Gun Control in the US

Captain Obvious

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Generally speaking, I do. Times were different then obviously. Citizens were more actively involved in their communities, likely to have been a part of the local or state militia.

Speaking personally, the best defense against tyranny is a politically engaged citizenry. The threat of force should always be an absolute last resort, in the face of egregious predation, and the thought of such a scenario emerging in the US is too terrible to consider imo.

I don't think you are living in the same reality as the U.S.A.

oscarBravo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The lautenburg (sp) act pertains to domestic violence offenders.

The Lautenberg Act is a textbook example of just how reluctant the USA is to enact meaningful gun control. It denies firearms to people who have been subject to restraining orders, if:

• the defendant has had been heard at a hearing - an interim restraining order granted at an ex parte hearing won't prevent access to firearms; and
• the defendant and petitioner are intimate partners - a restraining order only prevents access to firearms if they have a sexual relationship and either live together or have a child.

Someone can take out a restraining order against a family member or roommate, and the defendant is in no way restricted from having a gun. Similarly, someone who in fear of their life obtains an interim restraining order knows that the target of the order can legally possess the means to kill them until there's a full hearing.

You should have to be extraordinarily law-abiding to have access to guns. The balance doesn't work that way in the USA: you're presumed to have a right to own the means to kill someone until you categorically prove that you can't be trusted with it.

What prevents a citizen from both following the law, and opposing a tyrannical government?

Logical contradiction, unless you subscribe to the view that common-sense restrictions on gun ownership is tyranny.

Here's a common-sense measure: guns can only be bought and sold by licensed firearms dealers. Every gun must be registered and can only be lawfully possessed by the registered owner. Does that equate to tyranny, in your view?

AbusesToilets

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Oh believe me, for me it went way beyond something to be mocked when America was faced with a reality of little children being massacred in schools. . . and they did aboslutely not a damn thing about it. Nothing. I have to say, the obtuseness towards this makes my blood boil --- here we are talking about wildly unlikely theories about future dystopias while innocent Americans live with the very real and quite likely reality that schools etc will continue to be attacked by madmen who have been able to acquire weaponry allowing for relatively easy mass murder. Yet Americans are more about conspiracy theories rather than current reality. It is utterly repugnant and, for me, I have spent time 'understanding' the gun-loving side of American society --- but 'understanding' only gets society so far. Action is what drives progress.

I have very little sympathy for any historical angst which Americans may feel about past wars, most of which never reached their shores. Many countries in the developed world have experienced war, and we don't use it as some kind of adolescent cry that 'nobody understands me'.

The time for 'understanding' has been and gone. We all understand it now and we all still think it's dangerously stupid.

People have been dying, day in and day out, in places like Chicago at higher rates than war zones, for years. Where has your outrage been then? The majority dying at the hands of gangs and the like, using illegally procured guns.

The harsh reality is that spectacular attacks like Orlando, Las Vegas et al, account for less than 1% of the deaths every year. The things I've proposed, investing more in mental health care, policing, education etc, would go a lot further at reducing the 30,000 odd deaths a year, than your exhortations to ban those evil black rifles.

Doesn't make for a catchy headline, but then good legislation often doesn't.

AbusesToilets

oscarBravo wrote: »

The Lautenberg Act is a textbook example of just how reluctant the USA is to enact meaningful gun control. It denies firearms to people who have been subject to restraining orders, if:

• the defendant has had been heard at a hearing - an interim restraining order granted at an ex parte hearing won't prevent access to firearms; and
• the defendant and petitioner are intimate partners - a restraining order only prevents access to firearms if they have a sexual relationship and either live together or have a child.

Someone can take out a restraining order against a family member or roommate, and the defendant is in no way restricted from having a gun. Similarly, someone who in fear of their life obtains an interim restraining order knows that the target of the order can legally possess the means to kill them until there's a full hearing.

You should have to be extraordinarily law-abiding to have access to guns. The balance doesn't work that way in the USA: you're presumed to have a right to own the means to kill someone until you categorically prove that you can't be trusted with it. Logical contradiction, unless you subscribe to the view that common-sense restrictions on gun ownership is tyranny.

I imagine that falls into the same category as any other protected right. The whole due process part, where you have to be convicted of a crime before the state can deny you your rights.

Should I be able to enact an order that would prevent you from exercising your right to freely express yourself? To vote? You may not like the fact that gun ownership is a constitutional right, but it is.

Here's a common-sense measure: guns can only be bought and sold by licensed firearms dealers. Every gun must be registered and can only be lawfully possessed by the registered owner. Does that equate to tyranny, in your view?

Registration databases have been shown to be spectacular failures repeatedly to date. Manic has provided examples of that in this thread previously. What barrier would it pose to a criminal? I break in, steal your gun. Does it being on a database do anything to stop me committing a crime with it?

That's not even taking into account the reality of the situation, in that there are over 300million guns in the US and that many people will simply ignore any law that says they have to register their firearms.

AbusesToilets

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So would a proper licensing system that requires passing a basic safety test. Even soldiers have to pass a test before they get a live gun don't they?

Again, I'm not fundamentally against this in general. However, I imagine you wouldn't be in favor of similar measures of conditional right to free speech or voting etc. NO easy solution there.

It's not an absolute right though. It's conditional. But for some reason the first half of the Second Amendment is routinely ignored.



You literally just said "Owning a firearm is a right, and I would not be in favor of any measures which could be used as a stealth means of denying someone that right". So why should felons be denied their right?

That's a tricky proposition. I would suggest a nuanced approach would be best. I don't agree that felons should lose their voting rights in perpetuity, for example.

GPS trackers. Dead switches. Alarms. Immobilisers. Chasis numbers. Vehicle registration systems.

Perhaps smart gun technology can be implemented in the future. It would have to be cost effective, as any requirement on a manufacturer to include would likely never gain traction otherwise.

Captain Obvious

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Again, I'm not fundamentally against this in general. However, I imagine you wouldn't be in favor of similar measures of conditional right to free speech or voting etc. NO easy solution there.

Well if exercising free speech or voting rights was regularly resulting in the brutal murder of children I would absolutely be calling for some regulation.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That's a tricky proposition. I would suggest a nuanced approach would be best. I don't agree that felons should lose their voting rights in perpetuity, for example.

My point is that it is hypocritical to say it's a right that can't be restricted with simple measures yet stand behind a rule that excludes massive amounts of people. Like I said, it's a conditional right.

AbusesToilets

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Well if exercising free speech or voting rights was regularly resulting in the brutal murder of children I would absolutely be calling for some regulation.




My point is that it is hypocritical to say it's a right that can't be restricted with simple measures yet stand behind a rule that excludes massive amounts of people. Like I said, it's a conditional right.

History has no shortage of examples violence resulting from free speech or malevolent actors being elected. Yet we still see the value to protection those rights.

Any right is conditional, ultimately. My point is that I don't want to see a law put in place that is then used to disenfranchise someone unjustifiably, be gun ownership, free speech, censorship etc. That's a tricky line to walk. There was a discussion on NPR this morning relating to the emergency restraining orders being used in certain states to temporarily remove guns from individuals who were suspected of possible future violent actions. There was a legal expert interviewed, who was of a liberal mindset, who was deadset against those laws. This was on the basis that any law which would base its outcome on a subjective appraisal of an individual, with the goal to deny them a right, is too dangerous to allow. Very easy for such a law to be abused.

oscarBravo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I imagine that falls into the same category as any other protected right. The whole due process part, where you have to be convicted of a crime before the state can deny you your rights.

Should I be able to enact an order that would prevent you from exercising your right to freely express yourself? To vote? You may not like the fact that gun ownership is a constitutional right, but it is.

We're divided by a common language, here. To you, the right to own the means to kill someone is indistinguishable from the right to vote. You can't see any difference whatsoever between disenfranchisement and making it harder to kill people.

And that, frankly, is why I don't think the gun violence problem in the USA can be solved. I think the USA is, tragically, a society that's broken beyond any possibility of redemption. There's literally no other society in the world that would say "hey, I'd love if we didn't have repeated mass murders and school shootings, but unfortunately any meaningful moves in that direction would impinge on my rights to own the means of killing people, and that ain't gonna happen, so school shootings it is."

Registration databases have been shown to be spectacular failures repeatedly to date. Manic has provided examples of that in this thread previously. What barrier would it pose to a criminal? I break in, steal your gun. Does it being on a database do anything to stop me committing a crime with it?

That's a compelling argument to removing laws against murder. They don't stop criminals from committing murder, so what's the point?

That's not even taking into account the reality of the situation, in that there are over 300million guns in the US and that many people will simply ignore any law that says they have to register their firearms.

That'll be those law-abiding citizens that you insist aren't the problem?

Honestly, I don't care what trite responses you come back with. No other country in the world has the f*cked-up relationship with guns that the USA has, and no other country in the world has the problem with gun violence that the USA has. The core of your argument is that as much as you'd love to fix the gun violence problem, it would involved tampering with your country's f*cked-up relationship with guns, and that's too high a price to pay for children's lives.

eire4

oscarBravo wrote: »

We're divided by a common language, here. To you, the right to own the means to kill someone is indistinguishable from the right to vote. You can't see any difference whatsoever between disenfranchisement and making it harder to kill people.

And that, frankly, is why I don't think the gun violence problem in the USA can be solved. I think the USA is, tragically, a society that's broken beyond any possibility of redemption. There's literally no other society in the world that would say "hey, I'd love if we didn't have repeated mass murders and school shootings, but unfortunately any meaningful moves in that direction would impinge on my rights to own the means of killing people, and that ain't gonna happen, so school shootings it is." That's a compelling argument to removing laws against murder. They don't stop criminals from committing murder, so what's the point? That'll be those law-abiding citizens that you insist aren't the problem?

Honestly, I don't care what trite responses you come back with. No other country in the world has the f*cked-up relationship with guns that the USA has, and no other country in the world has the problem with gun violence that the USA has. The core of your argument is that as much as you'd love to fix the gun violence problem, it would involved tampering with your country's f*cked-up relationship with guns, and that's too high a price to pay for children's lives.

It is truly a sickness when the ability to kill people on a mass scale is considered more important then an individuals right to life and to be able to go about life without undue fear of being murdered be it at school, at a concert, at a cinema etc.
The blood of all those murdered children is on the hands of every member of congress, the senate and the current administration who have done nothing to bring forth meaningful gun control legislation and don't even get me started on what I think of the "thoughts and prayers" comments we hear repeated again and again. I think a tweet from a student at the school in Florida hits the proverbial nail on the head when it comes to "thoughts and prayers" her language is very colourful so I assume I cannot post it here but its easy to find her tweet online.

FatherTed

oscarBravo wrote: »

We're divided by a common language, here. To you, the right to own the means to kill someone is indistinguishable from the right to vote. You can't see any difference whatsoever between disenfranchisement and making it harder to kill people.

And that, frankly, is why I don't think the gun violence problem in the USA can be solved. I think the USA is, tragically, a society that's broken beyond any possibility of redemption. There's literally no other society in the world that would say "hey, I'd love if we didn't have repeated mass murders and school shootings, but unfortunately any meaningful moves in that direction would impinge on my rights to own the means of killing people, and that ain't gonna happen, so school shootings it is." That's a compelling argument to removing laws against murder. They don't stop criminals from committing murder, so what's the point? That'll be those law-abiding citizens that you insist aren't the problem?

Honestly, I don't care what trite responses you come back with. No other country in the world has the f*cked-up relationship with guns that the USA has, and no other country in the world has the problem with gun violence that the USA has. The core of your argument is that as much as you'd love to fix the gun violence problem, it would involved tampering with your country's f*cked-up relationship with guns, and that's too high a price to pay for children's lives.

Well said. I don't care about the Second amendment. It ought to be repealed because it allows gun fans to hide behind the so called rights it provides. But what good are those rights when it leads to all these deaths every year? There are other things in the constitution that have been changed so why not this? American gun owners need to get over their obsession of owning their guns. In my opinion there is no need at all for civilian gun ownership because as a society we have utterly failed in how guns are safely procured, the type of guns allowed and who has access to get guns. The liberty of some to own guns should not take precedence over the liberty of everyone to live their lives free from the risk of being easily murdered.

the_syco

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes I agree it would be very difficult. But I really think that the manufacturers are getting away scott free on this. What attempts have they made to make the product safer? Car companies show incredible innovation when forced to make changes. Surely they must carry some burden with dealing with the correct use of the products they are sold?

3D Printers allow anyone to make guns. Ammo is where it's at. Ammo is not so easy to do by yourself, especially for the mass produced capacity.

Leroy42

Apparently, the shooter used up to150 rounds.

Anyone that claims that handgun or knife could anything like the same amount of damage, and let's not forget terror which is a word oddly absent from any remarks on this or other shootings, is flat out lying.

And I think that is deliberate. Terror is a major factor in these events. Simply listen to the students, look at the videos of the event taking place. Terror pure and simple. The War on Terror my arse.

I really cant understand how sane, empathetic people, can put their own selfish enjoyment over the lives of children. One can of course argue that it won't make any difference banning these weapons or putting in draconian procedures to massively limit their availability, but what is the negative to trying it out. Ban them for 10 years. See what happens.

TheTravelLife

I can’t get the quotes to work right so to whomever wrote this: “Oh believe me, for me it went way beyond something to be mocked when America was faced with a reality of little children being massacred in schools. . . and they did aboslutely not a damn thing about it. Nothing. I have to say, the obtuseness towards this makes my blood boil --- here we are talking about wildly unlikely theories about future dystopias while innocent Americans live with the very real and quite likely reality that schools etc will continue to be attacked by madmen who have been able to acquire weaponry allowing for relatively easy mass murder. Yet Americans are more about conspiracy theories rather than current reality. It is utterly repugnant and, for me, I have spent time 'understanding' the gun-loving side of American society --- but 'understanding' only gets society so far. Action is what drives progress.

I have very little sympathy for any historical angst which Americans may feel about past wars, most of which never reached their shores. Many countries in the developed world have experienced war, and we don't use it as some kind of adolescent cry that 'nobody understands me'.

The time for 'understanding' has been and gone. We all understand it now and we all still think it's dangerously stupid.”



Scoff all you like but if you’re ever going to convince an American to give up their guns, their culture and history is going to need to be addressed. To say “look how we do things. We are smart and you are dumb, so do it like we do it” and think you’ll be met with anything less than a “piss off” for a response is not only naive but arrogant. You say you took time to “understand” them but you clearly failed. My last post was simply to add what I have learned since moving to America to marry an American, gun owning man. Perhaps I was out of turn posting under his account in the first place but never the less my point stands.

dudara

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Perhaps it's because we have seen what happens in countries where the government can act without fear of its citizens.

Pardon me for my cynicism but this is the absolute definition of the US right now. Your lawmakers have so much contempt right now for the average citizen.

ArthurDayne

AbusesToilets wrote: »

People have been dying, day in and day out, in places like Chicago at higher rates than war zones, for years. Where has your outrage been then? The majority dying at the hands of gangs and the like, using illegally procured guns.

The harsh reality is that spectacular attacks like Orlando, Las Vegas et al, account for less than 1% of the deaths every year. The things I've proposed, investing more in mental health care, policing, education etc, would go a lot further at reducing the 30,000 odd deaths a year, than your exhortations to ban those evil black rifles.

Doesn't make for a catchy headline, but then good legislation often doesn't.

Gangland violence is undoubtedly a scourge. But as I have said before, the American gun problem is seemingly so delicate and extensive that it is going to take incremental steps to address it. So a good place to start would be to take sensible steps to create a safer regulatory environment for innocent Americans, its schoolchildren above all, to be able to live out their everyday lives with relative confidence that they won't come under attack by a nutjob armed to the teeth with weaponry that renders a deranged 19 year old capable of easily killing a dozen people within minutes.

Staying with the Chicago example, whether the guns are legally or illegally procured, the fact remains that a black market of weaponry can operate with much greater ease in a country awash with guns at the civilian level. Tighter gun control throughout the United States would quite simply make it much more difficult for gangs to get their hands on guns. I had a read of this academic study which provides statistical evidence that over 60% of guns used in gangland shootings in Chicago were originally bought in another state, mainly neighbouring states with weaker gun laws like Wisconsin and Indiana (http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/JCrimLC%202015%20Guns%20in%20Chicago.pdf). So even where particular states have relatively tighter gun laws, the lack of consistency across the nation and a unified approach can render those laws somewhat meaningless.

Mental health / education / policing initiatives all sound good, but they are all just dancing around the key issue rather than addressing it head on. It's like having a massive hole in the side of your house but lighting a big fire and turning on a few electric heaters to keep yourself warm --- rather than just repair the wall. I fear from reading your posts and listening to other pro-gun advocates however that many Americans are now so utterly lost in their obsession with guns that they will do more to protect the right of some random guy to needlessly own a stockpile of machine guns and ammunition then they will do to protect the right of their children to feel safe in their schools.

weisses

In all honesty ..... When I think of ****hole countries at this moment its not gonna be a country on the African continent that springs to mind ...

ancapailldorcha

I'm not familiar at the moment with gun legislation around the world and what countries have the same or similar rules on firearms as the United States. I'm trying to be open to the idea that the problem is a lot more complex one which could be easily resolved with repealing the second amendment.

However, there seems to be an appalling amount of antipathy among some gun owners and enthusiasts towards their fellow citizens. Thoughts and prayers cost nothing whatsoever so that makes them the go to response to mass shootings. The Americans are a sovereign people. They can have whatever government, constitution and society they want but the fact that they can't even have a proper debate about gun laws and the second amendment because of their collective irrational paranoia about big government taking their stuff, home defence or all of their rights being taken away if the second is repealed exemplifies a big part of what's wrong with US society.

Australia had this problem and introduced anti-firearm leglisation which seems to have solved it. Unfortunately, the avarice and sheer selfishness of many gun owners and the NRA twinned with how little they care about or even possibly despise their fellow citizens means that this problem doesn't look like it will be solved.

smurgen

It's funny how pro active the so called conservatives can be in response to a terror attack:demanding immediate action,changes to laws,flight ban lists drawn up,walls to be built and jibes at liberal,level headed calls for measured responses.however an actual attack from one of their own and the solution is prayers and wishy washy/vague solutions like more gun education-the very sort of reponses they mock liberal or left leaning supporters of giving.

AbusesToilets

dudara wrote: »

Pardon me for my cynicism but this is the absolute definition of the US right now. Your lawmakers have so much contempt right now for the average citizen.

I don't disagree at all. Democracy is a thing of the past in the US, I fear.

AbusesToilets

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not familiar at the moment with gun legislation around the world and what countries have the same or similar rules on firearms as the United States. I'm trying to be open to the idea that the problem is a lot more complex one which could be easily resolved with repealing the second amendment.

However, there seems to be an appalling amount of antipathy among some gun owners and enthusiasts towards their fellow citizens. Thoughts and prayers cost nothing whatsoever so that makes them the go to response to mass shootings. The Americans are a sovereign people. They can have whatever government, constitution and society they want but the fact that they can't even have a proper debate about gun laws and the second amendment because of their collective irrational paranoia about big government taking their stuff, home defence or all of their rights being taken away if the second is repealed exemplifies a big part of what's wrong with US society.

Australia had this problem and introduced anti-firearm leglisation which seems to have solved it. Unfortunately, the avarice and sheer selfishness of many gun owners and the NRA twinned with how little they care about or even possibly despise their fellow citizens means that this problem doesn't look like it will be solved.

It didn't solve the violent crime problem, at all. In the same way that the previous Assault Weapons ban did nothing to solve the violent crime problem in the US.

I'm here, having a debate with one and all. I've offered ideas which would work at solving root issues, of violence in society etc. I don't accept the argument that I am being selfish because I own a gun, because it has potential to be used destructively against other people.

AbusesToilets

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Gangland violence is undoubtedly a scourge. But as I have said before, the American gun problem is seemingly so delicate and extensive that it is going to take incremental steps to address it. So a good place to start would be to take sensible steps to create a safer regulatory environment for innocent Americans, its schoolchildren above all, to be able to live out their everyday lives with relative confidence that they won't come under attack by a nutjob armed to the teeth with weaponry that renders a deranged 19 year old capable of easily killing a dozen people within minutes.

Staying with the Chicago example, whether the guns are legally or illegally procured, the fact remains that a black market of weaponry can operate with much greater ease in a country awash with guns at the civilian level. Tighter gun control throughout the United States would quite simply make it much more difficult for gangs to get their hands on guns. I had a read of this academic study which provides statistical evidence that over 60% of guns used in gangland shootings in Chicago were originally bought in another state, mainly neighbouring states with weaker gun laws like Wisconsin and Indiana (http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/JCrimLC%202015%20Guns%20in%20Chicago.pdf). So even where particular states have relatively tighter gun laws, the lack of consistency across the nation and a unified approach can render those laws somewhat meaningless.

Mental health / education / policing initiatives all sound good, but they are all just dancing around the key issue rather than addressing it head on. It's like having a massive hole in the side of your house but lighting a big fire and turning on a few electric heaters to keep yourself warm --- rather than just repair the wall. I fear from reading your posts and listening to other pro-gun advocates however that many Americans are now so utterly lost in their obsession with guns that they will do more to protect the right of some random guy to needlessly own a stockpile of machine guns and ammunition then they will do to protect the right of their children to feel safe in their schools.

I would argue that you have it backwards. The fundamental issue that needs addressing is why are people killing themselves and others. Guns are just a tool, not agents of influence.

With respect, you and others in this thread come across as obsessed with guns, to the point that there is no option acceptable beyond ban all guns.

The argument around this topic is a mirror of the one around abortion tbh, usually with the sides reversed. The anti abortion side tries to push "common sense" laws that aim to gradually chip away at the fundamental right to access said procedure.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Apparently, the shooter used up to150 rounds.

Anyone that claims that handgun or knife could anything like the same amount of damage, and let's not forget terror which is a word oddly absent from any remarks on this or other shootings, is flat out lying.

Chris Rock in his latest stand up mentions an imaginary case of 100 people getting shot dead and that if 100 people were stabbed to death then probably 97 people deserved to die. :P

ArthurDayne

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I would argue that you have it backwards. The fundamental issue that needs addressing is why are people killing themselves and others. Guns are just a tool, not agents of influence.

With respect, you and others in this thread come across as obsessed with guns, to the point that there is no option acceptable beyond ban all guns.

The argument around this topic is a mirror of the one around abortion tbh, usually with the sides reversed. The anti abortion side tries to push "common sense" laws that aim to gradually chip away at the fundamental right to access said procedure.

And like I have said before, by all means promote better understanding of mental health, but until you unlock the magical formula which will cure America of its propensity for producing mass murderers, then you have to drastically limit the ability of said mass murderers to getting access to these weapons.

As for being obsessed with guns, and to the claim that I see no acceptable option beyond banning all guns, well even when I tried to test out your views on a compromise you remained implacable. It's not a question of whether you are selfish in owning a gun, it is a question of why you need that gun and whether it is reasonable and proportionate that you need anything other than a small handgun for that purpose. If someone breaks into my house now and I feel compelled to arm myself, is say a Beretta M9 not sufficient ? Do I really need to also have in the bedside gun rack an MPA 9mm, a S&W 500, an AK pistol with a 75 drum, a Mossberg 590 Shotgun, a Bushmaster AR-15 and let's say a Thompson SMG for a bit of WW2 nostalgia? The answer of course is no.

This is the first step in addressing America's gun issue -- understanding the concept of proportionality when it comes to weaponry which allows you, if it takes your fancy, to easily wipe out an entire classroom of kids in a matter of seconds. So no, it is not selfish for you to own a gun, but what is selfish is implacably standing by and encouraging the mass and easy proliferation of weaponry which people bloody well don't need -- all while thousands of Americans, including innocent children, will be gunned down by Christmas this year by weapons which should never have been allowed to fall so easily into the hands of the perpetrators.

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It didn't solve the violent crime problem, at all. In the same way that the previous Assault Weapons ban did nothing to solve the violent crime problem in the US.

I'm here, having a debate with one and all. I've offered ideas which would work at solving root issues, of violence in society etc. I don't accept the argument that I am being selfish because I own a gun, because it has potential to be used destructively against other people.

Maybe not violent crime, but it certainly had an immediate and lasting effect on the occurrence of mass shooting events.

What it didn't do is see any noticeable increase in violent crime, which would appear to suggest that taking away guns from the majority of the population did not result in a massive crime spree and an increase in home invasions. And isn't that one of the stated reasons why people 'need' these types of guns?

So they achieved a benefit and lost nothing. Seems like a winner to me.

Of course you don't accept that, any more than I would accept that the things I like to do are selfish. And there is nothing wrong with being selfish, per se, once it doesn't impact on others.

However, the insistence that NRA members etc have that guns should be available to the vast majority and not be controlled is asking for trouble. And not some theoretical idea of trouble, the evidence is in the many dead people that should still be living productive lives in the US but were shot down.

The evidence is in the terror inflicted on the lives of so many. The evidence is that this problem seems to be getting worse despite the continued calls for nothing to be done.

You have stated a number of times why you, and others want these weapons, but haven' shown any reasons why you need them. You have provided the usual list of hunting, target practice and home defense yet have shown nothing to back up these claims. In fact, most evidence seems to counter the arguments.

Why are the NRA so scared of allowing proper research into this area? They have successfully lobbied that no research be undertaken.

AbusesToilets

ArthurDayne wrote: »

And like I have said before, by all means promote better understanding of mental health, but until you unlock the magical formula which will cure America of its propensity for producing mass murderers, then you have to drastically limit the ability of said mass murderers to getting access to these weapons.

As for being obsessed with guns, and to the claim that I see no acceptable option beyond banning all guns, well even when I tried to test out your views on a compromise you remained implacable. It's not a question of whether you are selfish in owning a gun, it is a question of why you need that gun and whether it is reasonable and proportionate that you need anything other than a small handgun for that purpose. If someone breaks into my house now and I feel compelled to arm myself, is say a Beretta M9 not sufficient ? Do I really need to also have in the bedside gun rack an MPA 9mm, a S&W 500, an AK pistol with a 75 drum, a Mossberg 590 Shotgun, a Bushmaster AR-15 and let's say a Thompson SMG for a bit of WW2 nostalgia? The answer of course is no.

This is the first step in addressing America's -- understanding the concept of proportionality when it comes to weaponry which allows you, if it takes your fancy, to easily wipe out an entire classroom of kids in a matter of seconds. So no, it is not selfish for you to own a gun, but what is selfish is implacably standing by and encouraging the mass and easy proliferation of weaponry which people bloody well don't need -- all while thousands of Americans, including innocent children, will be gunned down by Christmas this year by weapons which should never have been allowed to fall so easily into the hands of the perpetrators.

Your proposal would do nothing to decrease the availability of guns for criminals.

I have only two hands, so it doesn't really matter what number of guns I own, I would only be able to use one at a time. What's a proportional level of shooting someone? If I'm trying to shoot a person threatening my family, I'm going to do so with the aim (pardon the pun) of killing them. Is it somehow more acceptable to you if I do that with a pistol rather than a rifle?

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Your proposal would do nothing to decrease the availability of guns for criminals.

I have only two hands, so it doesn't really matter what number of guns I own, I would only be able to use one at a time. What's a proportional level of shooting someone? If I'm trying to shoot a person threatening my family, I'm going to do so with the aim (pardon the pun) of killing them. Is it somehow more acceptable to you if I do that with a pistol rather than a rifle?

You are back to this all or nothing argument. Because we can't erradicate all violence then nothing should be done. But you haven't been able to show any correlation between the number of guns, and type, and a reduction in crime. In fact, given the statistics out of America is would appear to be the other way around.

You second paragraph can just as easily be used in the opposite way. Since you have only pair of hands why would anybody need more than one weapon? And as for protection, you have consistently argued that handguns and rifles can be just as powerful so, again, why the need for these types of weapons?

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

Maybe not violent crime, but it certainly had an immediate and lasting effect on the occurrence of mass shooting events.

What it didn't do is see any noticeable increase in violent crime, which would appear to suggest that taking away guns from the majority of the population did not result in a massive crime spree and an increase in home invasions. And isn't that one of the stated reasons why people 'need' these types of guns?

So they achieved a benefit and lost nothing. Seems like a winner to me.

So it didn't really do much of anything then? Criminals still have access to guns, murders still happening, overall death rate remaining consistent. Spree killings reduced perhaps, but overall not much impact. Winning?

Of course you don't accept that, any more than I would accept that the things I like to do are selfish. And there is nothing wrong with being selfish, per se, once it doesn't impact on others.

However, the insistence that NRA members etc have that guns should be available to the vast majority and not be controlled is asking for trouble. And not some theoretical idea of trouble, the evidence is in the many dead people that should still be living productive lives in the US but were shot down.

The evidence is in the terror inflicted on the lives of so many. The evidence is that this problem seems to be getting worse despite the continued calls for nothing to be done.

You have stated a number of times why you, and others want these weapons, but haven' shown any reasons why you need them. You have provided the usual list of hunting, target practice and home defense yet have shown nothing to back up these claims. In fact, most evidence seems to counter the arguments.

Why are the NRA so scared of allowing proper research into this area? They have successfully lobbied that no research be undertaken.

You claim I haven't shown any acceptable reason for owning a gun, but's your opinion. Hunting, target shooting, personal defense, those are valid in my eyes. I don't speak for the NRA, I'm not a member, and their views are not the sole opinion on firearms. You don't like guns, fair enough, you don't have to. I don't like a lot of the ideas expressed by groups in society, but that's on me. At the end of the day, those are protected rights and one has to respect that.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

You are back to this all or nothing argument. Because we can't erradicate all violence then nothing should be done. But you haven't been able to show any correlation between the number of guns, and type, and a reduction in crime. In fact, given the statistics out of America is would appear to be the other way around.

I have expressed, repeatedly, ideas that could be implemented to reduce deaths. Banning rifles because you are scared of them is an example of doing nothing while trying to appear to be doing something. The Assault Weapons ban is a great example of just this. Lots of fanfare about how it would help reduce violent crime etc, ends doing shag all.

You second paragraph can just as easily be used in the opposite way. Since you have only pair of hands why would anybody need more than one weapon? And as for protection, you have consistently argued that handguns and rifles can be just as powerful so, again, why the need for these types of weapons?

Well, perhaps I like to shoot fowl, so I own a shotgun. I also like to hunt deer, so I own a rifle. I also want to be able to protect myself while out in public, so I own a pistol. All perfectly valid reasons for owning firearms.

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

So it didn't really do much of anything then? Criminals still have access to guns, murders still happening, overall death rate remaining consistent. Spree killings reduced perhaps, but overall not much impact. Winning?

You can't really believe this can you? You don't think a reduction in mass killings is worth it?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You claim I haven't shown any acceptable reason for owning a gun, but's your opinion. Hunting, target shooting, personal defense, those are valid in my eyes. I don't speak for the NRA, I'm not a member, and their views are not the sole opinion on firearms. You don't like guns, fair enough, you don't have to. I don't like a lot of the ideas expressed by groups in society, but that's on me. At the end of the day, those are protected rights and one has to respect that.

And you are entitled to your opinion just as I am. But since we already know the negative consequences of having so many guns, you really should need more than "I want them" as a basis for giving any person access to killing machines.

I have never said I don't like guns, it is irrelevant whether I do or not. What I don't agree with is why everyday people require military grade weapons. I do understand the desire to have a gun for protection. But it should be to stop your own death and get away from an attacked, not launch an assault.

They are protected rights, as of now, and they are not unending rights as you yourself have accepted. Felons, domestic violence, etc are all removed from this right.

It is an amendment, and as the name implies, it can be amended. You don't want to as you like playing with guns, but the cost of that is seen in the terrible death toll and the terror across the country.

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I have expressed, repeatedly, ideas that could be implemented to reduce deaths. Banning rifles because you are scared of them is an example of doing nothing while trying to appear to be doing something. The Assault Weapons ban is a great example of just this. Lots of fanfare about how it would help reduce violent crime etc, ends doing shag all.

Why do you insist on trying to make this personal? You have no idea what my feelings in regards to guns are. We are talking about availability of them.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Well, perhaps I like to shoot fowl, so I own a shotgun. I also like to hunt deer, so I own a rifle. I also want to be able to protect myself while out in public, so I own a pistol. All perfectly valid reasons for owning firearms.

Totally agree. And I have never said otherwise. None of them require a semi-auto with a large magazine.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why do you insist on trying to make this personal? You have no idea what my feelings in regards to guns are. We are talking about availability of them.

I am based my opinion on what you have expressed in this thread. You may not have explicitly stated you want to ban all guns, but your views allude to that, at least they do to me.

Totally agree. And I have never said otherwise. None of them require a semi-auto with a large magazine.

What does it matter if they are semi auto or not (which they all could be, for what it's worth)? A murder is a murder is a murder, regardless of the mechanism.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

You can't really believe this can you? You don't think a reduction in mass killings is worth it?





And you are entitled to your opinion just as I am. But since we already know the negative consequences of having so many guns, you really should need more than "I want them" as a basis for giving any person access to killing machines.

My goal would be to reduce deaths period. Banning guns doesn't accomplish that, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. Far more people die every year from vehicular accidents. Why should your selfish desire to move quickly get in the way of preventing these tragic deaths. Why do you need to move about quickly? I want to ban these killing machines.

I have never said I don't like guns, it is irrelevant whether I do or not. What I don't agree with is why everyday people require military grade weapons. I do understand the desire to have a gun for protection. But it should be to stop your own death and get away from an attacked, not launch an assault.

It's incredibly difficult to acquire military grade weapons in the US, which means ones capable of full-automatic fire. You are conflating cosmetic appearance with capability. An AR pattern rifle is no more lethal than a Ruger Mini-14, even tho they look markedly different.

They are protected rights, as of now, and they are not unending rights as you yourself have accepted. Felons, domestic violence, etc are all removed from this right.

It is an amendment, and as the name implies, it can be amended. You don't want to as you like playing with guns, but the cost of that is seen in the terrible death toll and the terror across the country.

Perhaps someday it will be amended, but the consensus in the US is in favor of the 2nd. If such a change occurs and an Amendment is passed, so be it. That's democracy.

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I am based my opinion on what you have expressed in this thread. You may not have explicitly stated you want to ban all guns, but your views allude to that, at least they do to me.

I may not explicitly said it? Is that another way of saying you just made it up? You have recently said that I am scared of guns and want all guns banned. I neither said that or even believe that. But it makes you feel happier, I suppose, to pain me as some gun hating lefty weirdo as then you can simply dismiss my arguments

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What does it matter if they are semi auto or not (which they all could be, for what it's worth)? A murder is a murder is a murder, regardless of the mechanism.

150 rounds were fired at the school shooting. Now, as you seem to believe that I have no idea of guns, maybe you can explain the timing difference in firing this number of rounds between a handgun, shotgun and a AR-15?

And again, if as you are implying that there is no difference, then again what is the point. Surely your handgun is more than enough to quell and invasion?

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

My goal would be to reduce deaths period. Banning guns doesn't accomplish that, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. Far more people die every year from vehicular accidents. Why should your selfish desire to move quickly get in the way of preventing these tragic deaths. Why do you need to move about quickly? I want to ban these killing machines.

This old chestnut. Simply, vehicles are not made with the sole purpose of killing. It is a side effect and one that has tried to be legislated against. Speed limits, driving tests, drink and drug driving, parking fines etc. Vehicles are being constantly updated with improved safety features, both for those inside but also outside.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's incredibly difficult to acquire military grade weapons in the US, which means ones capable of full-automatic fire. You are conflating cosmetic appearance with capability. An AR pattern rifle is no more lethal than a Ruger Mini-14, even tho they look markedly different.

Bump stocks? You do remember that Las Vegas wasn't that long ago don't you?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Perhaps someday it will be amended, but the consensus in the US is in favor of the 2nd. If such a change occurs and an Amendment is passed, so be it. That's democracy.

Perhaps some day. Do you know the level of people want additional gun control? The polls indicate a vast majority. And if the NRA and people are so confident that people want 2nd amendment, why not put it to a vote.

BrokenArrows

American culture is just fooked at every level.

Guns are not the problem the people are.

Fixing the culture will take a very very long time. So the only way to solve this problem immediately is to remove the guns.

But because the culture is fooked they wont even consider removing guns.

Nekarsulm

Leroy42 wrote: »

. What I don't agree with is why everyday people require military grade weapons. y.

Don't forget that the AR platform is now more than 50 years old, which moves it into a historical arms cathogery in the US.
This changes the restrictions on purchase somewhat.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

I may not explicitly said it? Is that another way of saying you just made it up? You have recently said that I am scared of guns and want all guns banned. I neither said that or even believe that. But it makes you feel happier, I suppose, to pain me as some gun hating lefty weirdo as then you can simply dismiss my arguments

You make arguments stating you want to ban certain types of guns. Asking why people should be allowed to have them, specifically semi auto type. That accounts for all handguns, the majority of rifles and a large number of shotguns. So yes, I would stand by my view that you wish to see all guns banned.

150 rounds were fired at the school shooting. Now, as you seem to believe that I have no idea of guns, maybe you can explain the timing difference in firing this number of rounds between a handgun, shotgun and a AR-15?

And again, if as you are implying that there is no difference, then again what is the point. Surely your handgun is more than enough to quell and invasion?

Not as significant as you seem to believe it to be. I can reload a pistol or rifle in a couple of secs, a shotgun somewhat more slowly. Neither would present much of a barrier to a prepared and determined shooter.

This old chestnut. Simply, vehicles are not made with the sole purpose of killing. It is a side effect and one that has tried to be legislated against. Speed limits, driving tests, drink and drug driving, parking fines etc. Vehicles are being constantly updated with improved safety features, both for those inside but also outside.

Guns are made with the simple purpose of expelling a projectile. What they are used for is up to the individual. All those measures you've listed, and yet there are hundreds of thousands of deaths (in the US) annually. Ban cars now! It's the only logical solution to this carnage.

Bump stocks? You do remember that Las Vegas wasn't that long ago don't you?

A recent anachronism, which will be removed soon I hope.

Perhaps some day. Do you know the level of people want additional gun control? The polls indicate a vast majority. And if the NRA and people are so confident that people want 2nd amendment, why not put it to a vote.

The mechanisms are pretty straightforward for enacting an Amendment, if rather difficult. If it happens, it happens. I'm not holding my breath.

AbusesToilets

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Don't forget that the AR platform is now more than 50 years old, which moves it into a historical arms cathogery in the US.
This changes the restrictions on purchase somewhat.

It doesn't, at all. Select fire weapons are restricted by the NFA and requires an onerous process to acquire.

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

Bump stocks? You do remember that Las Vegas wasn't that long ago don't you?

Define one, and the exact purpose of the law prohibiting it. It's a tricky problem, which the ATF realised they could not tackle when they considered them a few years ago. The 'bump stock bans' which have been passed in a couple of states to much fanfare do no such thing despite the claims that they do so, by the definitions in the law. They say things like 'modify the rate of fire of the weapon', which bump stocks don't do. They are not going to survive the first time someone with charged with one challenges it in court (Well, the law will survive, but the applicability to the devices won't).

But I really think that the manufacturers are getting away scott free on this. What attempts have they made to make the product safer? Car companies show incredible innovation when forced to make changes. Surely they must carry some burden with dealing with the correct use of the products they are sold?

Firearms are generally safer than they were previously. There are, I believe, four internal safety mechanisms in my SIG, all designed to ensure that the weapon does not discharge unless the trigger is deliberately pulled. (So no firing if I accidentally drop it on the hammer, no slamfiring, etc). Some come with chamber loaded indicators to help those who are too stupid to follow the basic rule of firearm safety. Quality control has increased to reduce the likelihood of the Dreaded KaBoom. Ergonomics have increased to reduce the chances of mishandling. I am, however, at a loss to think of any burden borne by any other product manufacturer to protect against deliberate mis-use of the car, knife, airplane, etc.

So would a proper licensing system that requires passing a basic safety test. Even soldiers have to pass a test before they get a live gun don't they?

Well, sortof. It's a proficiency test, one of many, that a soldier has to be able to pass before being considered combat-worthy (we say 'deployable'), to include first aid and land navigation. Basically to ensure that they can do their job. However, evidence seems to indicate that even without the test and training, murderers/mass shooters seem to be proficient enough already.

Here's a chart of weapon used by mass-shooting.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

Note the prevalence of handguns. ARs are getting the recent press, but, just as with criminal activity, the handguns are the most "dangerous." To answer the question on 'how long to fire 150 rounds", the practical difference in a close environment between a semi-auto rifle and a semi-auto pistol is basically zero, and is limited more by the ability to find targets than to pull the trigger.

"Pistol" is a Czech word, it is very ingrained in the local culture. The Czech Republic is what is in the US considered a "Shall-issue state". There is no discretion, if you meet minimum requirements (basic safety test, are healthy, and have no criminal record), the police must issue you a license. (That includes you, from the EU, or me from a NATO country). That license allows you to carry a semi-automatic handgun concealed, and the list of places that handgun can be carried is a bit broader than in the US. There are no 'gun free zones', and you can legally bring your handgun to a school, bar, etc.

Yet, there are no particular problems resulting from the prevalence of people carrying handguns in the Czech republic. Thus we can infer that (1) Allowing handguns but denying rifles will not result in a particular reduction in mass shootings, and (2) allowing handguns need not result in mass shootings in the first place. Is focusing on the rifle going to achieve anything?

FatherTed

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I would argue that you have it backwards. The fundamental issue that needs addressing is why are people killing themselves and others. Guns are just a tool, not agents of influence.

With respect, you and others in this thread come across as obsessed with guns, to the point that there is no option acceptable beyond ban all guns.

The argument around this topic is a mirror of the one around abortion tbh, usually with the sides reversed. The anti abortion side tries to push "common sense" laws that aim to gradually chip away at the fundamental right to access said procedure.

Are you saying the anti-gun folks are the ones obsessed with guns?

AbusesToilets

FatherTed wrote: »

Are you saying the anti-gun folks are the ones obsessed with guns?

I am, yes

FatherTed

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I am, yes

I don't think so. It ain't us who are doing the killings. Now tell me what do you need to have to perform mass gun killings? Hint: it's not that hard to figure out.

AbusesToilets

FatherTed wrote: »

I don't think so. It ain't us who are doing the killings. Now tell me what do you need to have to perform mass gun killings? Hint: it's not that hard to figure out.

It's not me or people like me either.

As to your point, all you need is an imagination and the will to act.

FatherTed

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's not me or people like me either.

As to your point, all you need is an imagination and the will to act.

Ok so you couldn't even answer the question. It's the guns.

As a society we have shown we are unable to safely regulate and possess them. The pro gun supporters are not interested in any leverage as to regulating guns and who gets to own one because blah blah blah it's your right to have one/2nd amendment tells me so/etc.

But to me that's bullshyte because you're right to own a gun doesn't trump(pun not intended) anybody's right to live. Our right to live trumps yours to own a gun. Since there will never be any leverage with the pro gun crowd combined with having politicians who gleefully protect the NRA because of their massive donations we are stuck. So it's my opinion the 2nd amendment is a load of balls and should be repealed as there is no place for civilian gun ownership.

AbusesToilets

FatherTed wrote: »

Ok so you couldn't even answer the question. It's the guns.

As a society we have shown we are unable to safely regulate and possess them. The pro gun supporters are not interested in any leverage as to regulating guns and who gets to own one because blah blah blah it's your right to have one/2nd amendment tells me so/etc.

But to me that's bullshyte because you're right to own a gun doesn't trump(pun not intended) anybody's right to live. Our right to live trumps yours to own a gun. Since there will never be any leverage with the pro gun crowd combined with having politicians who gleefully protect the NRA because of their massive donations we are stuck. So it's my opinion the 2nd amendment is a load of balls and should be repealed as there is no place for civilian gun ownership.

I did answer your question, you not liking it doesn't change the matter.

There are plenty of laws that govern gun ownership, unfortunately, crimes tend to be carried out by folks who don't care about laws.

Enzokk

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Perhaps it's because we have seen what happens in countries where the government can act without fear of its citizens.

I am interested to know, but can you list the countries where a armed insurgence from the citizens helped overthrow their government?

AbusesToilets

Enzokk wrote: »

I am interested to know, but can you list the countries where a armed insurgence from the citizens helped overthrow their government?

Well, of recent years, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Chechyna, Zimbabwe. It's a fairly regular occurrence, in fairness.

Cookie_Monster

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yet, there are no particular problems resulting from the prevalence of people carrying handguns in the Czech republic. Thus we can infer that (1) Allowing handguns but denying rifles will not result in a particular reduction in mass shootings, and (2) allowing handguns need not result in mass shootings in the first place. Is focusing on the rifle going to achieve anything?

Or you could infer that the Czechs have a mature and grown up attitude both to owning weapons & their use and to their fellow citizens in general, whereas that seems to be sorely lacking in the US.

Brian?

It’s a lost cause lads and ladies. The genie is out of the bottle. It’s time to arm teachers and have armed guards on schools. It’s the only way to protect the children.

My American friends are on Facebook offering free gun safety lessons and campaigning for the elimination of gun free zones. Be safe, be armed.

gimli2112

yeah came in to say the same thing. It's too late. Too many people, too many guns.
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit [everybody looks at Ripley] It's the only way to be sure.