEOs and it resulted in a fatality (you can probably name all of them). Still yet to find too many examples where the victim wasn't either resisting arrest or in the process of committing a crime.

The US is a vast open land, and once you get outside the coastal cities, law enforcement aren't getting to you inside half-an-hour, so self-defence is the only effective deterrent. And in 99.99% of cases that's all it ever is - a deterrent. Even a moronic criminal will move on to the next house if he knows/thinks the homeowner is armed....

I'll be honest, I don't want the responsibility and accountability of being a responsible gun owner either. I'll end up living in 1 of 5 places and probably only one is going to require gun ownership and that'll be Atlanta. It'll be the coasts or UK/Ireland for us most likely.

I chose these paragraphs as to why things might not ever change. Until both sides fess up to the reality that decades of ownership have massively complicated the issue. Nothing will change. I think this is another one of these issues that both sides are really happy to do absolutely nothing about as it'll get them reelected season after season.
 
It's all about the training and understanding what you're doing. Much of the fear is based on the unknown. Too many people think just going to the range once a month is training. It's not. Learning how to shoot correctly and blowing off some steam at the range is the fun part of ownership. Taking a proper course, understanding the circumstances, having a home protection system (lights, alarms, locks, a dog etc), having a family action plan in the event of home invasion, burglary or active shooter situation is the key to it all. I took a series of courses before my purchase. Even in Arizona, where gun laws are considered to be especially relaxed, the law will not protect you, even if you shoot someone in "self defence" if it cannot be proven that you were in imminent danger and had no opportunity to retreat to a safe space. Even de-holstering your firearm in a public place will land you in jail. Legally it's known as "brandishing." Two things that are great eye-openers are taking a proper training course and doing a ride-along with LEOs. You are taught that use of a firearm when in a life-threatening situation is a decision that WILL change your life.
Of all the people I know, both military and long-tenured LEOs, I know of just one who has ever had to actually use his firearm, and only a handful of others who have actually drawn their weapon (they never needed to fire).
Think of the millions (literally) of legal, responsible, safe gun owners, and then see the media coverage of the bad situations. But everyone tends to be drawn to, and scared by, the media coverage with their examples of when firearms were used by LEOs and it resulted in a fatality (you can probably name all of them). Still yet to find too many examples where the victim wasn't either resisting arrest or in the process of committing a crime.
Hollywood doesn't paint a real picture, shocking I know! I find it so ironic (hypocritical) that many of these actors and public figures who speak out have no problem making millions from movies and TV shows where the irresponsible use of guns is glorified (for example, ask anyone with even the slightest amount of training if one-handed shooting is taught or considered effective). Nor will these actors or sports stars leave their homes without their armed security detail(s)...
"Walls and guns don't work" unless they happen to be protecting you in your Malibu or Westchester mansion.
Ask any NYPD officer what they think about shows like 'Blue Bloods' or Law & Order. You won't get a polite response.
The US is a vast open land, and once you get outside the coastal cities, law enforcement aren't getting to you inside half-an-hour, so self-defence is the only effective deterrent. And in 99.99% of cases that's all it ever is - a deterrent. Even a moronic criminal will move on to the next house if he knows/thinks the homeowner is armed....

How many guns do you own?

My old mate Bob from Texas had 43 guns in his house. Anyone breaking in there would want to be armed to the teeth. Ironically, the only thing he had worth stealing was the guns. Lol
 
"Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05)."
 
How many guns do you own?

My old mate Bob from Texas had 43 guns in his house. Anyone breaking in there would want to be armed to the teeth. Ironically, the only thing he had worth stealing was the guns. Lol
Two. :grinning: One that Mrs GMV has for personal protection (compact .380) and one 9mm for myself and home. And yes, both are locked in biometric safes at all times.. :)
My father-in-law on the other hand probably rivals your mate Bob.
Put it this way he has five full-size gun safes in his basement.. :tank:
 
I'll be honest, I don't want the responsibility and accountability of being a responsible gun owner either. I'll end up living in 1 of 5 places and probably only one is going to require gun ownership and that'll be Atlanta. It'll be the coasts or UK/Ireland for us most likely.

I chose these paragraphs as to why things might not ever change. Until both sides fess up to the reality that decades of ownership have massively complicated the issue. Nothing will change. I think this is another one of these issues that both sides are really happy to do absolutely nothing about as it'll get them reelected season after season.
Totally respect that viewpoint. Everyone has a choice and you have the right to make yours. I never owned when we lived in the northeast (RI and NY). In both places we were 5 minutes from a (well funded) police department.
As far as the politics side of it, you are 100% correct. It's why I rarely discuss politics because they are ALL liars and hypocrites (that, and having family in the military). The anti-gun politicians are just as hypocritical as the hollywood and pro sports individuals. I did some work for the campaign of one of the more prominent democrat presidential candidates - After signing my NDA I was traveling on one of his three private jets and we were always shadowed by (minimum of) two armed private security agents everywhere we went. Additional armed agents traveled in advance to meet the party at each location. At any given time there were 6-8 armed agents on the clock.
Then we'd watch TV at night and listen to him go on in the debates about transparency, environmental issues, and gun control....
:unsure::rofl:
 
A high court in the US state of South Carolina has blocked two executions until the inmates are given the choice of death by electrocution or firing squad.
A new law requires inmates on death row to decide between the two methods if lethal drugs are not available.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57496839

200w.gif