XPost: talk.politics.guns, uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns
From: murff@warlock.org
On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 17:18:07 -0700, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 22:59:14 +0000 (UTC), Murff
> wrote:
>
>>
>>My understanding of American gun owners - military servicemen and
>>veterans or not - is that much the same applies to the vast majority of
>>those people, too.
>
> Are you joking, trolling or just plain ignorant?
On the contrary, I suspect that, leaving abuse aside, it is simply that
we disagree.
> Responsible British gun owners don't take firearms into bars, cinemas,
> schools, places of worship or shopping malls, nor do they purchase
> assault weapons for cash no questions asked.
It isn't clear how taking a gun any particular place is inconsistent with
responsible behaviour under the law. British owners don't because British
law is different. But I don't see how someone legally entitled to carry a
firearm for their own defence is being anything other than responsible
where the weapon remains holstered and so on.
I referred to the owners - the people themselves. That is not at all the
same as the law. Whether you consider that the ability to buy firearms is
good or not, doesn't make the owners irresponsible. And if you consider
someone irresponsible just because they own a firearm, then we're just
going to have to differ.
Incidentally...
Your use of the term "assault" is noted - the term actually derives from
the German "Sturmgewehr" which was the name applied to a selective fire
rifle firing a less powerful but more usable cartridge in WW2. The name
being applied in an attempt to prevent Hitler's opposition to the
"weaker" round. Much the same sort of prejudice - on the part of the US
Army - stuck NATO with the not particularly suitable 7.62mm round for
many years.
--
Murff...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
