Gun control in the USA

Stercus Accidit · 15-12-2012 07:02PM

The horse has long since bolted on gun legislation in the US, there are millions of guns floating around there. I was offered an un-registered Glock .40 by a guy I barely knew while I was over there in California, one of the most stringently regulated states for gun laws. Here in Ireland I am probably two or three degrees of separation away from a man who could sell me a gun, anyone here who knows someone who smokes weed probably is too.

Guns will never be banned in the USA, and it would be a monumental, delayed and wasted effort to get additional controls in place on their sale.

The huge poverty gap, lack of social services as a rule and terrible health care system, including mental health are to blame. People ignore lumps because they can't afford to see a doctor, they certainly can't afford to fight off cancer, how likely is it that an autistic shut-in is going to be treated properly for his anger & depression?

The US needs to sort out its mental health care, and health care in general. There never will be a gun ban over there, nor will there be an easily won restriction on their sale, and it wouldn't help at this stage either.

Bannasidhe · 15-12-2012 07:14PM

MadsL wrote: »

But your conclusion is that the weapons themselves are somehow to blame for it?

That is an horrific gun safety story. The fact he's a Captain and showed total disrespect of every rule of gun safety is shocking.
A chambered round is pretty much standard operating procedure so how do you "forget"???? Most police officers weapons are loaded +1, I don't get how he forgot - I assume he dropped the mag before using the damn thing as a hammer :rolleyes: I'm also suprised, given most modern autos have comprehensive mechanical devices to prevent such an accidental discharge if the pistol is dropped.

My point was clear - the sheer commonness of guns has resulted in a casual approach to them. Small children are taught to shoot - I don't know about you but I certainly wouldn't hand my 6 year old granddaughter one of my boning or filleting knives so she can 'learn'.

Yes, no-one has ever denied that. That's why most people own one. What they kill depends on circumstances. A mother alone with a baby recently used one to kill someone breaking into her house armed with a large hunting knife after he stalked her and killed her two dogs. She did so on the phone to 911. She was grateful for her killing machine. Was she in the wrong?

Can you really not see the flaw in this argument? It's just a variation on 'Everyone needs a gun to protect themselves from other people with guns'. Let's take the guns out of the equation = less shootings.

What about all those cases where people have shot members of their family thinking they were burglars?

Do you lock them up to protect the knives or to protect others from them?
I'm assuming you would never use one as a hammer?
What are the other uses by the way, other than cutting and crushing things?

Both actually.
They are expensive tools and should be treated as such.
They are very dangerous in the hands of those who do not know how to use them.

I find I need to cut things on a regular basis - I haven't shot a gun in many years and can honestly say I haven't ever had the need to. I do use knives everyday - guns- don't need one at all. Apples/oranges.

That is really beneath you, you are an intelligent poster. You know well that I am not arguing that point.

I am intelligent enough to see a sly dig

- you brought up the 'part of American history/ingrained' argument - I simply extended that same argument to an area (racial prejudice) few respectable people would now support - yet in my own life time they did.
I would respectfully say using an 'That's the way it has always been' argument is beneath you.

Nodin · 15-12-2012 07:19PM

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.

+1

MadsL · 15-12-2012 07:24PM

Dave! wrote: »

Lack of guns probably wouldn't have stopped him going on a rampage, but it would have made it more difficult for him to kill so many people. Case in point, the dude in China who went on a rampage, except instead of a gun he had a knife, and no-one died. Yes you could kill lots of people with a knife, or a bat, or a spoon, but it's a lot less convenient. Maybe he just wanted to kill people - so if he couldn't get a gun, maybe he would have got a knife, or multiple knives, and killed his mother, then a few other people, and then himself.

Few further reasons why guns are bad:

- You can easily kill someone instantly by shooting them in the head. You can't really do that with other weapons unless you get lucky or you have good knowledge of human anatomy.
- It's hard to take down someone who has a gun (unless you have one - a great argument that the gun lobby like to use in the States), but not too hard with other weapons, particularly if there are a few of you. A couple of male teachers might have been around.
- You can kill someone with a gun before they can raise an alarm or try and lock you out. I believe the gunman in this case got in legitimately, but locked doors and windows might have limited his access a bit if he had a knife, cos you can't knife people from afar.

We know guns are 'bad' mmmkay...the issue isn't banning gun sales, that could be easily achieved. The issue is the 16 million currently in circulation. Without changing each and every state constitution a gun ban just isn't going to work.

A gun sales ban will lead to stockpiling in the run up to the ban, and any attempt to remove guns from the public will lead to "cold, dead hands" standoffs and Waco situations.

Remember that I live in a state which has only been part of the US for a hundred years, where towns still elect their law enforcement (sheriffs and deputies), and we have a state militia consisting of the citizenry.. Most people here see keeping law and order on their property as part of their responsibility, owning a gun is very much part of that. People own guns here in some respects because they are feel responsible to protect their family, community, church* or town. My local firefighters are still unpaid volunteers!

*I know a deacon who brings his gun to his church as part of his role to protect the welfare of his congregation.

Bannasidhe · 15-12-2012 07:26PM

My son has an interesting solution - Americans have the right to bare arms - defined as weapons. They have no such defined right to possess bullets. So make the bullets prohibitively expensive.

If each bullet costs a few hundred dollars people would be bloody careful about when they used them.

Stercus Accidit · 15-12-2012 07:31PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My son has an interesting solution - Americans have the right to bare arms - defined as weapons. They have no such defined right to possess bullets. So make the bullets prohibitively expensive.

If each bullet costs a few hundred dollars people would be bloody careful about when they used them.

So the wealthy will shoot the poor? Doesn't America have enough problems with skewed wealth and power as it is?

Bannasidhe · 15-12-2012 07:38PM

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

So the wealthy will shoot the poor? Doesn't America have enough problems with skewed wealth and power as it is?

I said it was interesting. I don't recall saying I agreed.

MadsL · 15-12-2012 07:55PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My point was clear - the sheer commonness of guns has resulted in a casual approach to them. Small children are taught to shoot - I don't know about you but I certainly wouldn't hand my 6 year old granddaughter one of my boning or filleting knives so she can 'learn'.

When do you plan to teach her how to handle a sharp knife safety? I'm sure you will at some point. You will do it in a safe, controlled, manner. Just as many parents and grandparents teach their kids how to safely use a firearm and join in with family recreations such as hunting.

Can you really not see the flaw in this argument? It's just a variation on 'Everyone needs a gun to protect themselves from other people with guns'. Let's take the guns out of the equation = less shootings.

Of course I can see the flaw, I just can't see the way to remove all guns from American society? Can you?

What about all those cases where people have shot members of their family thinking they were burglars?

People have sadly backed over kids in SUVs. They still sell them.

Both actually.
They are expensive tools and should be treated as such.
They are very dangerous in the hands of those who do not know how to use them.

Would you support a law requiring them to be locked up?

I find I need to cut things on a regular basis - I haven't shot a gun in many years and can honestly say I haven't ever had the need to. I do use knives everyday - guns- don't need one at all. Apples/oranges.

I haven't had to use my backup generator yet. Still have one.
I also enjoy eating quail, I find they run away from me when I try to catch them however.

I am intelligent enough to see a sly dig - you brought up the 'part of American history/ingrained' argument - I simply extended that same argument to an area (racial prejudice) few respectable people would now support - yet in my own life time they did.
I would respectfully say using an 'That's the way it has always been' argument is beneath you.

Fair point. Change is not easy. Changing segregation was a very tough battle and took many years. It also affect millions of people. Maybe gun abuse could be tackled over decades, I just don't share your optimism that it can be done.

MadsL · 15-12-2012 07:59PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My son has an interesting solution - Americans have the right to bare arms - defined as weapons. They have no such defined right to possess bullets. So make the bullets prohibitively expensive.

If each bullet costs a few hundred dollars people would be bloody careful about when they used them.

And gun owners would be less accurate through lack of practice. Chris Rock made it funny, but it doesn't make it a practical suggestion.

If people are going to own guns, you want them as trained and rsponsible as possible. That is why you have to pass a shooting test to concealed carry and retest every 2-3 years.

Mark Hamill · 15-12-2012 07:59PM

Blay wrote: »

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.

Its moronic to point out that you aren't even attempting to be consistent with your position? There are underlying issues that result in people abusing alcohol and drink driving, but nobody says "banning drink-driving (regulating alcohol) wont address the underlying issues, so there's no point". Its possible to both regulate alcohol, or guns, while at the same time trying to deal with the underlying issue of alcohol abuse, or mental illness. Not doing both is moronic.

Mark Hamill · 15-12-2012 08:00PM

MadsL wrote: »

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

Who said anything about banning? I thought we were talking about regulation, or control.

Evade · 15-12-2012 08:02PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

When is this picture from? There hasn't been a West Germany for a long time.

nagirrac · 15-12-2012 08:22PM

America is awash with guns, so of course easy access to them is an issue and needs to be better regulated. Ironic that his mother felt the need to have 3 or more high power guns in the house, for protection I assume (in one of the the safest suburbs of a relatively crime free state), and had her face blown off by her son.

Outside of the gun issue, the larger issue here is mental health and how it is treated. I live in surburban America and the number of kids here who are "troubled" and on meds is frightening. There is a pattern that has emerged for the past 20 years, kid has a problem, parents are clueless (or divorced, another factor in why the kid is fcuked up) and take him to the psychiaterist where he gets loaded up with anti-depressants. In truth parents just want their kids to be "normal" and like everyone else, another part of the problem. This is a massive "experiment" as nobody knows what the long term impact is on the developing brains of teenagers after years of drug use. Ritalin and anti-depressants are handed out like candy here. A lot of the same kids self medicate with illegal drugs so they are on a cocktail of legal and illegal substances. I have seen some of the results of these experiments and they are like walking zombies, but never mind the shrink got his $150 per visit and the drug companies get to sell bucketloads of their "legal" medicine. All to make the kid "better".

There is no doubt anti-depressants help a lot of people but I genuinely worry about what they are doing to the developing brains of teenagers. There is a culture in American society that pills take care of everything, that thinking may be coming back to bite us in the ass.

Bannasidhe · 15-12-2012 08:53PM

I don't recall saying I think guns should be banned outright.

I do recall advocating far stricter controls.

No household needs multiple semi-automatic and automatic weapons for protection unless they are living in a war zone. Are they maybe expecting an 'Injun' attack or the British to try and regain control?

The way this debate is going where saying Strictly control the sale of weapons somehow gets spun into accusations that people are saying Ban them completely reminds me of the debates on Abortion where those saying Legislate according to the 1992 Referendum are accused of demanding abortion on demand.

Bannasidhe · 15-12-2012 09:30PM

Evade wrote: »

When is this picture from? There hasn't been a West Germany for a long time.

Talk to Richard Branson - he is the one who Twitted it.

Would you care to find me a year- just one single year - when the combined deaths by handguns in the countries listed (feel free to include the unified Germany) amounted to half or more of those in the US alone?

When you do I will see your comment as more than a mere quibble.

MadsL · 15-12-2012 10:23PM

nagirrac wrote: »

America is awash with guns, so of course easy access to them is an issue and needs to be better regulated. Ironic that his mother felt the need to have 3 or more high power guns in the house, for protection I assume (in one of the the safest suburbs of a relatively crime free state), and had her face blown off by her son.

Protection from whom would be the question. I don't think we have heard even half of the story about why this kid had so much rage.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I don't recall saying I think guns should be banned outright.

I do recall advocating far stricter controls.

OK. Fair point, what controls to you advocate?

And would you anser my question about if you would support a law requiring chefs knives to be locked up, and restrictions on where and when they can be used?

No household needs multiple semi-automatic and automatic weapons for protection unless they are living in a war zone. Are they maybe expecting an 'Injun' attack or the British to try and regain control?

Lets see. This wouldn't be an uncommon set of tools, much like you have more than one knife as a chef, which you could also use for 'protection'.

Semi-auto .22 or .17hmr - Rabbit/Rodent/Crow control
Pump or semi-auto 20 gauge. Quail, small game birds.
Pump or semi-auto 12 gauge. Pheasant, larger game birds, possible coyotes, deer at a push
Pump or semi-auto 12 gauge short barrel tactical short barrel with a flashlight. Home Defence
Short action .243 Winchester and .308 Winchester deer rifle. Deer hunting.
Long range rifle for deer hunting over 200 yards.

Who said anything about having multiple tools for protection? Although if you have a large property that AR-15 is a very versatile weapon. Hunting, pest control and home defence all on one platform. Shotgun is probably better though.

The way this debate is going where saying Strictly control the sale of weapons somehow gets spun into accusations that people are saying Ban them completely reminds me of the debates on Abortion where those saying Legislate according to the 1992 Referendum are accused of demanding abortion on demand.

So what controls would mollify those who say gun control is the only way to prevent such tragedies?

Gbear · 15-12-2012 10:38PM

How about only allow non-automatic guns - breachloading shotguns for example.

Probably harder to go on a rampage but still good enough to shoot an intruder in the face.

If there's enough people attacking your house that you require an assault rifle you're probably ****ed anyway.

It's a valid point that there's ****loads of guns in circulation anyway but that doesn't mean you just give up. Even if it means making it safer 100 years down the road that's better than the status quo.

Bannasidhe · 15-12-2012 11:04PM

MadsL wrote: »

OK. Fair point, what controls to you advocate?

Off the top of my head:

All guns to require a licence and a discharged bullet sample to be filed so a ballistics match is simple.

No gun may be transferred or sold on without a change in ownership (and new owner having necessary license) being filed. Failure to file a sale or report loss of weapon to result in loss of licence.

Severely limited sale of automatic weapons to those who have undergone mandatory advanced training. Any conviction for any crime to result in loss of licence.

Gun-Ed to be mandatory for those who wish to obtain a licence - must be over 12. Age limits to apply to types of weapons allowed.

Mandatory psych. test as part of Gun-Ed.

Limit on number of weapons per household.

All semi-automatic and automatic weapons to be stored in a secure room/storage which is annually inspected. Failure to do so should result in loss of licence.

If license is suspended for any reason may not re-apply for a set period.

3 losses of licence result in permanent ban.

Possession of unlicensed gun to carry mandatory jail sentence.

And would you anser my question about if you would support a law requiring chefs knives to be locked up, and restrictions on where and when they can be used?

I did answer your question when I said that knives are tools used by every household in every country in the world every day. This in no way equates to guns. It's apples and oranges and you know it so please stop with this absurd comparison.

Few households in Europe (for example) have guns - all have knives - yet we all seem to manage fine.

Lets see. This wouldn't be an uncommon set of tools, much like you have more than one knife as a chef, which you could also use for 'protection'.

Semi-auto .22 or .17hmr - Rabbit/Rodent/Crow control
Pump or semi-auto 20 gauge. Quail, small game birds.
Pump or semi-auto 12 gauge. Pheasant, larger game birds, possible coyotes, deer at a push
Pump or semi-auto 12 gauge short barrel tactical short barrel with a flashlight. Home Defence
Short action .243 Winchester and .308 Winchester deer rifle. Deer hunting.
Long range rifle for deer hunting over 200 yards.

Who said anything about having multiple tools for protection? Although if you have a large property that AR-15 is a very versatile weapon. Hunting, pest control and home defence all on one platform. Shotgun is probably better though.

One needs to have all of these available in one's home in the US eh? Wow - I am amazed so many members of my family have survived there for generations without having as much as a BB gun in their homes.

Why not add some surface to air missiles to take care of those pesky crop eating birds while you are about it?

Or a tank? Hell, that's just a mobile gun with built in protection.

I know - LAND MINES!

So what controls would mollify those who say gun control is the only way to prevent such tragedies?

You will have to ask them. I have said that stricter controls will make tragedies such as this less likely as it will restrict access to high powered weapons. I never said it was the only way just that it is an important step.

You seem to be trying to push me into an absolutist position I do not hold to further your argument. Please do not do that.

I am not anti-gun. I am anti-freely available guns with little or no restrictions, no training, no mandatory testing etc etc.

In the same way as I do not believe that a person should be able to just buy a car and drive off - the US doesn't allow that so why does it have a situation in some States one can just pop in and buy a lethal weapon?

Witcher · 15-12-2012 11:11PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Off the top of my head:

All guns to require a licence and a discharged bullet sample to be filed so a ballistics match is simple.

No gun may be transferred or sold on without a change in ownership (and new owner having necessary license) being filed. Failure to file a sale or report loss of weapon to result in loss of licence.

Severely limited sale of automatic weapons to those who have undergone mandatory advanced training. Any conviction for any crime to result in loss of licence.

Gun-Ed to be mandatory for those who wish to obtain a licence - must be over 12. Age limits to apply to types of weapons allowed.

Mandatory psych. test as part of Gun-Ed.

Limit on number of weapons per household.

All semi-automatic and automatic weapons to be stored in a secure room/storage which is annually inspected. Failure to do so should result in loss of licence.

The highlighted restrictions aren't even enforced in Ireland...haven't a hope of implementing them in the US.

Bannasidhe · 15-12-2012 11:16PM

Blay wrote: »

The highlighted restrictions aren't even enforced in Ireland...haven't a hope of implementing them in the US.

We haven't had numerous mass murders in Ireland either.

There have been at least 62 in the last 30 years in the U.S. —and most of the killers got their guns legally.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

It is absurd that greater restrictions are placed on driving then gun ownership.

Witcher · 15-12-2012 11:19PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We haven't had numerous mass murders in Ireland either.

There have been at least 62 in the last 30 years in the U.S. —and most of the killers got their guns legally.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

I'm not debating murder rates with ya, I stated those restrictions will never be implemented in the US. They won't accept restrictions that aren't even imposed on shooters in states where firearms are strictly controlled.

MadsL · 15-12-2012 11:34PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Off the top of my head:

All guns to require a licence and a discharged bullet sample to be filed so a ballistics match is simple.

I would support it, but barrels are easily changed. Wouldn't prevent rampages.

No gun may be transferred or sold on without a change in ownership (and new owner having necessary license) being filed. Failure to file a sale or report loss of weapon to result in loss of licence.

A background check is already required. I think this may just be a paperwork creating exercise. Wouldn't prevent rampages.

Severely limited sale of automatic weapons to those who have undergone mandatory advanced training. Any conviction for any crime to result in loss of licence.

You need a federal firearms dealers licence for full-auto weapons. Wouldn't prevent rampages.

Gun-Ed to be mandatory for those who wish to obtain a licence - must be over 12. Age limits to apply to types of weapons allowed.

Concealed carry permits already require this, and restrict calibres according a competence test. Could be extended but will run into constitutional challenges as we will see below. Wouldn't prevent rampages.

Mandatory psych. test as part of Gun-Ed.

Who would pay for it? If the prospective owner then it will probably face a constitutional challenge as a tax on gun ownership. If the Govt pays it will cost a fortune federally. Might prevent rampages, but not those who subsequently 'snap'.

Limit on number of weapons per household.

How does limiting the numbers make sense? you can only fire one gun at a time, at best two. Would the limit be set at one? Then I have to choose between hunting and home defence? Wouldn't prevent rampages.

All semi-automatic and automatic weapons to be stored in a secure room/storage which is annually inspected. Failure to do so should result in loss of licence.

Or you could make gun owners liable for crimes committed with unsecured weapons. Kinda hard to haul a gun safe in my Prius though. Might prevent rampages but makes owning a gun kinda pointless if you are not allowed to bring it anywhere.

If license is suspended for any reason may not re-apply for a set period.

3 losses of licence result in permanent ban.

No issues there, felons are not allowed to touch weapons anyway. Make it a 3 strikes penalty

Possession of unlicensed gun to carry mandatory jail sentence.

Yes, locking even more people up for victim-less crimes is what America needs.

I did answer your question when I said that knives are tools used by every household in every country in the world every day. This in no way equates to guns. It's apples and oranges and you know it so please stop with this absurd comparison.

How is it absurd? Ireland has the highest rate of knife crime in Europe, a Chinese guy went on a rampage in a school with one. Knives kill people. Frequently. So, for the third time of asking, would you support a law requiring knives to be locked up. You admitted you lock your own up, why not have a law about it?

Few households in Europe (for example) have guns - all have knives - yet we all seem to manage fine.

Most household in Switzerland have guns, they also seem to manage fine.

One needs to have all of these available in one's home in the US eh? Wow - I am amazed so many members of my family have survived there for generations without having as much as a BB gun in their homes.

I didn't say that you "need" all these to survive. I said this range of guns was not an "uncommon" range of tools used by Americans.

Why not add some surface to air missiles to take care of those pesky crop eating birds while you are about it?

Or a tank? Hell, that's just a mobile gun with built in protection.

I know - LAND MINES!

You were doing well, why do you feel the need to descent into childish parody now?

You will have to ask them. I have said that stricter controls will make tragedies such as this less likely as it will restrict access to high powered weapons. I never said it was the only way just that it is an important step.

I've shown you above that your suggested control will not end rampages.

You seem to be trying to push me into an absolutist position I do not hold to further your argument. Please do not do that.

Then please don't caricature my position as supporting landmines!

I am not anti-gun. I am anti-freely available guns with little or no restrictions, no training, no mandatory testing etc etc.

Could I suggest a little reading on the current gun laws in the US. You will find quite a few restrictions, background checks, required training and testing etc.

In the same way as I do not believe that a person should be able to just buy a car and drive off - the US doesn't allow that

The only check is a drivers licence and a report to the IRS of the purchase.

so why does it have a situation in some States one can just pop in and buy a lethal weapon?

The checks are almost exactly the same as your car scenario, ID plus a background check. What is your point? And which States are you complaining about?

Bannasidhe · 15-12-2012 11:41PM

Blay wrote: »

I'm not debating murder rates with ya, I stated those restrictions will never be implemented in the US. They won't accept restrictions that aren't even imposed on shooters in states where firearms are strictly controlled.

Then their children will continue to die in senseless ways.

There comes a point when a halt has to be called but if people throw their hand up in the air and say 'oh, they will never accept that' then the alternative is they will have to accept the deaths of more children, more teenagers, more people eating a MacD's or shopping in the local Mall, or pumping gas as a fact of life and one of the prices to pay for living in America...

They will have to learn to live with the knowledge that they or their children could be blown away by someone with a grudge against whatever who never gets closer then a few feet. They will most likely never see it coming - their killer may be on the roof of a building, or in a car, or have just walked through the door but their killer's right to bear arms trumps everyone else's right to 'life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness'.

I do find it interesting how so many of the people who shriek the loudest about the right to own as many lethal weapons as one desires are often the same people who shriek abortion is murder and call themselves 'pro-life.'

MadsL · 15-12-2012 11:44PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I do find it interesting how so many of the people who shriek the loudest about the right to own as many lethal weapons as one desires are often the same people who shriek abortion is murder and call themselves 'pro-life.'

Let's not pull abortion into it, please. And as you know, I do not fall into the 'pro-life' camp.

Bannasidhe · 16-12-2012 12:07AM

MadsL wrote: »

I would support it, but barrels are easily changed. Wouldn't prevent rampages.

A background check is already required. I think this may just be a paperwork creating exercise. Wouldn't prevent rampages.

You need a federal firearms dealers licence for full-auto weapons. Wouldn't prevent rampages.

Concealed carry permits already require this, and restrict calibres according a competence test. Could be extended but will run into constitutional challenges as we will see below. Wouldn't prevent rampages.

Who would pay for it? If the prospective owner then it will probably face a constitutional challenge as a tax on gun ownership. If the Govt pays it will cost a fortune federally. Might prevent rampages, but not those who subsequently 'snap'.

How does limiting the numbers make sense? you can only fire one gun at a time, at best two. Would the limit be set at one? Then I have to choose between hunting and home defence? Wouldn't prevent rampages.

Or you could make gun owners liable for crimes committed with unsecured weapons. Kinda hard to haul a gun safe in my Prius though. Might prevent rampages but makes owning a gun kinda pointless if you are not allowed to bring it anywhere.

No issues there, felons are not allowed to touch weapons anyway. Make it a 3 strikes penalty

Yes, locking even more people up for victim-less crimes is what America needs.

How is it absurd? Ireland has the highest rate of knife crime in Europe, a Chinese guy went on a rampage in a school with one. Knives kill people. Frequently. So, for the third time of asking, would you support a law requiring knives to be locked up. You admitted you lock your own up, why not have a law about it?

Most household in Switzerland have guns, they also seem to manage fine.

I didn't say that you "need" all these to survive. I said this range of guns was not an "uncommon" range of tools used by Americans.

You were doing well, why do you feel the need to descent into childish parody now?

I've shown you above that your suggested control will not end rampages.

Then please don't caricature my position as supporting landmines!

Could I suggest a little reading on the current gun laws in the US. You will find quite a few restrictions, background checks, required training and testing etc.

The only check is a drivers licence and a report to the IRS of the purchase.

The checks are almost exactly the same as your car scenario, ID plus a background check. What is your point? And which States are you complaining about?

So what this all boils down to is you want to have your guns? Your right to bear arms trumps other people's right to live seems to be your stance. Better the crazies can get the guns then you should be restricted. Lovely.

Current guns laws vary from State to State and we both know it.
Have a look at Alabama where there are essentially no restriction and Arizona and Arkansas... - hell, just have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Alabama

As there are no border checks between States it is a simple matter to go and buy one where the restrictions are few plus State and Local police are not required to enforced Federal restrictions (as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court Printz v. United States). How am I so sure? I have a lot of cops in my family living in Mass/NY/FL/CA- they do like to tell their war stories.

Still with the Apples and Oranges - how many mass murders have been committed by one or even two assailants with knives exactly?

22 children were injured in China - they were not murdered.

How does one get a drivers license then - no tests? No Drivers-Ed in High School? It it just bring ID fill in a form and wait three days? We both know that is not the case.

Why not landmines? If you really want to 'protect' your property is it not a logical step to prevent intruders? If one's property is large it would be impossible to protect it all even with a shed full of top of the range automatics. Landmines around the perimeter and any invader will be blown to kingdom come.

Bannasidhe · 16-12-2012 12:09AM

MadsL wrote: »

Let's not pull abortion into it, please. And as you know, I do not fall into the 'pro-life' camp.

Didn't say you did.

But you have to admit many of your NRA fellow gun enthusiasts do - does that observation make you uncomfortable?

MadsL · 16-12-2012 12:19AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So what this all boils down to is you want to have your guns? Your right to bear arms trumps other people's right to live seems to be your stance. Better the crazies can get the guns then you should be restricted. Lovely.

I thought we were having a discussion. Now you want to make it a personal attack? I don't currently own any guns. I'm quite partial to Quail though and probably will buy a shotgun soon for those tasty treats. Should I be allowed?

Current guns laws vary from State to State and we both know it.

Yes. That's how America works.

Have a look at Alabama where there are essentially no restriction and Arizona and Arkansas... - hell, just have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Alabama

As there are no border checks between States it is a simple matter to go and buy one where the restrictions are few plus State and Local police are not required to enforced Federal restrictions (as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court Printz v. United States). How am I so sure? I have a lot of cops in my family living in Mass/NY/FL/CA- they do like to tell their war stories.

Then you should read up on if an out-of-state resident can buy a gun in another state.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html#out-of-state-firearm
Not quite the same as the picture you are painting.

Still with the Apples and Oranges - how many mass murders have been committed by one or even two assailants with knives exactly?

How many with bombs?

22 children were injured in China - they were not murdered.

Why do you keep dodging a simple question about locking up knives, you admit they are dangerous, why not pass a law to lock them away?

How does one get a drivers license then - no tests? No Drivers-Ed in High School? It it just bring ID fill in a form and wait three days? We both know that is not the case.

It's how I got mine, two proofs of residency, a multi-choice test and my old Irish license. What is the point you are making again? It is hard to buy a car?

Why not landmines? If you really want to 'protect' your property is it not a logical step to prevent intruders? If one's property is large it would be impossible to protect it all even with a shed full of top of the range automatics. Landmines around the perimeter and any invader will be blown to kingdom come.

Nothing to stop me boobytrapping my land. Apart from the court case when I blow up my neighbour. And me forgetting where I put them. Oh, and because it is stupidly irresponsible and breaks one of the laws of gun safety "know your target, and what is beyond it".

Bannasidhe · 16-12-2012 12:59AM

MadsL wrote: »

I thought we were having a discussion. Now you want to make it a personal attack? I don't currently own any guns. I'm quite partial to Quail though and probably will buy a shotgun soon for those tasty treats. Should I be allowed?

I apologize if I misinterpreted you. That was the way your posts read to me.
Yes, but I do not think you should be able to go into Wal-Mart and just buy one without any restrictions. Do you?

Quail with a shotgun? :eek: Won't be much left to eat...

Yes. That's how America works.

Have a look at Alabama where there are essentially no restriction and Arizona and Arkansas... - hell, just have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Alabama

Then you should read up on if an out-of-state resident can buy a gun in another state.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html#out-of-state-firearm
Not quite the same as the picture you are painting.

62 mass killings in 30 years with mainly legally held weapons is not my idea of 'working'.

My cop cousins tell it different.

You painted a picture of it being difficult for people to get a gun with all of these restrictions in place - the gun laws say otherwise.

How many with bombs?

Now we are adding lemons to the apple/orange fruit salad?

Why do you keep dodging a simple question about locking up knives, you admit they are dangerous, why not pass a law to lock them away?

I am not dodging anything. We are discussing gun laws in the US in the light of yet another mass murder where the killer used legally held guns apparently belonging to his mother. He did not use a knife.
If he had killed all of those people with knives we would be talking about knives.

Although how logistically he could have is a bit of a mystery...

I am bloody good with knives, I can skin and butcher a whole deer in 20 minutes flat without effort (someone timed me last week - I used to be faster but it's been a long time). I did 4 deer in 1 hour 15 minutes including coffee break but there is no way I could kill over 20 screaming, panicked people with the ease that 1 gunman with 2 pistols can - see, knives require up close and personal. Flesh is hard to penetrate. Knives get stuck. Blood makes the handle both sticky and slippy. Very messy. Very inefficient.

Guns - just point and pull the trigger. Nice and safely far away with no effort required. Bang - your dead.

It's how I got mine, two proofs of residency, a multi-choice test and my old Irish license. What is the point you are making again? It is hard to buy a car?

See that highlighted bit. Not quite the same as average American kid is it? They have to do Drivers-Ed and test - a test just like you did to get your Irish licence which you then swapped. I did the same for my current Irish licence - I swapped my Australian one. Bloody Aussie's made me do the test again as well as swap my Irish one.

Nothing to stop me boobytrapping my land. Apart from the court case when I blow up my neighbour. And me forgetting where I put them. Oh, and because it is stupidly irresponsible and breaks one of the laws of gun safety "know your target, and what is beyond it".

But the 2nd Amendment doesn't define what constitutes 'arms'. Landmines are technically arms... but their use is restricted. So why not restrict semi auto and auto guns?

If your landmines which are spread within the perimeter of your property blow up your neighbour isn't that because he was trespassing? You would just be protecting your property after all - as long as people keep off it, no problem.

Obviously you would have a map of their locations - first rule of landmine safety is having a map of where they are.

robindch · 16-12-2012 01:34AM

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.

That argument is one of the reasons why this topic is appropriate to this forum.

Many atheists will claim that, say, the levels of religiously-inspired conflict would decrease drastically if religion didn't exist to divide people down fake lines. The usual religious response is something along the lines of what you've written here, namely, that if people weren't killing each other with X, they'd be doing it with Y instead, with the assumption that it'll be happening at the same rate and the same degree of barbarity. That's not the case at all, as the inevitable, unpleasant comparison with the knife-weilding chinese nutter makes clear. Different topic, same argument though.

Or in the simpler terms that the NRA might be able to comprehend, the world's militaries use automatic and semi-automatic ballistic weapons because their soldiers can murder more people with them, than they can with knives or cleft sticks - that in itself should be all the evidence that anybody needs to decide this question.

.

nagirrac · 16-12-2012 04:06AM

robindch wrote: »

Many atheists will claim that, say, the levels of religiously-inspired conflict would decrease drastically if religion didn't exist to divide people down fake lines. The usual religious response is something along the lines of what you've written here, namely, that if people weren't killing each other with X, they'd be doing it with Y instead, with the assumption that it'll be happening at the same rate and the same degree of barbarity. That's not the case at all, as the inevitable, unpleasant comparison with the knife-weilding chinese nutter makes clear. Different topic, same argument though.

Except for the fact that the evidence is the opposite of what you are suggesting. The most frequent and brutal mass killings in the 20th century, which are orders of magnitude over killings in previous centuries, were perpetrated by atheist-inspired regimes. There have been 28 Marxist-atheist inspired regimes since 1917 and between them they have slaughtered well over 100M of their own people (not wars between countries). As for the typical atheist response "it was not because they were atheist", well, that's about as valid as slaughters perpetrated by religions were "not because they were religious". The evidence is that atheist inspired regimes are far more efficient in barbarity, and clearly it wasn't Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot carrying out the killing but those that were convinced by their leaders that their was no God. Whether atheists like it or not, take belief in God out of the human equation and carnage appears to follow.

The main issue in the US relating to rampage killings is mental health and a complete lack of moral compass. Regardless of the lunatic fringe minority of religious fanatics the pursuit of the almighty $ has replaced God for the majority. Kids are the victims as in the insane drive for material gain, kids are the ones to lose out.

It is absurd to suggest that the main issue is gun control. It is more correct to say it is the exact same issue as increasing suicide rates among the young in Ireland i.e. a complete breakdown of mental health. It also appears once you make the decision that you hate yourself enough to end your life, the US experience is the decision to take lots of people with you becomes an easier step. It's absolutely true that easy access to guns is a factor in carrying out the rampage, but the poster you reponded to is also absolutely correct, if the will to carry out mass killing is there, the means will be found.

Gun control in the USA

Comments