Another mass shooting in the U.S

Pique

Blay wrote: »

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994 only targeted future sales, firearms that were already in private ownership were grandfathered so they were still in civilian hands. People in the US panic buy firearms, magazines and other accessories whenever there is talk of a ban so it's not like a ban will remove these items from their hands and shootings such as these will still happen regardless.

If everyone is required to register their firearms then those unregistered should be confiscated.
Also if you do not pass a fit and proper persons test you should not be allowed to keep any weapons and **** the constitution. If the public dont object to nutters owning guns then....
Who would lobby against a restriction on crazy ****ers owning guns?

MadsL

Pique wrote: »

If everyone is required to register their firearms then those unregistered should be confiscated.
Also if you do not pass a fit and proper persons test you should not be allowed to keep any weapons and **** the constitution. If the public dont object to nutters owning guns then....
Who would lobby against a restriction on crazy ****ers owning guns?

You have just described the law as it stands in 90% of US States.
edit: Sorry register purchase that is not ownership.

darced

This post has been deleted.

Witcher

Pique wrote: »

If everyone is required to register their firearms then those unregistered should be confiscated.
Also if you do not pass a fit and proper persons test you should not be allowed to keep any weapons and **** the constitution. If the public dont object to nutters owning guns then....
Who would lobby against a restriction on crazy ****ers owning guns?

How are you going to force people to register their firearms? How are you going to find those that are unregistered? This isn't Ireland where the state knows where every legally held firearm is day and night...once guns leave the store in the US they're gone..they can be lost, traded, destroyed, sold...it would be impossible to trace these guns, you fill in a form in the store and that's all the gov have to go on to trace it, you could have sold it etc as I said and realistically the amount of forms they would have to go through would make it impossible to trace guns down. The sheer numbers of firearms and the difficulty in imposing control over firearms already in private hands means gun control in the US is unlikely.

EZ24GET

Pique wrote: »

If everyone is required to register their firearms then those unregistered should be confiscated.
Also if you do not pass a fit and proper persons test you should not be allowed to keep any weapons and **** the constitution. If the public dont object to nutters owning guns then....
Who would lobby against a restriction on crazy ****ers owning guns?

The public does object. there are laws in place. Let me point out that there most certainly are laws against murder too. Criminals do not obey laws. Do you want someone to go door to door and house to house to find illegal guns?

wonderfullife

Suryavarman wrote: »

................
Also there is no reason to assume that the guns that Irish people have access to couldn't be used to kill large numbers of people in a short amount of time. If the shooter was skilled at reloading the weapon they could conceivably kill as many people as they wanted provided they can carry the amount of ammo required to do so.

it's very reasonable to assume it's easier to kill multiple people with semi-automatic weapons.

"Almost all registered civilian firearms in Ireland are sporting shotguns (177,000) and hunting rifles (54,000)." - 2007

The American right to bear arms, to defend themselves and their family.... unless it's a tank coming towards them, why do they need semi-automatic weapons with 100-round magazines? It's absurd that these are legal.

Fact is it's a cultural problem in America as much as anything. 2/3rds of overall homicides are gun related compared to 10% in Britain.

MadsL

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So you think the Birmingham pub bombings were justified but law-abiding gun owners are somehow to blame for this tragedy. And you think the way Americans think is warped.

Since when was suicide by your own gun "getting shot"?

Oh, so it is "nearly every month" now, not every week as you exaggerated claimed.

Tox56

The amount of Americans/American based users here defending the gun laws does suggest there is a cultural aspect, but I would have thought those with closer exposure to these shootings they would be more wary, but apparently the opposite is true

Manic Moran

Pique wrote: »

If everyone is required to register their firearms then those unregistered should be confiscated.
Also if you do not pass a fit and proper persons test you should not be allowed to keep any weapons and **** the constitution. If the public dont object to nutters owning guns then....
Who would lobby against a restriction on crazy ****ers owning guns?

I have several problems with this post.

1) "If everyone is required to register their firearms ..."

How? Canada tried to establish a registry of long guns (rifles and shotguns) recently, it has finally been scrapped as a pointless and expensive exercise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry
If it didn't work in Canada, it is unlikely to work in the US.

1b) "If everyone is required to register their firearms"

Registration will achieve what, exactly? The problem isn't ownership, or even knowing who is an owner, but when someone who posesses a firearm decides to use it unlawfully. Registration won't solve that.

2) "those unregistered should be confiscated."

Unless the offender is particularly stupid, how would you know he has an unregistered gun?

3) "and **** the constitution"

Are there any other parts of the Constitution you object to, or just that one part? If other people have objections to other parts of the Constitution, are we allowed **** those too? The point of a Constitution is that they are fundamental protections which cannot be easily *****ed.

4) "Who would lobby against a restriction on crazy ****ers owning guns?"

Few people. Which is why it is currently unlawful for those deemed mentally ill to own a firearm.

MadsL

wonderfullife wrote: »

Fact is it's a cultural problem in America as much as anything. 2/3rds of overall homicides are gun related compared to 10% in Britain.

Ah, there's a good comparison, real apples with apples. One of the most liberal gun regimes compared with the most strigent. Have you seen the level of knife crime in the UK by the way.

darced

This post has been deleted.

MadYaker

Manic Moran wrote: »

4) "Who would lobby against a restriction on crazy ****ers owning guns?"

Few people. Which is why it is currently unlawful for those deemed mentally ill to own a firearm.

Well then its obvious that there are some serious issues in the american mental health system, specifically in regard to the screening of those who wish to purchase fire arms. This needs to be dealt with and I wonder how many more people will have to die before some serious change is brought about? 18 kids ffs. I would love to know what steps have been taken by government and law enforcement in the time that elapsed between the last major shooting and this one.

I don't think the right to bear arms is the main source of this problem, granted it doesn't help, but I'm not certain it would make a huge difference if that article was stricken from the constitution, but since thats never going to happen its not even worth debating.

Is there an apetite in the US now for stricter gun control?

wonderfullife

MadsL wrote: »

Ah, there's a good comparison, real apples with apples. One of the most liberal gun regimes compared with the most strigent. Have you seen the level of knife crime in the UK by the way.

It's not a comparison it's a contrast. Liberal gun laws = 66% of homicides by gun, Stringent = 10%. The overall homicide rate is higher in the U.S. as well.

Knife related homicide in the USA is obviously gonna be lower, who defends against a gun with a knife?

It's not an anti-USA sentiment lived in san diego for a year, never saw a gun once! But how many more Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hooks do they want before they act on semi-automatic weapons and the law? Bottom line the UK had Dunblane and immediately banned handguns, there has only been a couple of horrendous massacres in the UK since then 17 years ago.

cena

His father and brother have now been brought in

Suryavarman

wonderfullife wrote: »

it's very reasonable to assume it's easier to kill multiple people with semi-automatic weapons.

"Almost all registered civilian firearms in Ireland are sporting shotguns (177,000) and hunting rifles (54,000)." - 2007

I don't think I disputed that it was easier, I just claimed that it wasn't difficult for someone skilled in the use of a gun to use a gun available in Ireland to quickly kill people.

The American right to bear arms, to defend themselves and their family.... unless it's a tank coming towards them, why do they need semi-automatic weapons with 100-round magazines? It's absurd that these are legal.

Nobody can tell the future. What's to say that someday the American people won't someday need to fight off an invasion or their own government using semi or fully automatic weapons.

I'm sure there are plenty of recreational uses for these weapons as well. Much like there are plenty of recreational uses for a car that can break the speed limit. Look at the FPSRussia YouTube channel for example; the man makes a living out of making videos featuring these weapons. There are plenty of uses for these weapons and that shouldn't be forgotten just because of a few mass shootings.

Fact is it's a cultural problem in America as much as anything. 2/3rds of overall homicides are gun related compared to 10% in Britain.

That doesn't mean that reducing gun ownership in America will reduce the actual level of homicides.

MadsL

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I posted 20 a year several pages back. Bit of a difference with your 52 a year.

Me doing what results in what???

Do you drink? Because one person dies every 30 minutes of a drunk driving related accident. But you keep drinking, bury your head in a bottle, you are killing innocents. Think of the innocents.

Don't want to distance yourself from your support of civilian bombing campaigns eh? How telling.

gb40

Turns out the mother was the owner of these guns.

America number one!

wonderfullife

Suryavarman wrote: »

I don't think I disputed that it was easier, I just claimed that it wasn't difficult for someone skilled in the use of a gun to use a gun available in Ireland to quickly kill people.



Nobody can tell the future. What's to say that someday the American people won't someday need to fight off an invasion or their own government using semi or fully automatic weapons.

I'm sure there are plenty of recreational uses for these weapons as well. Much like there are plenty of recreational uses for a car that can break the speed limit. Look at the FPSRussia YouTube channel for example; the man makes a living out of making videos featuring these weapons. There are plenty of uses for these weapons and that shouldn't be forgotten just because of a few mass shootings.



That doesn't mean that reducing gun ownership in America will reduce the actual level of homicides.

the highlighted part is funny. I had the same conversation with a girl in America, a bright intelligent mid-20s girl and i was talking about gun ownership and she said she distrusts Government and they may try in the future to invade their own people.

Worryingly she said it with a straight face.

I'm worried you mean it too.

MadsL

gb40 wrote: »

Turns out the mother was the owner of these guns.

America number one!

You would swear some people enjoy this type of tragedy so they can take a poke at the US.

Suryavarman

wonderfullife wrote: »

It's not a comparison it's a contrast. Liberal gun laws = 66% of homicides by gun, Stringent = 10%. The overall homicide rate is higher in the U.S. as well.

Knife related homicide in the USA is obviously gonna be lower, who defends against a gun with a knife?

It's not an anti-USA sentiment lived in san diego for a year, never saw a gun once! But how many more Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hooks do they want before they act on semi-automatic weapons and the law? Bottom line the UK had Dunblane and immediately banned handguns, there has only been a couple of horrendous massacres in the UK since then 17 years ago.

There might have been only a couple of massacres but gun crime has almost doubled:

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent .

darced

This post has been deleted.

MadsL

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think you just don't want to face your hypocrisy.

Suryavarman

wonderfullife wrote: »

the highlighted part is funny. I had the same conversation with a girl in America, a bright intelligent mid-20s girl and i was talking about gun ownership and she said she distrusts Government and they may try in the future to invade their own people.

Worryingly she said it with a straight face.

I'm worried you mean it too.

I was forgetting how governments are angels alright. I mean there is never a need to overthrow a government. The Arab spring never happened and the rebellion still ongoing in Syria is just a figment of our imaginations. The United States Government has a perfect record here too, it never imprisoned huge numbers of people of Japanese descent during WWII and it never passed a law allowing the Government to indefinitely detain American citizens should they ever fall under the very loose definition of being a "suspected terrorist".

It's naive in the extreme to think that a government will never turn on its people.

My name is URL

MadsL wrote: »

Why are you fixed on shootings?

It's mad isn't it? 20 children get shot dead and some people waste their time wondering about irrelevant stuff like shootings...

darced

This post has been deleted.

MadsL

Suryavarman wrote: »

I was forgetting how governments are angels alright. I mean there is never a need to overthrow a government. The Arab spring never happened and the rebellion still ongoing in Syria is just a figment of our imaginations. The United States Government has a perfect record here too, it never imprisoned huge numbers of people of Japanese descent during WWII and it never passed a law allowing the Government to indefinitely detain American citizens should they ever fall under the very loose definition of being a "suspected terrorist".

It's naive in the extreme to think that a government will never turn on its people.

Some short memories here about the irish Civil War too..

MadsL

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I just find it odd that someone who supports the murder of civilians by bomb, thinks that a peaceful law-abiding gun owner is bringing about the deaths of innocent children.

I mean it about the drink, by your logic you should give it up as it kills people.

gb40

cena wrote: »

His father and brother have now been brought in

i'm shocked!

MadsL

My name is URL wrote: »

It's mad isn't it? 20 children get shot dead and some people waste their time wondering about irrelevant stuff like shootings...

Nice quoting completely out of context. That was in response to the differences between Chinese and US rampages. But good effort: 6/10. Would respond again.

Suryavarman

I can only assume that everybody on this thread in favour of stricter gun laws is completely in favour of the War on Drugs? If gun prohibition is going to be so successful at preventing murders then I can only assume that drug prohibition is equally successful at preventing people from selling and consuming drugs?