Another mass shooting in the U.S

MadsL

Ah, comedy.

Now I'm taking suggestions Pablo. What are your solutions. I'm all ears.

Wompa1

Outright ban of all firearms after declaring an Amnesty for all that turn the guns they have, in before a certain deadline.

If there is to be an exception, the clearance level should be very very strict and requires a certain level of training.

Any gun found by cops after this deadline get's confiscated and the owner receives a huge fine. Anybody who is found to commit a crime involving a gun which was in their possession will feel the full force of the law. Even if the gun is not fired but used to intimate. The person should be put away for a long time.

Utopia eh? Sha lala

Sparks

Wompa1 wrote: »

Outright ban of all firearms after declaring an Amnesty for all that turn the guns they have, in before a certain deadline.

How many gang members do you suppose will be following that law and how much carnage do you expect will result from an attempt to enforce it on the kind of people who wouldn't voluntarily comply?

And given that potential cost, where is your proof that this would do anything other than make things worse for the reasons I outlined above?

MadsL

Wompa1 wrote: »

Outright ban of all firearms after declaring an Amnesty for all that turn the guns they have, in before a certain deadline.

Would that apply to farmers, hunters, professional wilderness workers, remote area workers, etc?

How do you square all that with the Constitution?

You know such a regime doesn't exist even in the UK.

If there is to be an exception, the clearance level should be very very strict and requires a certain level of training.

What is the training designed to accomplish? How would it reduce gun violence?

Any gun found by cops after this deadline get's confiscated and the owner receives a huge fine.

Even if it was a "legacy" gun - grandfather dies and leaves guns hidden and they are subsequently found.

Anybody who is found to commit a crime involving a gun which was in their possession will feel the full force of the law. Even if the gun is not fired but used to intimate. The person should be put away for a long time.

Laws already cover this.

Witcher

It will be hard for them to push through the simple magazine ban in the US and then there's people suggesting bans on all firearms:pac:

Wompa1

Sparks wrote: »

How many gang members do you suppose will be following that law and how much carnage do you expect will result from an attempt to enforce it on the kind of people who wouldn't voluntarily comply?

And given that potential cost, where is your proof that this would do anything other than make things worse for the reasons I outlined above?

What is the potential cost? Some states already allow people to turn in their fierarms. Look at the story yesterday about the person in Florida who turned in a grenade launcher!!

Also, no gang members will comply.

MadsL wrote: »

Would that apply to farmers, hunters, professional wilderness workers, remote area workers, etc?

How do you square all that with the Constitution?

You know such a regime doesn't exist even in the UK.


What is the training designed to accomplish? How would it reduce gun violence?


Even if it was a "legacy" gun - grandfather dies and leaves guns hidden and they are subsequently found.


Laws already cover this.

You ammend the constitution. Farmers, Hunters etc. with the proper clearance can obtain certain firearms that the law would deem appropriate for their task.

Train the people on how to use a gun, how to respect a gun. Similar to in Switzerland. I do believe the constitution mentions a militia, right? Militias should be trained. If this really is about the people protecting themselves from tear away governments and invasions etc. Then people really should be getting the proper training.

Grandfathers gun was just found? should be easy to clear the person who finds it as long as they don't touch it, there won't be fingerprints to tie them to the gun. Also, realistically it would only become an issue if the cops see it.

The UK is not the bastion of modern society

MadsL

Wompa1 wrote: »

You ammend the constitution.

How. Popular vote?

Farmers, Hunters etc. with the proper clearance can obtain certain firearms that the law would deem appropriate for their task.

What "proper clearance" - there are already background checks for gun ownership. Is that what you mean?

Train the people on how to use a gun, how to respect a gun.

So to combat gun violence you propose training people to use a gun. OK.

Similar to in Switzerland. I do believe the constitution mentions a militia, right? Militias should be trained.

You want to spend money training civilian armies. Uh, OK.

If this really is about the people protecting themselves from tear away governments and invasions etc. Then people really should be getting the proper training.

You want to give civilians military training to prevent gun violence. Uh, OK. Who pays for that?

Grandfathers gun was just found? should be easy to clear the person who finds it as long as they don't touch it, there won't be fingerprints to tie them to the gun. Also, realistically it would only become an issue if the cops see it.

So the cops fingerprint the gun, then dig up grandpa to fingerprint him, and tough if he was cremated. Tell me, have you any idea of just how expensive that would be.

The UK is not the bastion of modern society

No, but it is possibly THE most restrictive in terms of gun ownership and it is not even close to what you are proposing.

Sparks

Wompa1 wrote: »

What is the potential cost?

The carnage I've already mentioned above that you're going to encounter when attempting to enforce such a ban.

And if you don't enforce it, (a) you won't get rid of all the guns, and (b) those criminals who don't hand theirs in will be now the only armed side left in a rather violent society. That's not a state looking after its citizens, it's a state
putting them at risk.

You ammend the constitution. Farmers, Hunters etc. with the proper clearance can obtain certain firearms that the law would deem appropriate for their task.

Deemed by whom? Who are these experts you are assuming exist who can decide on all these things (and please, don't suggest the government because being firearms experts is (a) not their job and (b) not some minor thing). The army wouldn't know what would be useful for farming or hunting (individual soldiers who are farmers or hunters might, but not the army; and if their expertise comes from something outside the army, why would use use army personnel at all? And the same applies for the police and pretty much every other state body).

Train the people on how to use a gun, how to respect a gun. Similar to in Switzerland.

You might want to do a bit more research because I don't think how Switzerland does it is anything even remotely close to what you're suggesting. For example, this is a pleasant swiss weekend:
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-knabbenschiessen/pic1.jpg
(yes, that is a teenager teaching a nine-year-old girl to shoot, and yes that is actually an assault rifle, it's the standard Swiss service rifle).
The point about the culture is a good one; but you don't get the culture by banning firearms.

I do believe the constitution mentions a militia, right?

Honestly, there should be a rule that if you're going to go down this line of argument that you have to have read the rulings from Heller at least.
The terms in the second amendment have been ruled on by the US Supreme Court. You can think they're wrong all you like, but that doesn't mean you'd be right. They are the defining authority for this.

Grandfathers gun was just found? should be easy to clear the person who finds it as long as they don't touch it, there won't be fingerprints to tie them to the gun. Also, realistically it would only become an issue if the cops see it.

(a) of course they're going to touch it, finding it without touching it would be a fairly unlikely event given that usually these things are found during spring cleaning or while searching for other things (it happens in Ireland, not just the US)
(b) only if the cops see it? So this isn't a real law you're talking about at all, it's perfectly okay for everyone to have firearms, just so long as they have them secretly.

Which would be grand, right up until it's not.

I think perhaps this idea needs to be thought through in a little more detail.

CollardGreens

What is the potential cost? Some states already allow people to turn in their fierarms. Look at the story yesterday about the person in Florida who turned in a grenade launcher!!

Damn I was wondering where I put that launcher, my Deddy must'a found it and turned it in for beer money........dag'nab'blaster......

Sparks

By the way, this clip is currently doing the rounds. It's worth watching, if only so that people know that not everyone in Sandy Hook is calling for a gun ban and that the situation is more complex than some saturday morning children's cartoon...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXPlCjr0Vw

CollardGreens

Some of you may have seen this one with Ted Nugent but it's worth viewing again. Ted says it the best I've seen ~ no politician can hold a candle to this argument!
(for those that are anti gun, do the rest of us a favor...humor us, just watch it and it may explain a lot).

InTheTrees

Wompa1 wrote: »

Outright ban of all firearms after declaring an Amnesty for all that turn the guns they have, in before a certain deadline.

LOL!

Coming from a easy living irishman who's never come across a bear.

Wompa1

InTheTrees wrote: »

LOL!

Coming from a easy living irishman who's never come across a bear.

I live in the Arizona desert. Snakes, Scorpions, Coyotes, Bobcats, Javelinas.

My cousin lives in Florida in a remote part, he's had bears around his house, even had one in his house. He still does not own a gun.

IvySlayer

3 killed in Denver, 2 of them kids

InTheTrees

IvySlayer wrote: »

3 killed in Denver, 2 of them kids

I believe the numbers are around fifty people a day.

Its constant.

Which is why nobody is removing my mossberg.

:eek:

Sparks

InTheTrees wrote: »

I believe the numbers are around fifty people a day.

Math says it's closer to 80 than to 50 (if not over 80); but 55 or so of those are suicides, so you only need worry about 27 or so per day, and one of those is an accidental shooting (self-inflicted or otherwise).

InTheTrees

Wompa1 wrote: »

I live in the Arizona desert. Snakes, Scorpions, Coyotes, Bobcats, Javelinas.

My cousin lives in Florida in a remote part, he's had bears around his house, even had one in his house. He still does not own a gun.

Oops, sorry!

You live in the arizona desert and you think a gun ban is even possible? how would you go about disarming your neighbours?

Background checks is probably the most that will happen. And its a start. I think there should be a register to keep track of the hardware and also licencing and mandatory safety courses for individuals.

MadsL

Wompa1 wrote: »

I live in the Arizona desert.

Ah, the State where they were eventually forced to bring in a CCW permit, because concealed carry was legal without a permit.

Good luck changing Arizonas constitution.

Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired

FISMA

pabloh999 wrote: »

Ah now your just being silly
Usa murder rate 4.8/100k
Ireland 1.2/100k

Are you including the North?

Ah-ruh-shure, that's different.

Seriously, you live on a small island that has been partitioned and abused by a foreign power in some way or another for almost a millennium and you cannot see the necessity of a standing army?

You've had your language beaten out of you, been starved into submission, conscripted, and slaughtered, and you do not know the purpose of a militia?

It's time to start reading a bit of history, and not that stuff they forced on you for the leaving cert. Watered down apologetic nonsense.

Typical, the likes of you cannot fathom what good a standing army does yet never questions why they speak English fluently, yet can only muster a few words of Irish.

Probably one of those that say, sure what good it it [Irish]?

FISMA

FionnK86 wrote: »

Weapons designed for war should be band, but keep handguns and hunting rifles. They're is no need for assault rifles with rapid firing magazines. It's not like the "deer" your hunting is going to take 10 rounds to drop. They are useless for self defence also. You've caught a burglar, sure shoot him I don't care your property,your life, they forfeit it entering your land, but there is no reason to plant 10 bullets in him. You can only kill him once. Assault Rifles were designed during WWII, to give the soldier the capability to repel or take on a squad of troops, not little kids in a school.

It's the right of an American citizen to bear arms, and let them f**k up their own country.

Wrong on so many levels, it is difficult to know where to start.

First, you cannot kill someone just because they came on your property.

Second, the Second Amendment wasn't about hunting. The hunting argument is anti rhetoric.

Third, the founding fathers knew that the firearms the people had were the firearms of the army. That is, the people had military arms. The founding fathers made no distinction between war guns and others, such as sporting. Neither did they limit long guns or pistols.

FISMA

FISMA wrote: »

You've had your language beaten out of you, been starved into submission, conscripted, and slaughtered, and you do not know the purpose of a militia?

You make a good point, you should preach the same thing to the African Americans and the Native Americans as the same thing happened to them.

Pappa Charlie

Can this thread be renamed, every time I see it emerge I think there had been another mass shooting!

CollardGreens

....and you do not know the purpose of a militia?

It's time to start reading a bit of history, and not that stuff they forced on you for the leaving cert. Watered down apologetic nonsense.

Amen! I have friends that are militia and blessed that we can do what needs to be done

You are spot on that military guns are what the constitution was talking about, we must protect ourselves from the tyrants and dictators.

It seems the cowards have back themselves in a corner, good!

thank you for coming to the table

Killer Wench

FISMA wrote: »

Wrong on so many levels, it is difficult to know where to start.

First, you cannot kill someone just because they came on your property.

Second, the Second Amendment wasn't about hunting. The hunting argument is anti rhetoric.

Third, the founding fathers knew that the firearms the people had were the firearms of the army. That is, the people had military arms. The founding fathers made no distinction between war guns and others, such as sporting. Neither did they limit long guns or pistols.

Did it really take you a month to think up a reply?

CollardGreens

Seriously, you live on a small island that has been partitioned and abused by a foreign power in some way or another for almost a millennium and you cannot see the necessity of a standing army?

@ FISMA, When I read the above, it is rather frightening. Seems one would feel like a sitting duck without any army, not even a militia? If they had their own army just think of all the jobs it would create and the security it would give them. From what I am reading EU is using their space for windmills to feed the EU? Maybe they (Ireland) needs to open a can of whoop-ash on the EU and stand their ground.

wonderfullife

FISMA wrote: »

Are you including the North?

Ah-ruh-shure, that's different.

Seriously, you live on a small island that has been partitioned and abused by a foreign power in some way or another for almost a millennium and you cannot see the necessity of a standing army?

You've had your language beaten out of you, been starved into submission, conscripted, and slaughtered, and you do not know the purpose of a militia?

It's time to start reading a bit of history, and not that stuff they forced on you for the leaving cert. Watered down apologetic nonsense.

Typical, the likes of you cannot fathom what good a standing army does yet never questions why they speak English fluently, yet can only muster a few words of Irish.

Probably one of those that say, sure what good it it [Irish]?

Let's remember a few things while we are on the FISMA history lesson day:

You "Americans" speak English as your national language. You had your national languages beaten out of you too. Even with the presence of various militia. I don't hear President Obama speaking in Algonquian or any other native American languages.

Ironic don't you think? Fairly well regulated, determined "militias" as in able-bodied people across nearly 150 seperate tribes trying to protect their communities, all got slaughtered, conscripted etc by the Colonial English and left you with 13 BRITISH colonies.

American Independence wasn't from the original inhabitants over the Colonial Power. In fact, one of the reasons given for the Independence movement was :

"They argued that, as the colonies had no representation in the British Parliament, it was a violation of their rights as Englishmen for taxes to be imposed upon them."

The settlers viewed themselves as English! English fighting between themselves, nothing new happened most centuries.

Unlike you, an English descendant living in America, i'm an Irish descendant living in Ireland. We have our own country back. We didn't give in like the tribes of North America, we didn't give up, we kept going through struggles and hardships over centuries and got our country back.

We have Irish (gaelic) in all schools. I suppose you have all the native american languages taught in your schools? Oh no, wait, you're not a native American you're an English settler descendant.

The point is this - you can go re-write history all you want. You can point to our language being English, you can point to the famine, point to whatever you want - the fact is this: the Gaelic people of Ireland got independence from colonial England. Sure we made a lot of sacrifices, hurt and bled for it but we finally did it. Unlike in America. All you got was your native settlements destroyed, towns renamed by the English, Dutch and whoever else fancied a piece of the action and gave up on the country.

Anyway, all of your nonsense history lesson doesn't lend an argument to a militia in the 21st century. If the warped American ideal of militia is to ensure the Government can be overthrown by use of force, then get real. Grow up. The Government of the USA will never try to wipe out its own people and even if it did your licensed guns and weaponary will do nothing. Get everyone in your town together, all the guns everyone has, organise them and get ready to fight - and hey there's an attack helicopter or F16 from the Government that will murder everything on the ground in about 5 mins!!!

Of all the crap i've read over the right to gun ownership, the arguments for a "well regulated militia" are the most nauseating. If you want guns for sport or to protect your homes, say that, this militia crap is, well, crap because no amount of guns will do anything against a government with that army.

So whilst you're at it, ask yourself why you speak English and not Algonquian. Or more to the point why isn't Algonquian an official language like Gaelic? Remember, Massachusets and Connecticut are Algonquian words. I wonder how many kids in Boston or Hartford learn it in school as a mandatory language? Hmmm yup, that's because your native peoples got pummelled by the Colonial British, just like ours (and half the world) did. Unlike you, we (the Gaelic people) did not give up - we kept the struggle in spite of our hardships. we kept our traditions alive, we kept our religious faith alive, we did not give up. The Native American militias and armies just gave up - because whatever you may think, sometimes an army is just too big and powerful to fight fire with fire.

CollardGreens

Why don't you remember this!

1) The US "leased" Britain arms, ammunition, tanks, planes, ships, fuel oil and other supplies.

2) Troops. Britain couldn't have beaten Germany, even with USSR's help, because they didn't have the numbers. True even today. Tony Blair came crying to Clinton over Kosovo and Bush Jr over Iraq because UK doesn't have men or resources to do anything on their own.

US didn't jump in at the last minute. America joined in Dec 41. War ended in 45. When British PM Winston Churchill heard about Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, he breathed a sigh of relief and said "We have now won the war". Even he knew Britain couldn't get it done without the US.

Not just Britain. US saved Australia and New Zealand. After the British lost Singapore--worst military defeat in British history--US took over total responsibility for defense of Australia due to Britain's impotence in the Pacific (a promise made by FDR to Churchill). Some strategic moves and battles in 42 in the Pacific were done to keep Japan away from either invading Australia or having a airbase to strike Australia. (EDIT--Coral Sea NOT Midway which had little if anything to do with Australia) Most Brits forget about the Pacific War. Probably because after Singapore they considered their war against Japan a "lost cause" and the fact they were losing in the war to the more immediate threat of Nazi Germany.

EDIT

---

Everyone here has an opinion. The opinion that matters most is the British PM and the British war cabinet. After Dunkirk, many wanted to seek peace (surrender) with Germany. After the Battle of Britain (brilliance by RAF that should be hailed, celebrated, and studied for generations to come) Churchill didn't say the war was won. After Germany invaded USSR, Brits didn't think war was won. After El-Alamein won by Brits driving Lend-Lease US tanks, Brits didn't believe war was won. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and brought US in the war, Churchill celebrated and declared the war won. The British PM, war cabinet, and Military leaders(except perhaps arrogant, egotistical Bernard "give me more headlines than anyone else including my men" Montgomery) believed they could not have won the war without the US.

So you think we can't do anything without our guns and power of the American people? Think again, history has proven your opinion null and void!

wonderfullife

CollardGreens wrote: »

Why don't you remember this!

1) The US "leased" Britain arms, ammunition, tanks, planes, ships, fuel oil and other supplies.

2) Troops. Britain couldn't have beaten Germany, even with USSR's help, because they didn't have the numbers. True even today. Tony Blair came crying to Clinton over Kosovo and Bush Jr over Iraq because UK doesn't have men or resources to do anything on their own.

US didn't jump in at the last minute. America joined in Dec 41. War ended in 45. When British PM Winston Churchill heard about Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, he breathed a sigh of relief and said "We have now won the war". Even he knew Britain couldn't get it done without the US.

Not just Britain. US saved Australia and New Zealand. After the British lost Singapore--worst military defeat in British history--US took over total responsibility for defense of Australia due to Britain's impotence in the Pacific (a promise made by FDR to Churchill). Some strategic moves and battles in 42 in the Pacific were done to keep Japan away from either invading Australia or having a airbase to strike Australia. (EDIT--Coral Sea NOT Midway which had little if anything to do with Australia) Most Brits forget about the Pacific War. Probably because after Singapore they considered their war against Japan a "lost cause" and the fact they were losing in the war to the more immediate threat of Nazi Germany.

EDIT

---

Everyone here has an opinion. The opinion that matters most is the British PM and the British war cabinet. After Dunkirk, many wanted to seek peace (surrender) with Germany. After the Battle of Britain (brilliance by RAF that should be hailed, celebrated, and studied for generations to come) Churchill didn't say the war was won. After Germany invaded USSR, Brits didn't think war was won. After El-Alamein won by Brits driving Lend-Lease US tanks, Brits didn't believe war was won. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and brought US in the war, Churchill celebrated and declared the war won. The British PM, war cabinet, and Military leaders(except perhaps arrogant, egotistical Bernard "give me more headlines than anyone else including my men" Montgomery) believed they could not have won the war without the US.

So you think we can't do anything without our guns and power of the American people? Think again, history has proven your opinion null and void!

ummm what?

All you've said there is: "we have a good army. helped win the war"

want a medal? that has nothing to do with militias. Or gun ownership.

Oh and opinions are almost never "proved" null and void, they are merely an opinion. If you hold the opinion the earth is flat i can provide evidence to make your opinion silly but it remains your opinion.

CollardGreens

So you asking about the militia and their value to the American? Why we need guns?


National Militia Standards, Article.1:

It is the duty of the citizen’s militia to protect and defend the unalienable Rights of all members of the community. Under no circumstances will the militia tolerate those who advocate acts of criminal violence, terrorism, racism or a change away from our republican form of government; nor will it support any specific political party or candidate, nor espouse any particular religious denomination or doctrine. All members must understand the duties and obligation of both citizens and government under the Constitution.

Here is the link I got this above from:

http://wramsite.com/

You can read there all about the American militias, and see what is going on and learn about the militias forming all over the USA right now. Oh, and most of them are the military you are speaking of and former military. They will stick with the people, not a tyrant government.

Manic Moran

wonderfullife wrote: »

So whilst you're at it, ask yourself why you speak English and not Algonquian. Or more to the point why isn't Algonquian an official language like Gaelic? Remember, Massachusets and Connecticut are Algonquian words. I wonder how many kids in Boston or Hartford learn it in school as a mandatory language? Hmmm yup, that's because your native peoples got pummelled by the Colonial British, just like ours (and half the world) did. Unlike you, we (the Gaelic people) did not give up - we kept the struggle in spite of our hardships. we kept our traditions alive, we kept our religious faith alive, we did not give up. The Native American militias and armies just gave up - because whatever you may think, sometimes an army is just too big and powerful to fight fire with fire.

Are you suggesting that the Irish War of Independence was won by the Irish citizenry without firearms, or with firearms against something less than a first-rate military of the period?

The Cheyenne with their bows vs the US Army and their repeating rifles had about as much chance of success as did the Aztecs with their spears against the Spanish and their muskets, or the Irish with their pikes against the muskets of the British Army.

However, Libyan citizens with repeating rifles and home-made MRLs seemed to do well enough against the military with tanks and helicopters, the Syrian citizenry seems to be holding its own, and even the Afghan and Iraqi militias have been able to keep the US military quite busy for a few years, despite their not having a single tank, fighter jet or howitzer to their names. The premise is fine, as long as one reads the Amendment as to cover modern personal military arms in common use.

And that's only part of the problem. It was fairly hard for the British Army in Ireland in 1868 to determine who was an enemy to be killed vs who was a peaceful citizen to be generally left alone, unless they were actively in engaged at the time. Otherwise, they could mingle with the population. The American Indians, however, had no such option and the US government wasn't anywhere near as considerate as the British were. A Sioux could not hide amongst the population when he wasn't militarily engaged, and they were pretty easy to find and kill in open country.

Your language analogy also has a hole in it. Asking if a white American in, say, Flagstaff, learns Navajo is about the same as asking if an Englishman in London learns Irish. A Navajo on their own land does learn their language, as an Irishman learns Irish in Ireland. Note, 'their own land', and it's not just property ownership. The Indians seems to have put up sufficient of a fight that they have always retained far more sovereignty than the Irish ever had prior to the 1920s. Even today, States have no jurisdiction at all over the Indian reservations located within their borders, and Federal application (even the rights of the US Constitution) is somewhat limited. (The specifics of relations between Indians and the Federal Government is quite complicated, and rather interesting)

The above is all an aside, however.

I will agree with you that the use of arms against the Federal government is the least likely of all possible scenarios, after personal/communal defence, and even defense against external aggression. That does not, however, make it a dead letter. Quoting (now) Chief Justice Kozinski of the 9th Circuit, who still speaks with his Romanian accent: The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed-where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.