Gun control in the USA

robindch

Following yesterday's massacre of children in the USA and the predictable response from the pro-lethal-weapon lobby, not to mention various religious men, the The New Yorker's Adam Gopnik comes closest to expressing my feelings:

Adam Gopnik wrote:

After the mass gun murders at Virginia Tech, I wrote about the unfathomable image of cell phones ringing in the pockets of the dead kids, and of the parents trying desperately to reach them. And I said (as did many others), This will go on, if no one stops it, in this manner and to this degree in this country alone—alone among all the industrialized, wealthy, and so-called civilized countries in the world. There would be another, for certain.

Then there were—many more, in fact—and when the latest and worst one happened, in Aurora, I (and many others) said, this time in a tone of despair, that nothing had changed. And I (and many others) predicted that it would happen again, soon. And that once again, the same twisted voices would say, Oh, this had nothing to do with gun laws or the misuse of the Second Amendment or anything except some singular madman, of whom America for some reason seems to have a particularly dense sample.

And now it has happened again, bang, like clockwork, one might say: Twenty dead children—babies, really—in a kindergarten in a prosperous town in Connecticut. And a mother screaming. And twenty families told that their grade-schooler had died. After the Aurora killings, I did a few debates with advocates for the child-killing lobby—sorry, the gun lobby—and, without exception and with a mad vehemence, they told the same old lies: it doesn’t happen here more often than elsewhere (yes, it does); more people are protected by guns than killed by them (no, they aren’t—that’s a flat-out fabrication); guns don’t kill people, people do; and all the other perverted lies that people who can only be called knowing accessories to murder continue to repeat, people who are in their own way every bit as twisted and crazy as the killers whom they defend. (That they are often the same people who pretend outrage at the loss of a single embryo only makes the craziness still crazier.)

So let’s state the plain facts one more time, so that they can’t be mistaken: Gun massacres have happened many times in many countries, and in every other country, gun laws have been tightened to reflect the tragedy and the tragic knowledge of its citizens afterward. In every other country, gun massacres have subsequently become rare. In America alone, gun massacres, most often of children, happen with hideous regularity, and they happen with hideous regularity because guns are hideously and regularly available.

The people who fight and lobby and legislate to make guns regularly available are complicit in the murder of those children. They have made a clear moral choice: that the comfort and emotional reassurance they take from the possession of guns, placed in the balance even against the routine murder of innocent children, is of supreme value. Whatever satisfaction gun owners take from their guns—we know for certain that there is no prudential value in them—is more important than children’s lives. Give them credit: life is making moral choices, and that’s a moral choice, clearly made.

All of that is a truth, plain and simple, and recognized throughout the world. At some point, this truth may become so bloody obvious that we will know it, too. Meanwhile, congratulate yourself on living in the child-gun-massacre capital of the known universe.

I'd imagine that most boardsies and A+A posters would have similar views to Gopnik's on tightening up on access to guns, but is that really the case? An ongoing thejournal poll suggests that, at the time of writing, a majority believe that guns are not the problem, even allowing for the presence of the many shinnerbots who seem to come out in force for any poll there. And Obama hinted at taking steps at an emotional news conference yesterday, but will he be able to? Or will it, like just almost every other attempt to control the spread of lethal weaponry, end up being shot down like the doomed kids who'll die at the next school massacre?

Blowfish

Gopnik etc. are missing the one consistent fact with all mass killings (both shootings and others), namely the fact that the killers consistently have a history of mental health issues.

Tightening the gun laws isn't going to stop this from happening as the undelying issues will still be there. All it'll do is drive the killers to either obtaining the weapons illegally or using other methods (home made bombs etc) instead.

Tackle the mental health issues and you tackle the real problem. Tackle guns and you don't.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

so is this the atheism and agnosticism forum or the general left wing collective forum?

Bannasidhe

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

so is this the atheism and agnosticism forum or the general left wing collective forum?

Do you actually have anything constructive to say?

Rodin

Blowfish wrote: »

Gopnik etc. are missing the one consistent fact with all mass killings (both shootings and others), namely the fact that the killers consistently have a history of mental health issues.

Tightening the gun laws isn't going to stop this from happening as the undelying issues will still be there. All it'll do is drive the killers to either obtaining the weapons illegally or using other methods (home made bombs etc) instead.

Tackle the mental health issues and you tackle the real problem. Tackle guns and you don't.

On the same day a crazy went on the rampage in china with only a knife. Nobody died though 22 were injured.

Of course the mental health issue needs tackled. But a.crazy with no gun is safer than a crazy armed to the teeth

Bannasidhe

Blowfish wrote: »

Gopnik etc. are missing the one consistent fact with all mass killings (both shootings and others), namely the fact that the killers consistently have a history of mental health issues.

Tightening the gun laws isn't going to stop this from happening as the undelying issues will still be there. All it'll do is drive the killers to either obtaining the weapons illegally or using other methods (home made bombs etc) instead.

Tackle the mental health issues and you tackle the real problem. Tackle guns and you don't.

Mental health issues exist in every country - is this why every country has these kind of mass murders on a regular basis? Oh wait...they don't.

High powered, military grade, automatic and semi-automatic pistols and rifles are ridiculously easy to get in many parts of the U.S..
These weapons have one purpose and one purpose only - to quickly and efficiently kill many people from a distance. To say that severely restricting the availability of these weapons will not tackle the problem of people using guns to commit mass murder is, imho, a singularly stupid statement.

10,728 deaths due to handguns alone in the US last year -Coincidence? I don't think so....

Blowfish

Rodin wrote: »

On the same day a crazy went on the rampage in china with only a knife. Nobody died though 22 were injured.

Indeed. 22 kids were attacked with a knife. The reaction to this shouldn't be 'it could have been worse if he'd had a gun' it should be 'how the fúck do we stop this from happening in the first place?'

It just seems a little off kilter to me that as soon as an incident like this happens the focus immediately turns to the gun laws, rather than to the fact that the mental health system, though being aware that these people had major issues, failed to deal with them adequately in any way.

Witcher

The type of person who would massacre 20 innocent children in their classroom isn't going to be detered by firearms laws.. others such as Anders Breivik weren't. A person with a desire for violence like that isn't going to wake up and say 'oh..firearms are hard to get..I think I'll become a doctor and have a family'...like Timothy McVeigh they'll make a bomb and blow a building up. Finding the cause is the key, other nations have liberal firearms laws and no school shootings...there's something different in the US..why do some of those with mental disorders there resort to shooting children..why does it not happen in other countries where there are open firearms laws and people with mental illness?

Turtwig

Blowfish wrote: »

Indeed. 22 kids were attacked with a knife. The reaction to this shouldn't be 'it could have been worse if he'd had a gun' it should be 'how the fúck do we stop this from happening in the first place?'

It just seems a little off kilter to me that as soon as an incident like this happens the focus immediately turns to the gun laws, rather than to the fact that the mental health system, though being aware that these people had major issues, failed to deal with them adequately in any way.

Suppose suitcase nukes were freely and legally available. We're not going to be able to stop every crime and some people will always find a way to obtain their means but we do need to ensure that mass killings are quite hard to do. As it stands in the U.S once your conscience is compromised carrying out a mass killing is ridiculously easy. I say if the Gun Control lobby really believe in their principles then every citizen should be able to carry suitcase nukes. Couple of nukes detonated in a desert never did any harm . . .

MagicMarker

Blay wrote: »

The type of person who would massacre 20 innocent children in their classroom isn't going to be detered by firearms laws..

Well, if the firearm laws are actually any use, then they won't have a choice about being deterred.

If I woke up in the morning and decided I wanted to masacre a few dozen people with a handgun, then I immediate run into a problem with, you know, not having a handgun and having no possible way of getting one.

Yes, crazy people will do crazy things, but why make it so much easier for them to do crazy shít?

Rodin

Blowfish wrote: »

Indeed. 22 kids were attacked with a knife. The reaction to this shouldn't be 'it could have been worse if he'd had a gun' it should be 'how the fúck do we stop this from happening in the first place?'

It just seems a little off kilter to me that as soon as an incident like this happens the focus immediately turns to the gun laws, rather than to the fact that the mental health system, though being aware that these people had major issues, failed to deal with them adequately in any way.

Of course the mental health issues should be addressed.

But why is nobody running around Irish schools with a Sig, Glock and M4 killing the kids? Because nobody in Ireland has mental health issues?

Witcher

MagicMarker wrote: »

Well, if the firearm laws are actually any use, then they won't have a choice about being deterred.

If I woke up in the morning and decided I wanted to masacre a few dozen people with a handgun, then I immediate run into a problem with, you know, not having a handgun and having no possible way of getting one.

Yes, crazy people will do crazy things, but why make it so much easier for them to do crazy shít?

These killings aren't spur of the moment, the person has normally put some amount of planning into it and acquired the firearms specfically for it. Few, if any of them are established firearms owners who flip out and go to a school armed. There's nothing to stop them playing along with the laws and getting what they need anyway.

Rodin

Blay wrote: »

These killings aren't spur of the moment, the person has normally put some amount of planning into it and acquired the firearms specfically for it. Few, if any of them are established firearms owners who flip out and go to a school armed. There's nothing to stop them playing along with the laws and getting what they need anyway.

The same person could not easily get their hands on those weapons here, no matter how planned they are.

Over there, you can buy ammunition online. Things must simply be made much more difficult for these things to happen. Eradication is the aim, but anything better than the current situation would be great.

Witcher

Rodin wrote: »

The same person could not easily get their hands on those weapons here, no matter how planned they are.

Over there, you can buy ammunition online. Things must simply be made much more difficult for these things to happen. Eradication is the aim, but anything better than the current situation would be great.

They could just join a range and apply for a licence, once you're not a known criminal and have a use for it you'll likely get the gun. The system here or in any other country with licencing is not foolproof.

You can buy ammunition online here if you have a licence too.

Rodin

Blay wrote: »

They could just join a range and apply for a licence, once you're not a known criminal and have a use for it you'll likely get the gun.

You can buy ammunition online here if you have a licence too.

Then their own gun laws need to change!! what use does a just out of school lad need for 2 handguns and an M4 carbine? Apart from shooting up a school?

Why SHOULDN'T there be gun restrictions in the US?

ezra_pound

Blowfish wrote: »

Gopnik etc. are missing the one consistent fact with all mass killings (both shootings and others), namely the fact that the killers consistently have a history of mental health issues.

Tightening the gun laws isn't going to stop this from happening as the undelying issues will still be there. All it'll do is drive the killers to either obtaining the weapons illegally or using other methods (home made bombs etc) instead.

Tackle the mental health issues and you tackle the real problem. Tackle guns and you don't.

Does America have much higher rates of mental illness than most countries?

Witcher

Rodin wrote: »

Then their own gun laws need to change!! what use does a just out of school lad need for 2 handguns and an M4 carbine? Apart from shooting up a school?

Why SHOULDN'T there be gun restrictions in the US?

They weren't even his guns..they were his mothers. He was under 21 so couldn't have purchased a pistol.

Didn't say there shouldnt be change but it's not going to solve the problem straight away...firearms will still be available and even if Obama signs a 10 year assault weapons ban then all the semi auto rifles out there now will still be legal.

Rodin

Blay wrote: »

They weren't even his guns..they were his mothers. He was under 21 so couldn't have purchased a pistol.

Why did she need those weapons?

Rodin

Blay wrote: »

They weren't even his guns..they were his mothers. He was under 21 so couldn't have purchased a pistol.

Didn't say there shouldnt be change but it's not going to solve the problem straight away...firearms will still be available and even if Obama signs a 10 year assault weapons ban then all the semi auto rifles out there now will still be legal.

Problems are never solved straight away. But one must start somewhere to fix them. Even though it will take time to change.

Jernal

Jernal wrote: »

Suppose suitcase nukes were freely and legally available. We're not going to be able to stop every crime and some people will always find a way to obtain their means but we do need to ensure that mass killings are quite hard to do. As it stands in the U.S once your conscience is compromised carrying out a mass killing is ridiculously easy. I say if the Gun Control lobby really believe in their principles then every citizen should be able to carry suitcase nukes. Couple of nukes detonated in a desert never did any harm . . .

At the time that the Constitution of the U.S. was written, and in the following century and beyond, good reason for an armed citizenry existed. I'm sure most people can still appreciate why the Constitution's Second Amendment grants, as a fundamental right, the right for the people to keep and bear arms; an armed citizenry was, and, to a far lesser degree, still is, a form of protection against the possibility of a despotic, authoritarian federal government. It's a good concept, in principle, though in modern times it seems less necessary, given how the federal military has evolved. This concept, of an armed citizenry being a protection against an overly powerful government, doesn't extend by analogy to the holding of nuclear weapons by the people.

In any case, prohibition should be the final solution — though, in my own view, it is never really a solution, because the rights of the individual should not be limited as a result of the actions of another. As others have said, tackling the effect is little good while ignoring the root cause. Tackle whatever it is that's evidently immanent in pockets of the American psyche that, all too frequently, results in a tragic shooting. Make guns more difficult to get, by all means, but that action, in and of itself, is not enough to curb tragedies such as this one.

MagicMarker

Blay wrote: »

They could just join a range and apply for a licence, once you're not a known criminal and have a use for it you'll likely get the gun.

So why don't they? Are Americans just more crazy?

Rodin

Blay wrote: »

Why are you asking me? I don't have answers for you..I'm just stating that firearms laws won't stop events like this in the uS.

I disagree.

Witcher

Rodin wrote: »

Why did she need those weapons?

Why are you asking me? I don't have answers for you..I'm just stating that firearms laws won't stop events like this in the US.

Witcher

Rodin wrote: »

I disagree.

Disagree agree all you want, the evidence says otherwise.

Rodin

Blay wrote: »

Disagree agree all you want, the evidence says otherwise.

what evidence is that?

Witcher

Rodin wrote: »

what evidence is that?

Anders Breivik, Michael Ryan, Thomas Hamilton, Derek Bird..look these people up..firearms laws were no barrier to them.

Mark Hamill

Blay wrote: »

They could just join a range and apply for a licence, once you're not a known criminal and have a use for it you'll likely get the gun. The system here or in any other country with licencing is not foolproof.

You can buy ammunition online here if you have a licence too.

Drink driving laws aren't full proof, does that mean we should abandon them?

ezra_pound

No guns= no shooting

Crazies with guns= innocents shot dead

Crazies without guns= crazies without guns

Rodin

Blay wrote: »

Anders Breivik, Michael Ryan, Thomas Hamilton, Derek Bird..look these people up..firearms laws were no barrier to them.

That's your evidence?

4 people managed to get hold of guns, and that's evidence that taking guns away won't save lives??

Is that genuinely your evidence or have I missed something?

By the way, Derek Bird was not in possession of any handguns. Any idea why?

Witcher

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Drink driving laws aren't full proof, does that mean we should abandon them?

I'm not getting into this with ya, a similar moronic argument was brought up in After Hours. We're not discussing driving laws, we're talking about firearms here. I'm not saying everyone should have access to firearms, but clamping down on them will not solve this in the US, it may help yes but these shootings will continue. They happened under the last assault weapons ban and will happen under the next one, the issue is within US society, countries with similar laws have no such issues.

Blay

Blay wrote: »

Anders Breivik, Michael Ryan, Thomas Hamilton, Derek Bird..look these people up..firearms laws were no barrier to them.

In those countries these events are far more rare than in the US, the reason being that it's a lot more difficult to get hold of a gun.

You've mentioned three major gun attacks which took place in the UK over the course of 23 years. How many massacres of this scale took place in the US in that time?

Witcher

Flying Fox wrote: »

In those countries these events are far more rare than in the US, the reason being that it's a lot more difficult to get hold of a gun.

You've mentioned three major gun attacks which took place in the UK over the course of 23 years. How many massacres of this scale took place in the US in that time?

I never said they happened as often as in the US...I said that people who want to do it will find a way. Legislation would help no doubt but people will still die in shootings like this, people seem to think that Obama can pass a law banning firearms totally, confiscate those already in circulation and it will be utopia, I'm just questioning that idea. I'm not madly pro gun as you might imagine, I own firearms yes but being Irish I don't see them as a right or anything as an American would.

Rodin

Blay wrote: »

I never said they happened as often as in the US...I said that people who want to do it will find a way. I'm not madly pro gun as you might imagine, I own firearms yes but being Irish I don't see them as a right or anything as an American would.

So if people who want to will find a way, perhaps we should make that way very much more difficult

Imagine I wanted to carry out a mass murder in the UK, and I'm very determined. Any idea how difficult it would be for me to get my hands on a handgun?

Blay

Blay wrote: »

I never said they happened as often as in the US...I said that people who want to do it will find a way. Legislation would help no doubt but people will still die in shootings like this, people seem to think that Obama can pass a law banning firearms totally, confiscate those already in circulation and it will be utopia, I'm just questioning that idea. I'm not madly pro gun as you might imagine, I own firearms yes but being Irish I don't see them as a right or anything as an American would.

I don't think anyone's saying it wll fix the problem overnight, but it's a step in the right direction. It's about changing attitudes as much as anything else.

Just because a problem is difficult to solve doesn't mean it should be ignored.

Witcher

Rodin wrote: »

So if people who want to will find a way, perhaps we should make that way very much more difficult

Imagine I wanted to carry out a mass murder in the UK, and I'm very determined. Any idea how difficult it would be for me to get my hands on a handgun?

I know well what you're trying to get at..they were banned after Dunblane but considering the amount of people that get shot dead in the UK, if you knew the right people you could get one easily enough.

Rodin

Blay wrote: »

I know well what you're trying to get at..they were banned after Dunblane but considering the amount of people that get shot dead in the UK, if you knew the right people you could get one easily enough.

Whereas in the states I can walk into a gun shop and get one with a driving licence

MadsL

Rodin wrote: »

Why SHOULDN'T there be gun restrictions in the US?

There ARE gun restrictions in the US.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Drink driving laws aren't full proof, does that mean we should abandon them?

Should alcohol be banned as it cause drunk driving? It kills similar numbers to guns in the US.

Blay wrote: »

I'm not getting into this with ya, a similar moronic argument was brought up in After Hours.

You realise I'm satirising the simplistic notion that banning something stops the negative consequence of it's existence. Like how banning heroin prevents drug addiction. Oh. wait, what?

MadsL

Rodin wrote: »

Whereas in the states I can walk into a gun shop and get one with a driving licence

And a background check.

If you intend to do something criminal with it, why would you buy it where you need to show ID?

Witcher

Flying Fox wrote: »

I don't think anyone's saying it wll fix the problem overnight, but it's a step in the right direction. It's about changing attitudes as much as anything else.

Just because a problem is difficult to solve doesn't mean it should be ignored.

I understand what you're saying and you're right in the long term it would solve it but the majority on Boards does seem to think that some kind of ban will kill these type of shootings off straight away whereas it will take a generation or so of serious clampdowns in the US to achieve that and an assault weapons ban..which seems to be what is coming, won't do it because there's so many out there and the gov. don;t know where they are.

The reason bans on certain rifles and all pistols worked in the UK was because the gov. swept them all up and banned them so nobody had them nor could you get them. Nearly every firearms owner in the US has an 'assault rifle' so it's impossible to track them down so a ban really will have minimal effect unless it's kept up forthe next 50 years and the guns grandfathered under the law begin to fall apart.

Rodin

MadsL wrote: »

And a background check.

If you intend to do something criminal with it, why would you buy it where you need to show ID?

Because you're planning on topping yourself along with the victims? And don't really care about getting caught?

Rodin

Blay wrote: »

I understand what you're saying and you're right in the long term it would solve it but the majority on Boards does seem to think that some kind of ban will kill these type of shootings off straight away whereas it will take a generation or so of serious clampdowns in the US to achieve that and an assault weapons ban..which seems to be what is coming, won't do it because there's so many out there and the gov. don;t know where they are.

The reason bans on certain rifles and all pistols worked in the UK was because the gov. swept them all up and banned them so nobody had them nor could you get them. Nearly every firearms owner in the US has an 'assault rifle' so it's impossible to track them down so a ban really will have minimal effect unless it's kept up forthe next 50 years and the guns
grandfathered under the law begin to fall apart.

Is there no record kept of when someone buys a rifle?

Witcher

MadsL wrote: »

You realise I'm satirising the simplistic notion that banning something stops the negative consequence of it's existence. Like how banning heroin prevents drug addiction. Oh. wait, what?

Wasn't you I was getting at Madsl..someone else said something about drink driving laws or something over on AH...I remember what you were saying about it.

MadsL

Rodin wrote: »

Because you're planning on topping yourself along with the victims? And don't really care about getting caught?

Precisely. If you are planning such an event what gun controls do you think stop that from happening in the US.

Ban guns? There are millions of weapons out there. Even if you successfully prevent access to a weapon, there are hundreds of ways to rig an IED -most of them published in the darker corners of the internet.

The only thing, realistically that gun control will prevent is access to them for the law-abiding. That said, greater penalties for failing to secure your weapons would be welcome - there are far too many irresponsible discharges causing deaths and injury.

Witcher

Rodin wrote: »

Is there no record kept of when someone buys a rifle?

Ya fill out a form but once it leaves the store you could sell, trade, give it away, destroy it etc and the government don't have a clue. The man hours that would be involved in chasing down everyone who ever bought one and then chasing down people they may have sold it to etc makes it impossible to find them. 16m firearms were sold last year in the US, I don't know what proportion of them would come under a future assault weapons ban but it would be a good number and make tracing them impractical.

Rodin

Blay wrote: »

Ya fill out a form but once it leaves the store you could sell, trade, give it away, destroy it etc and the government don't have a clue. The man hours that would be involved in chasing down everyone who ever bought one and then chasing down people they may have sold it to etc makes it impossible to fidn them. 16m firearms were sold last year in the US, I don't know what proportion of them would come under a future assault weapons ban but it would be a good number and make tracing them impractical.

Perhaps each weapon should have a certificate a bit like a car. Which must be transferred with the weapon

Whatever way it happenss, guns must be more difficult for crazies to get their hands on.
No-one should be naive enough to think that this can be completely stopped, but any decrease is very welcome.

Rodin

MadsL wrote: »

Precisely. If you are planning such an event what gun controls do you think stop that from happening in the US.

Ban guns? There are millions of weapons out there. Even if you successfully prevent access to a weapon, there are hundreds of ways to rig an IED -most of them published in the darker corners of the internet.

The only thing, realistically that gun control will prevent is access to them for the law-abiding. That said, greater penalties for failing to secure your weapons would be welcome - there are far too many irresponsible discharges causing deaths and injury.

And if ye can't get an IED, one can crash a plane into a building.
If you're determined enough, ye can do it. Apparently.

With each ever more difficult step along the way to mass murder, the number killed reduces. That's fairly simple.

We can't eradicate plane hijacks but if we'd no airport security, they'd be far more numerous.

Eradication is an aim. We'll never reach it, but we must make steps to get closer.

MadsL

Rodin wrote: »

We can't eradicate plane hijacks but if we'd no airport security, they'd be far more numerous.

Ah, the old illusion of safety by action.

You do realise in the 10 years of the existence of the TSA not one plot has been prevented. Yes, TSA are there to make us feel safe, and take our water away. (and our sealed 10 year old Bushmills - but that's another rant)
The reality is however, that measures like banning things rarely have the effect desired.

If we banned weapons sales tomorrow, do you honestly think the US would be safer place? As has been pointed out, there are 16 million weapons circulating in the US.

Witcher

Rodin wrote: »

Perhaps each weapon should have a certificate a bit like a car. Which must be transferred with the weapon

Whatever way it happenss, guns must be more difficult for crazies to get their hands on.
No-one should be naive enough to think that this can be completely stopped, but any decrease is very welcome.

You'd still have all the rifles that are out there now with no paperwork, as I said to another poster that given enough time these rifles would eventually fail and if the laws were tight enough people would not be able to replace them. But it could be a long time before they're out of people's hands that way but it's the only option because confiscating them isn't really an option.

Whether you're pro or anti gun in the US right now doesn't matter because Obama seems to have decided that the ban will be back soon so we'll just have to see how it plays out afterwards..maybe the shootings will stop all of a sudden once the ban is in..hopefully they will.

MrPudding

Blay wrote: »

I know well what you're trying to get at..they were banned after Dunblane but considering the amount of people that get shot dead in the UK, if you knew the right people you could get one easily enough.

Just reposting this, as you appear to have missed it.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Blay wrote: »

They weren't even his guns..they were his mothers. He was under 21 so couldn't have purchased a pistol.

So we have a 20 year old son of a teacher who could not by weapons on his own. But that is ok as his mother had plenty. Now, if guns weren't so freely available do you not think it is conceivable that he may not have been able to carry out the massacre?

Blay wrote: »

Didn't say there shouldnt be change but it's not going to solve the problem straight away...

Very few, if any, laws fix a given problem straight away. That rarely stops them from being made.

Blay wrote: »

firearms will still be available and even if Obama signs a 10 year assault weapons ban then all the semi auto rifles out there now will still be legal.

Of course they will, but the problem won't get any bigger and will, in fact start getting smaller. Will there still be massacres? Probably. Will they reduce over time? Undoubtedly.

I don't have time to do any particularly in depth study, but I think that studies would show a higher prevalence of mental issues in the US, but attitudes towards mental illness might, at least in part, explain at least some of the difference.

I can't quite understand how it is possible to deny that massacres of this type would, most likely, be less frequent and less effective if firearms weren't so readily available.

MrP

Bannasidhe

The gun ownership and gun homicides murder map of the world

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map?fb=native

MadsL

MrPudding wrote: »

Just reposting this, as you appear to have missed it.

Wonder why it doesn't continue to include South Africa and Thailand in those statistics?

So we have a 20 year old son of a teacher who could not by weapons on his own. But that is ok as his mother had plenty. Now, if guns weren't so freely available do you not think it is conceivable that he may not have been able to carry out the massacre?

Do you really think that someone with so much rage would have been stopped by choice of weapon? Someone who kills 5 year old was obviously sending quite a message - see these kids, see how much you love them more than me, let me end that, see that mom, dad, fuck you.

This whole kneejerk reaction about gun control fails to account for the irrational, a kid with that much rage is a timebomb no matter what he has access to. And trust me, we have not heard the full story of that rage yet. Very sad.

Very few, if any, laws fix a given problem straight away. That rarely stops them from being made.


Of course they will, but the problem won't get any bigger and will, in fact start getting smaller. Will there still be massacres? Probably. Will they reduce over time? Undoubtedly.

Tell me, has drug control reduced useage, violent crime and addiction rates?

I don't have time to do any particularly in depth study, but I think that studies would show a higher prevalence of mental issues in the US, but attitudes towards mental illness might, at least in part, explain at least some of the difference.

I believe that fact that three days treatment in psychiatric hospitals is all that is covered too is probably a factor, but as you say that needs data.

I can't quite understand how it is possible to deny that massacres of this type would, most likely, be less frequent and less effective if firearms weren't so readily available.

...I trust you appreciate that firearms dealers are not the only source of firearms in the US. 16 million firearms are going to take a long, long, long time to rust away.