Gun control in the USA

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?

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 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?

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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

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.

Blay wrote: »

in all likelihood it will just be a ban on new sales.

Which as we know will probably lead to far more being sold in the run up to the ban. As you move to restrict a type of weapon in the US, people tend to panic buy or 'invest' in the increased post-ban resale value.

Sales bans are notoriously counterproductive.

MadsL wrote: »

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.

So why are we bothering to control the sale and use of guns in Ireland?

Do we have so many people filled with rage that allowing access to weapons similar to that found in the U.S would lead to mass murders occurring with what seems like an ever increasing frequency?

What is sad is that people like yourself will continue to insist that an item designed to kill with efficiency and which serves no other purpose should be freely available.

MadsL wrote: »

One reason could be a recent Civil War and the Republican/Loyalist conflicts.

Americans decided to hold onto their weapons for that eventuality, not relying on the Govt to protect you is pretty ingrained into American history, especially in the South and Southwest given that the Govt declared war on its own people. That culture of self-reliance runs very deep, especially where law enforcement could be an hour's drive away.

Do not underestimate how many very calm, respectable people in the US have a weapon in the home. I live in a very safe, crime-free (ish) neighbourhood and both of my quite elderly neighbours have weapons in their homes. One is ex-Navy, one ex-Army, so both are very competent with firearms.



The Czech Republic feels that personal freedom trumps the fear of that, and has almost no controls on gun ownership. What incidents in Ireland lead you to believe that Ireland would have such events if gun controls were loosened?



Doesn't that rather depend on what you decide to kill with it? The razor sharp chefs knife on your kitchen counter is designed to sever muscle, and slice through skin and sinew with efficiency, it serves no other purpose. Should it be freely available?

The kids murdered lived in a safe, crime free (ish) respectable neighbourhood and one of their respectable teachers had weapons in her home which her respectable son was able to use to murder them. Respectability has nothing to do with it.

My respectable Police captain cousin who has vast experience with weapons was stupid enough - or over casual due to over familiarity - to shoot himself in the leg while using the butt of his police issue handgun to hammer in a nail - he was just giving it a tap as he was afraid his kids would snag something on it. He nearly lost his leg - if the angle of the weapon had been a fraction different he would have killed his son. He 'forgot' he had a round chambered but has been unable to explain exactly why he had a loaded weapon on him on his day off while playing with his children in their yard in a quiet town in Eastern Mass apart from saying he is so used to it that he just kinda had it..

The sheer proliferation and availability of guns in the US has lead to a disrespect and casualness about what are essentially machines designed to kill. They are not toys. They are killing machines.

My extremely sharp chef's knives (I am very proficient and careful with them as they were the tools of my trade for 10 years) are kept under lock and key. Only I have the key. But actually - knives have many uses - guns do not.

Slavery and racial prejudice was also deeply ingrained in American history - by your logic should those things be allowed to continue or was the Federal government right to step in an say this is bad for our society and we need to stop it?

I remember after Virginia Tech shootings, I heard a number of gun lobbyists come out with some truly astonishing stuff. They claimed that the massacre was in fact an argument for looser gun control, so that if everyone was in fact armed the killer wouldn't have killed so many people. Someone would have got him first.

Here was someone arguing for guns to be allowed to be held freely on the campus of an educational institution. Will we eventually hear these wackos arguing that all primary school students should be armed, or maybe all of the teachers, so that such an event doesn't happen again? There is no end to the sheer insanity of the gun lobby.