Ludicrous Gun Laws in America

dylonator

It sickens me that Americans continue to argue in favor of their 'Constitutional Right' to bear arms despite clear evidence to suggest how this has a negative impact on society. The Newtown massacre is yet another example of how changes in the American gun laws are long overdue. Are people in agreement on this?
I'm going to try and kick off a online petition to get this more attention as I feel very strongly about it.

Rovi

Redundant poll; gun ownership IS legal in Ireland.

Abracastabya

But not as easily or as widespread in fairness

Longranger

dylonator wrote: »

It sickens me that Americans continue to argue in favor of their 'Constitutional Right' to bear arms despite clear evidence to suggest how this has a negative impact on society. The Newtown massacre is yet another example of how changes in the American gun laws are long overdue. Are people in agreement on this?
I'm going to try and kick off a online petition to get this more attention as I feel very strongly about it.

Already legal. With many hoops to jump through before you can own one. Even the title of your proposed poll shows you need to do a lot more research about the subject you claim to feel "very strongly about"........

SeanW

My aunt and uncle were once held hostage in a home invasion, but my uncle was able to get to his shotgun, so he was able to scare the criminals off.

It has been truthfully said that "if you take guns away from law abiding people, only criminals will have guns." That is not a situation I favour.

Suryavarman

Care to link us to some of this "clear evidence [that] suggest how this has a negative impact on society".

Do you actually live in America or are you just starting this petition to interfere in other countries' business?

Brussels Sprout

dylonator wrote: »

I'm going to try and kick off a online petition to get this more attention as I feel very strongly about it.

NewsFlash: Americans don't care what foreigner's think about their laws or politics.

You'd be far better off putting your time and effort into trying to sort out the many problems that exist in your own country.

laoch na mona

all they need is basic gun control its not that hard

Suryavarman

laoch na mona wrote: »

all they need is basic gun control its not that hard

America has plenty of gun control.

laoch na mona

Suryavarman wrote: »

America has plenty of gun control.

not in some states

Suryavarman

laoch na mona wrote: »

not in some states

What states? What laws should they enact? What benefits will those laws have?

goose2005

SeanW wrote: »

It has been truthfully said that "if you take guns away from law abiding people, only criminals will have guns." That is not a situation I favour.

and solders, and police.

My aunt and uncle were once held hostage in a home invasion, but my uncle was able to get to his shotgun, so he was able to scare the criminals off.

Such things do happen, but they're very rare outside macho fantasy - it's far more likely for a household gun to be used in a suicide, murder-suicide or accidental wounding/killing.

Suryavarman wrote: »

What states? What laws should they enact? What benefits will those laws have?

Well, for starters no automatic/semiautomatic weapons. Those only exist to murder people, you can't claim they're for hunting or self-protection.

Suryavarman

goose2005 wrote: »

Well, for starters no automatic/semiautomatic weapons. Those only exist to murder people, you can't claim they're for hunting or self-protection.

There are plenty of reasons for those weapons. If you are hunting and the first shot doesn't kill then being able to fire a second shot rapidly could be very helpful.

I'm sure there's millions of people in the middle east that would argue that these weapons are very important for self protection considering they have been using them to overthrow their governments. Individuals can also use "assault weapons" to protect themselves and their property when faced with a lot of attackers such as during riots. There are even examples of that being done during the LA riots.

If somebody with a gun was breaking into your home, being able able to rapidly fire a couple of shots rapidly could be very helpful.

There are also plenty of other recreational uses for these weapons such as firing them at a firing range.

laoch na mona

Suryavarman wrote: »

What states? What laws should they enact? What benefits will those laws have?

stop selling guns in wall mart introduce licenses ban automatics

Suryavarman

laoch na mona wrote: »

stop selling guns in wall mart introduce licenses ban automatics

What benefits will those laws have?

kodoherty93

There is a huge difference between guns. Its like saying all cars are the same. We all know a BMW goes tens times are fast as a ****ty ford. They need gun controls for the guns that do a couple of hundred rounds per minute. Not the hand guns people use for target. Personally if I lived in the US depending on the state I would keep a gun for safety.

But look at NYC it had its first ever day of no serious violence due to policing policies and improving economy. Thats made the city safe but its not gonna stop a nut job buying a stolen gun and shooting up a school

laoch na mona

Suryavarman wrote: »

What benefits will those laws have?

stop anyone getting a gun which would stop mass shootings
guns are for hunting or competitive shooting thats it

Suryavarman

laoch na mona wrote: »

stop anyone getting a gun which would stop mass shootings
guns are for hunting or competitive shooting thats it

Care to give any proof that those laws would stop mass shootings?

People shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves with their guns?

avalon68

People dont need automatic guns to defend themselves. Guns are far too available there. Had this nutjob not had such easy access to guns those kids might still be alive today. I saw a few posts earlier on facebook from USA friends - one is a teacher.....his response - they need more guns, teachers should have a gun in the classroom to protect against attacks like this. Most ridiculous thing I have ever read. What next.....teachers have guns, so nutjobs bring bombs? Teachers get bombs....nutjob arrives.....teacher screams "youll never take us alive....boom....???" Clearly there is a problem in their society that this continually happens over and over and over. Cutting easy access to guns wont solve the underlying issues, but it might just make it a little harder to go on a murderous rampage.

mooonpie

avalon68 wrote: »

What next.....teachers have guns, so nutjobs bring bombs? Teachers get bombs....nutjob arrives.....teacher screams "youll never take us alive....boom....???"

Why would the teachers get bombs? They already have guns in your scenario

...__...

Americans dont need to ban guns they need better mental health care where a person doesnt reach the point of massacring dozens to get thier point across.
Guns only do what the person holding them does.

Fromthetrees

There's something rotten in the core of American society that causes these things and it irks me that Ireland is closer to Boston than to Brussels.

It's always the lone nut who goes on a rampage, maybe if they banned male lone nutjobs from buying guns they would solve the problem. Maybe put it on the form you have to fill out to obtain a firearm,

Are you male or female?

Are you a lone nut?

thebman

I think it is quite obvious there is a lack of regulations on guns in America.

From reading the papers on this most recent case, it seems it was his mothers guns that this kid had easy access to.

They should at least enforce locking guns in an adequate level of security safe (not aldi super safer safes) to try to stop people getting access to guns with mental health difficulties and there should be a minimum level of checks on a persons mental state to renew a license to own a gun in my opinion.

That wouldn't interfer with sane peoples rights to bare arms.

...__...

thebman wrote: »

(not aldi super safer safes) .

Why the fcuk not????
In Ireland your gunsafes have to be to a huge standard and our biggest availabe round is like a peanut compared to the states. seriously Huge effin bunckers these guys need to have there equiptment stored in. and Im sure if you asked them they would agree as long as they still have the right to take there stoner and pop off a few dozen rounds in a range the real guys would have no probem with it.

Suryavarman

thebman wrote: »

I think it is quite obvious there is a lack of regulations on guns in America.

From reading the papers on this most recent case, it seems it was his mothers guns that this kid had easy access to.

They should at least enforce locking guns in an adequate level of security safe (not aldi super safer safes) to try to stop people getting access to guns with mental health difficulties and there should be a minimum level of checks on a persons mental state to renew a license to own a gun in my opinion.

That wouldn't interfer with sane peoples rights to bare arms.

How exactly are people supposed to defend themselves in the event of a break in if their guns are in another part of the house?

...__...

Suryavarman wrote: »

How exactly are people supposed to defend themselves in the event of a break in if their guns are in another part of the house?

That answer is exactly americas problem sure why not have one taped under the toilet in case your caught out :rolleyes:

When Idiots get guns stupid things happen when an idiot is trained and respects a gun then you hear them calling for more safegaurds.

Suryavarman

...__... wrote: »

That answer is exactly americas problem sure why not have one taped under the toilet in case your caught out :rolleyes:

When Idiots get guns stupid things happen when an idiot is trained and respects a gun then you hear them calling for more safegaurds.

Any proof of that more training results in a desire for more gun laws?

avalon68

moonpie9588 wrote: »

Why would the teachers get bombs? They already have guns in your scenario

well if you are going to escalate to having guns in the classroom, why stop there. Why not park a tank outside. The answer to dealing with shootings is not to bring more guns to the party. The underlying causes need to be tackled. In the mean time, making guns less available couldnt hurt the situation. If that guy didnt have those guns to hand in his house, would he have gone and bought them? Maybe, but maybe not. Thats something we will never know.

avalon68

Suryavarman wrote: »

How exactly are people supposed to defend themselves in the event of a break in if their guns are in another part of the house?

like you or I would defend ourselves.......? I dont have a gun, I lived for several years in the states and never owned a gun, never needed one. Most burglars would be in and out without you even realizing they were there anyways. And I think the moment of hesitation that most people would have when it comes to shooting someone dead would probably give someone out to hurt/maim you ample opportunity to take the gun off you and use it on you.

brokenarms

Im not getting the point of this thread?

We are not the US.

We have good gun control.

mooonpie

avalon68 wrote: »

well if you are going to escalate to having guns in the classroom, why stop there. Why not park a tank outside. The answer to dealing with shootings is not to bring more guns to the party. The underlying causes need to be tackled. In the mean time, making guns less available couldnt hurt the situation. If that guy didnt have those guns to hand in his house, would he have gone and bought them? Maybe, but maybe not. Thats something we will never know.

Just to clarify, I don't agree with the 'teachers should have guns for defence' argument - but ridiculously exaggerated hypothetical scenarios bug me a bit.

My point was that the argument for having guns in the classroom is for "defence" against people who go on these killing sprees. If the killer comes in with a bomb, the teacher's gun is still adequate defence to take out the killer.

Using a bomb to take out a single target, will almost guarantee more collateral damage than using a gun. So arming the teacher with a bomb rather than a gun is not going to provide any more defence against a lone gunman.

It's ridiculous to suggest that such a move would be considered.

BlaasForRafa

moonpie9588 wrote: »

Just to clarify, I don't agree with the 'teachers should have guns for defence' argument - but ridiculously exaggerated hypothetical scenarios bug me a bit.

My point was that the argument for having guns in the classroom is for "defence" against people who go on these killing sprees. If the killer comes in with a bomb, the teacher's gun is still adequate defence to take out the killer.

And what if, in this scenario, a teacher goes off the deep end and decides to off a class full of kids. They've got a legally held firearm with a permit, the whole class would be dead before anyone could do anything.

Plus how could a child sit in a class knowing that the teacher had a gun, to say its not a healthy environment for learning would be an understatement imo.

I know you have said you're not in the pro-teacher-having-guns camp but I have seen it made quite a few times in different threads already on boards.

gallag

The problem is the ethos and lack of life value, stems from the wild west days, many Americans actually hope someone breaks into their house so they can blast them. I talk to them and many have concealed carry permits so they don't miss their opportunity to live the American dream. I would never kill someone for stealing my car or telly, I would be capable of truly sadistic **** if they tried to hurt my wife/babies but someone could be really down on their luck, steal a telly, change their ways and cure cancer.

FTA69

kodoherty93 wrote: »

Not the hand guns people use for target.

Wasn't the Dunblane masscare committed with one of those?

Sparks

FTA69 wrote: »

Wasn't the Dunblane masscare committed with one of those?

Bypassing the long technical discussion, the consensus - with noted objections - would be no.
And the vast majority of the pistols banned after Dunblane were nothing at all like the ones used in Dunblane.

dylonator

Longranger wrote: »

Already legal. With many hoops to jump through before you can own one. Even the title of your proposed poll shows you need to do a lot more research about the subject you claim to feel "very strongly about"........

You can get as bogged down in details as you like, you and I both know that it is nowhere nearly as easy to obtain a gun in Ireland as it is in the US. Any thinking person would know what I meant.

Sparks

dylonator wrote: »

You can get as bogged down in details as you like, you and I both know that it is nowhere nearly as easy to obtain a gun in Ireland as it is in the US. Any thinking person would know what I meant.

Honestly - and with no offence intended - as a thinking person, I don't know what you meant. Firearms are legally available in Ireland. We have a more regulated environment for them than anywhere in the US, certainly, but we still have them, so the title of your poll doesn't make much sense, at least to me.

gallag

Sparks wrote: »

Honestly - and with no offence intended - as a thinking person, I don't know what you meant. Firearms are legally available in Ireland. We have a more regulated environment for them than anywhere in the US, certainly, but we still have them, so the title of your poll doesn't make much sense, at least to me.

Was pretty obvious what he ment though, probably a bit pedantic on your part.

Longranger

gallag wrote: »

Was pretty obvious what he ment though, probably a bit pedantic on your part.

It's not pedantic in any way. The fact is firearms ARE legal here, so asking to start a poll whether they should be made so is completely pointless.

An Coilean

Suryavarman wrote: »

Care to give any proof that those laws would stop mass shootings?

People shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves with their guns?

Its seems to me that in any population you will have a small number of individuals inclined to carry out attacks like the ones that have happened recently in the US. They happen everywhere, but when they happen in the US, automatic weapons are a feature or them and as a result the death toll is several times higher than the norm in other countries.
The easy access to automatic weapons is a factor in this.

I don't see what the problem is with requireing people who want to own a gun, be it for personal protection, sport or any other reason, to have to register the guns they have, store them safely, and prove they can handle it safely.
You do this with your car, why not guns?

As for banning certain typs of guns, or restricting where they can be carried, again I don't see the problem. To carry on the car analogy, you can have a car but you can't drive as fast as you want.

Manic Moran

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

And what if, in this scenario, a teacher goes off the deep end and decides to off a class full of kids. They've got a legally held firearm with a permit, the whole class would be dead before anyone could do anything.

I'm not sure how that differs particularly from what happened this week. They didn't have a teacher with a legally held firearm, and they still had a whole class dead before anyone could do anything.

Assuming there's no way of reliably telling ahead of time who's about to go off the deep end, your only course of action is going to be reactionary. Assuming also that a teacher isn't any more or less likely to be the person that goes off the deep end, that's a, say, 1% chance that the person who flips is the person who is already in the classroom, and a 99% chance that the person who flips is someone who isn't a teacher and walks into the classrom. (I'm not sure the proportion of teachers to non-teachers in the US, but you get the idea). Those are pretty reasonable odds.

NTM

avalon68

moonpie9588 wrote: »

Just to clarify, I don't agree with the 'teachers should have guns for defence' argument - but ridiculously exaggerated hypothetical scenarios bug me a bit.

My point was that the argument for having guns in the classroom is for "defence" against people who go on these killing sprees. If the killer comes in with a bomb, the teacher's gun is still adequate defence to take out the killer.

Using a bomb to take out a single target, will almost guarantee more collateral damage than using a gun. So arming the teacher with a bomb rather than a gun is not going to provide any more defence against a lone gunman.

It's ridiculous to suggest that such a move would be considered.

The point I was trying to make was that if the killer knows the teacher has a gun, will he then bring a bigger gun, or something else....I see it as a bad road to go down. I know you said you arent in favor, but to the people here that are - are you in favor of guns in Irish schools? Would you feel comfortable sending your 5 year old off to school knowing there was a gun in the room with him/her? I certainly wouldnt be ok with that.

Manic Moran

avalon68 wrote: »

The point I was trying to make was that if the killer knows the teacher has a gun, will he then bring a bigger gun, or something else....

Is there any evidence to support such a parade of horribles? It's not as if many spree murderers recently have been playing fair and down-arming themselves just to give their victims a sporting chance at survival. If this guy brought two semi-auto handguns and a semi-auto rifle to a defenceless school, it is quite likely he'd bring pretty much two semi-auto pistols and a semi-auto rifle to a school with an armed teacher. If he didn't pick a target which he knew to be gun-free.

NTM

coylemj

It's up to the people in the US as to how they run their country but it's worth bearing in mind that the US Supreme Court typically sides with the 2nd amendment 'right to bear arms' clause when putting state laws to the test. The only way this can be watered down is via a Constitutional amendment which requires a bill to be passed by both houses of Congress and ratification by not less than two-thirds of the states which means that the state legislatures in 34 states would need to agree to water down the right (to bear arms) and that just is not going to happen.

The best that can be hoped for is that some restriction be placed on the sale of assault weapons and/or a restriction on the size of the magazines sold with these guns. However as happened when Obama was elected (in 2008) and re-elected (last month) and again in the few days since the shootings in Connecticut, people go out and panic buy yet more guns when they hear the (to them) dreaded term 'gun control'. A gun shop owner shown on BBC news tonight said he has his busiest day in 20 years!

Markcheese

The nut job at the school didn't own any gun.he got his mothers...she didn't have any reason not to have a gun... So even if you tighten up on gun availability the butters will still get guns ... Britain which has a much smaller population than the US, has strict gun control, and yet I can think of 3 shooting sprees there ... It's not just gun availability... (although that wouldn't hurt )

brokenarms

One failed shoe bomb attempt at the airport and millions and millions of people have to take their shoes off going through check in.

31 school shootings since the Columbine High School massacre. And nothing.

In fact I heard on the news that gun dealers cant keep guns on the shelf since those children where killed. Sales are at a record high.

No harm. But the USA is full to the brim with dumb idiots. Hicks.

MadsL

brokenarms wrote: »

No harm. But the USA is full to the brim with dumb idiots. Hicks.

Before you get too comfortable on that high horse, take a moment to consider that the percentage of murders committed with firearms in Ireland is five times higher than the UK and almost double the Western europe average.

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf

intellectual dosser

No civilian needs an assault rifle / semi-automatic weapon. I have yet to hear an argument that can convince me otherwise, some of the attempted justifications on this thread are just laughable.

Valmont

intellectual dosser wrote: »

No civilian needs an assault rifle / semi-automatic weapon. I have yet to hear an argument that can convince me otherwise, some of the attempted justifications on this thread are just laughable.

I probably find your reasons for owning a set of kitchen knives or a car with a large engine laughable but I won't say you can't have them. Your argument is highly arbitrary -- why does owning a gun have to be for reasons you or anyone else considers valid? If I own a gun and use it properly (i.e. not rob or murder anyone with it etc), why is it your business whether I have one or not? In fact, it's laughable you consider other people's private possessions your business in the first place!

brokenarms

Valmont wrote: »

I probably find your reasons for owning a set of kitchen knives or a car with a large engine laughable but I won't say you can't have them. Your argument is highly arbitrary -- why does owning a gun have to be for reasons you or anyone else considers valid? If I own a gun and use it properly (i.e. not rob or murder anyone with it etc), why is it your business whether I have one or not? In fact, it's laughable you consider other people's private possessions your business in the first place!

Your right.
Im going out to buy me some hand grenades and maybe a bit of semtex to top it of. Sure I might as well buy an m60 while im there.
No ones business whether I have it or not . :rolleyes:

intellectual dosser

Valmont wrote: »

I probably find your reasons for owning a set of kitchen knives or a car with a large engine laughable but I won't say you can't have them. Your argument is highly arbitrary -- why does owning a gun have to be for reasons you or anyone else considers valid? If I own a gun and use it properly (i.e. not rob or murder anyone with it etc), why is it your business whether I have one or not? In fact, it's laughable you consider other people's private possessions your business in the first place!

Ah man, talk about verbal vomit. I own a few kitchen knives for cutting things in my kitchen - whats laughable about that please?

Kitchen knives are for cutting things in the kitchen, cars* are for getting from A to B. They serve people for reasons other than killing people, which is all guns exist for, or at best seriously injuring.

Still though, you seem to speak with some conviction/confidence. Maybe you can give me a genuine reason for owning an assault rifle?

*You also need to sit two tests, pay insurance and tax (more for larger engines) to own a car. You are penalised, fined and/or disqualified for improper use (that doesn't necessarily involve endangering others).