Gun Control

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

Maybe this girls father has the same story. Not much good to any of them now though.

Perhaps, but I would never have allowed any of my daughters to fire an Uzi at 9... probably not until 16, knowing their limitations. The oldest girl (who was opposed to guns in her liberal days) now has an S&W AR-15 (I don't even have something like that), is quite responsible through upbringing and guidance, and will be running for mayor next election.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6Ex2rVOUWs

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

The media loved it at the time.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/12/us/girl-7-seeking-us-flight-record-dies-in-crash.html

It's just guns that are evil?

Straw man. I never said guns were evil. I don't even want to ban gun ownership. I just want tighter regulation.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

The media loved it at the time.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/12/us/girl-7-seeking-us-flight-record-dies-in-crash.html

It's just guns that are evil?

Actually, double straw man. The media didn't love it.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Perhaps, but I would never have allowed any of my daughters to fire an Uzi at 9... probably not until 16, knowing their limitations. The oldest girl (who was opposed to guns in her liberal days) now has an S&W AR-15 (I don't even have something like that), is quite responsible through upbringing and guidance, and will be running for mayor next election.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6Ex2rVOUWs

Can you explain the point of that video at all? How does it relate to the discussion?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Actually, double straw man. The media didn't love it.

The media did love it... up until the point where she perished in the accident.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Can you explain the point of that video at all? How does it relate to the discussion?

It’s germane because it was an interesting display of what happens to some advocates for harsher gun controls and their aversion to guns when convictions were put to test. Perhaps none of these people changed their minds about greater gun control legislation, but I think we saw a change in attitude from most of them towards their aversion to the use of guns after they were better informed on the subject.

Paleface

Amerika wrote: »

It’s germane because it was an interesting display of what happens to some advocates for harsher gun controls and their aversion to guns when convictions were put to test. Perhaps none of these people changed their minds about greater gun control legislation, but I think we saw a change in attitude from most of them towards their aversion to the use of guns after they were better informed on the subject.

If anything the video only highlights the fact that firing a gun is an exhilarating experience. People who have never fired one before would find it exciting.

So is driving your car at over 100mph. Doesn't mean its safe and there are laws to restrict it as you endanger yourself and others.

Which brings us back to the original discussion. That American gun laws are too relaxed to the point where they endanger others and most Americans look at guns as a recreational item that any member of society should be able to own and use at their own discretion.

Any argument against this is met with huge resistance based on the second ammendment and home security.

But I ask you, how come so many other countries get by without everyone having a gun and America can't?

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

If anything the video only highlights the fact that firing a gun is an exhilarating experience. People who have never fired one before would find it exciting.

So is driving your car at over 100mph. Doesn't mean its safe and there are laws to restrict it as you endanger yourself and others.

Which brings us back to the original discussion. That American gun laws are too relaxed to the point where they endanger others and most Americans look at guns as a recreational item that any member of society should be able to own and use at their own discretion.

Matter of opinion.

Any argument against this is met with huge resistance based on the second ammendment and home security.

But I ask you, how come so many other countries get by without everyone having a gun and America can't?

Don’t know and don’t much care. Lack of diversity perhaps? History? Ideologies? Perhaps the feeling that if the crap hits the fan, the good 'ole Americans with their frontier attitudes will circle the wagons and save the day?

And why should anyone care what the US does in this matter? Unless of course they were planning on invading us.

Democracy, as a practical application, was founded in the US. The principles found in our Constitution are what made it work and thrive. We'll amend what's need changing, and the 2nd amendment is fine just the way it is -- from the viewpoint of a vast majority of the US population.

Manic Moran

Paleface wrote: »

Any argument against this is met with huge resistance based on the second ammendment and home security.

Not just Second Amendment. What too many non-Americans (and, in fairness, a whole bunch of Americans as well) forget is that the vast majority of the 50 States have a right to arms in their State Constitutions as well, as binding on that State's legal framework as the federal protection. For example, Delaware Art1 S20 says "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.", or Nebraska Art 1 S1 "All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof."

But I ask you, how come so many other countries get by without everyone having a gun and America can't?

They're not the US, with the same history, makeup or geography.

ChicagoJoe

Bullets and Burgers :rolleyes:. Driving a car requires the person is over 17 and has a license, and insurance to operate. Depending on the US state or locality, there is no requirement to register nor a requirement to permit to own or operate various different forms of firearms. But what kind of parents or state allows a 9 year old child gun lessons and with a machine gun at that. We have thousands of people walking around with weapons they are not sensible enough to know how to properly use them. Almost every other week we see videos with idiots doing something that anyone with some common sense would not do.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

A tragic accident yes, but how is it “another example of why America is just completely lax on gun control?” Accidents can happen in the best of circumstances. Did she own, or buy the Uzi herself? And wasn’t she under the supervision of a trained shooting instructor? One can question the decision of why a 9 year old is shooting a high powered fully automatic machine gun in the first place, but it has nothing to do with lax gun control.

It is a perfect example of lax gun control in America because a 9 year should not be allowed to be shooting an automatic machine gun period.

Manic Moran

eire4 wrote: »

It is a perfect example of lax gun control in America because a 9 year should not be allowed to be shooting an automatic machine gun period.

That is a matter of personal opinion. I have a more open mind on the subject, much more closely related to the skill and experience of the shooter and the type of firearm, not the chronological age of the shooter. I would be careful about giving a 25-year-old novice an Uzi.

eire4

Manic Moran wrote: »

That is a matter of personal opinion. I have a more open mind on the subject, much more closely related to the skill and experience of the shooter and the type of firearm, not the chronological age of the shooter. I would be careful about giving a 25-year-old novice an Uzi.

Yes that is a matter of personal opinion. I have mine which clearly differs from yours as I do not think it is accetable for a 9 year to be allowed to use an automatic machine gun. That is fine that we disagree.
Lets cut out the subtle cheap shots though with your needless I have a more open mind cheap shot trying to imply my opinion is not really valid.

Manic Moran

With respect, on the matter at hand, my statement is accurate. You have a closed opinion on the subject, stated with no exceptions or qualifiers. I have a more open position, dependent upon various factors. It isn't meant as a cheap shot, it's a statement of relative values.

Skylinehead

Manic Moran wrote: »

That is a matter of personal opinion. I have a more open mind on the subject, much more closely related to the skill and experience of the shooter and the type of firearm, not the chronological age of the shooter. I would be careful about giving a 25-year-old novice an Uzi.

By that logic there would be 9-year olds who would be allowed to drive on the roads. There isn't, and with good reason.

eire4

Manic Moran wrote: »

With respect, on the matter at hand, my statement is accurate. You have a closed opinion on the subject, stated with no exceptions or qualifiers. I have a more open position, dependent upon various factors. It isn't meant as a cheap shot, it's a statement of relative values.

Well if being against 9 year olds being allowed shoot automatic machine guns is having a closed mind on the subject I happily will hold that position.

Manic Moran

Skylinehead wrote: »

By that logic there would be 9-year olds who would be allowed to drive on the roads. There isn't, and with good reason.

Driving is a far more complicated process mechanically, with more rules, regulations and, most importantly, decision-making required.

I was somewhere between 8 and 10 when I fired my first 'automatic firearm', an air-powered pellet gun at a funfair which emptied the 100 pellets in about five seconds with the trigger held down. All I needed to do was remember "Point at the red star you're trying to cut out." A tad easier than driving. A belt-fed .22 wouldn't be any more difficult or dangerous.

InTheTrees

On private property 9 year olds can drive a car or a tractor.

Even in (gasp!) Ireland.

Its not illegal.

InTheTrees

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Driving a car requires the person is over 17 and has a license, and insurance to operate.

No it doesn't.

You can drive a car as soon as you can reach the pedals.

I believe you're talking about getting a Drivers License aren't you?

Paleface

Any law can be broken in your own home or anywhere else for that matter if an authority isn't there to catch you doing it. People break laws all the time with no repercussions. But thats not what we are discussing here.

No law was broken by handing this girl an Uzi. She also broke no law by accidentally killing her instructor. Everyone is innocent yet a man is dead as a result of a completely avoidable scenario. A change in the law would have prevented it. Just as changing many gun laws would prevent thousands of deaths in the US each year. (gasp!)

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Driving is a far more complicated process mechanically, with more rules, regulations and, most importantly, decision-making required.

I was somewhere between 8 and 10 when I fired my first 'automatic firearm', an air-powered pellet gun at a funfair which emptied the 100 pellets in about five seconds with the trigger held down. All I needed to do was remember "Point at the red star you're trying to cut out." A tad easier than driving. A belt-fed .22 wouldn't be any more difficult or dangerous.

I'll ask you a question, what's the downside of bringing in an age restriction for firearms or types of firearms?

In this case the upside would have saved a mans life. Why are you so against reasonable regulation?

If a law was inacted today barring anyone under 18 owning or operation an automatic firearm, the negative effect would be?

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

I'll ask you a question, what's the downside of bringing in an age restriction for firearms or types of firearms?

In this case the upside would have saved a mans life. Why are you so against reasonable regulation?

If a law was inacted today barring anyone under 18 owning or operation an automatic firearm, the negative effect would be?

It's quite difficult in the US to privately own or fire an automatic weapon. The permit process is a long one and subject to the whims of the Sheriff's department in the county you live in. Once you have the weapon, it can still be illegal for another person to operate it, depending on where you live and the permit restrictions.

Laws don't prevent accidents, good judgement tends to be far more effective. The instructor shot there should have recognised the risks involved and certainly should have anticipated the likely recoil movement of the Uzi. I've seen plenty of grown men pushed back by a M-4 on auto, a nine year old girl is not likely to be able to control an Uzi on auto.

Matt Holck

don't the US pass out automatic weapons in the middle east?

AbusesToilets

Matt Holck wrote: »

don't the US pass out automatic weapons in the middle east?

Eh?

Matt Holck

At last count by the U.S. government, 79% of weapons transfered to Middle Eastern governments come from the United States, not counting transfers to groups like ISIS, and not counting weapons in the possession of the United States.

https://occupywallst.org/forum/what-to-do-about-isis-by-david-swanson/

AbusesToilets

What do foreign weapon sales have to do with US firearms laws?

InTheTrees

I believe Russia is the largest exporter of weapons worldwide.

InTheTrees

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's quite difficult in the US to privately own or fire an automatic weapon. The permit process is a long one and subject to the whims of the Sheriff's department in the county you live in.

Exactly.

And this is why in some (Arizona, Nevada) western states its a tourist attraction to go and fire these things.

Prostitution is also legal in Nevada. Cannabis is legal n Washington and Colorado. There is a huge difference between Federal Law and State law in a lot of issues. Most states in the union are very resistant to federal intrusion into their affairs.

And western states have always had more liberal gun laws since the cowboy days and nothing will change that, especially the Federal Government attempting to step in.

Matt Holck

InTheTrees wrote: »

I believe Russia is the largest exporter of weapons worldwide.

second largest

Global Arms Sales By Supplier Nations

39% United States

18% Russia

8% France

7% United Kingdom

5% Germany

3% China

3% Italy

11% Other European

5% Others

http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#GlobalArmsSalesBySupplierNations

InTheTrees

Matt Holck wrote: »

second largest

Global Arms Sales By Supplier Nations

39% United States

18% Russia


http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#GlobalArmsSalesBySupplierNations

Curious. I dont see those numbers you posted anywhere in the article you linked to.

These are from Wiki:

2013 rank Supplier Arms exports
1 Russia 8283
2 United States 6153
3 China 1837
4 France 1489
5 United Kingdom 1394
6 Germany 972


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters