Gun control

[Reeve of Shinra]

1 - I don't get why the very people arguing for stricter gun control are not holding politicians accountable for Project Gun Runner and the other fiasco's like it.

2 -A similar incident occurred in Tazmania (guns were always illegal there as I understand it) yet the Australian government issued a buy back program anyway to get whatever guns were around off the streets. According to FACT Check.org, they are stating that there is no conclusive evidence these actions helped.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

 

[Aarmin]

Look at the successful gun control laws around the world for your answer. ...

Measures of gun-control success do not correlate with neither increases or decreases in murders or even mass murders. There just isn't any connection. Many countries have government and cultures that very from our own. Russia's murder rate is twice and even three times higher than the US but they very strict gun laws. Handguns, semi-auto and full-auto rifles are prohibited; they use to (maybe still do) sweep buildings looking for firearms... no warrant searching papers required (not much freedom in Russia). Brazil, don't even get me start.

Culture that's facilitating the violence

 

[Aarmin]

Mainstream media is in full string for more gun control or bans...

Just look one of the random shooting back in April; Kiarron Parker deranged and high on drugs crashed his car outside of the New Destiny Church in Colorado. The pastor's mother rushed out the church and he shot and killed her for no apparent reason. Then Kiarron started to enter the Church when the pastor's cousin Antonio Milow shot and killed Parker. Antonio was on off-duty cop and was legally carrying a gun, otherwise who knows who else would have died.

The media is barely reporting it, and the frustrating thing is the off-duty cop, Antonio Milow has very little publicity. Sometimes a news article doesn't even mention him, or the life(s) he may have saved. If every off-duty cop and every private citizen who shot a killer made a splash on the order of James Holmes or Adam Lanza the whole drift of discourse about firearms might swamp the politicians who are braying about the need to confiscate all guns not belonging to the government... and they just can't have that happen.

 

[Reeve of Shinra]

I think I understand the problem to some extent. If I lived in a country where everyone possessed a firearm then I probably wouldn't want to give mine up either but I'd rather live in a country where nobody owns a firearm or just as importantly, wants to own a firearm.

It's not that ... I do not own a gun and frankly, I never would own one but it is a protected right under the US constitution. While the face of warefare has changed over the last 200 years, it was expected that if a foreign country were to invade, the people would stand up and assist in the protection of the country. In other words, as American's, we are expected to take action when a situation arises, whether its a psycho in a mall, a person in distress on the street, or a foreign attack. Many people on both sides of the debate forget this.

One final note, .... if the guy did not have access to a firearm, and he still intended to commit harm that day, could he have come up with a more devastating means of doing so that would have injured many more innocents? That's the question no one really wants to ask. Is it better to let the looney's have the guns because any non-fatal wound could be treated better than say the IED's our soldiers overseas face?

 

[Fred Sherman]

Look at the successful gun control laws around the world for your answer.

No need for weapons that can be quickly reloaded. Those are combat weapons.

An AR-15 comes with a standard 20 round magazine. Is that too large? What about my Glock 17? The magazine capacity is 17 rounds of 9mm ammo. Too large? What number? And how is it not arbitrary?

PS Reminding everyone that Obama got Bush Sr's best friend Bin Laden in three years while the Bushes were either feeding him cash and weapons or chasing him around for the previous 12 years has the opposite effect of what you want.

Neither Bush II nor Obama get the credit. Obama opposed killing Bin Laden and cancelled the operation twice. To his credit, Obama continued the intelligence operations Bush II put in place, but the real hero was then CIA director Leon Panetta. Without divulging too many details, he put the operation in place so that by the time Obama was briefed in, it was already underway.

 

[Fred Sherman]

It's not that ... I do not own a gun and frankly, I never would own one but it is a protected right under the US constitution. While the face of warefare has changed over the last 200 years, it was expected that if a foreign country were to invade, the people would stand up and assist in the protection of the country. In other words, as American's, we are expected to take action when a situation arises, whether its a psycho in a mall, a person in distress on the street, or a foreign attack. Many people on both sides of the debate forget this.

One final note, .... if the guy did not have access to a firearm, and he still intended to commit harm that day, could he have come up with a more devastating means of doing so that would have injured many more innocents? That's the question no one really wants to ask. Is it better to let the looney's have the guns because any non-fatal wound could be treated better than say the IED's our soldiers overseas face?

And not just against foreign countries, but also our own should the need ever arise. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. An armed citizenry enables good men to do something. The next Hitler will never rise up out of our country.

 

[Jake Bunce]

And not just against foreign countries, but also our own should the need ever arise. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. An armed citizenry enables good men to do something. The next Hitler will never rise up out of our country.

Lots of murderers see themselves as fighting evil. If I judge you to be evil can I kill you?

Also, I call Godwin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

[Aarmin]

Lots of murderers see themselves as fighting evil. If I judge you to be evil can I kill you?

Also, I call Godwin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

sorry

 

[SchmitzIT]

Well, I'm European, and I'd not mind less strict gun control.

In Holland, where I'm from, we have strict gun control laws. Yet, some kid with a license managed to go on a shooting spree not too long ago.

The Dutch population at some point decided that they would outsource their security to the police force, and thus the only people in Holland allowed to carry guns are police officers, military, and those who use guns for hunting or leisure. The last category have to allow law enforcement officers into their house at any given point of the day in order for them to verify the weapons are stored securely.

Unfortunately, the Dutch police force is at the moment more concerned with writing out traffic tickets than dealing with criminals, and trust in the police force has dropped to an all-time low. It's so bad that a lot of crime is not even reported anymore, because what's really the point of spending several hours of ones precious time filing a police report, when the only reply you will get is an automated report two weeks later that the police found no clues (because frankly, I'm not even sure they bother looking for any) and thus shelved your report? At the same time, authorities use the decrease in reports to "prove" crime is on the decline and claim that "the feeling of insecurity is just a feeling".

At this moment, I think the actual amount of crimes solved in Holland is somewhat around 3% or so. Combine that with an overwhelming majority of judges who are from the hippy era, believe in second, third, and umpteenth chances, and who deny a citizen his or her right to protect him/herself, and you'll end up in a place where confronting a burglar in your home leads to burglars often being released from jail before the home owner who defended himself and his family and inadvertently injured the criminal.

The Dutch gave up gun ownership so police officers could do provide their security for them. Clearly the Dutch police force no longer wants that job, or simply is not up for it. Now what? I'd say it would be time for the Dutch to take care of their business themselves again.

 

[Fred Sherman]

Lots of murderers see themselves as fighting evil. If I judge you to be evil can I kill you?

Also, I call Godwin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

You're welcome to try.

 

[Morgain]

I am grateful for this thread because I have learned a lot. Let's see:

America made a top level law that citizens must be allowed to own guns.
At the time a gun cost a year's income. So a the time the possible level of gun ownership was low. Portable gun technology was also much less powerful.
Politically the principle was a) distrust of government (armed citizens could confront a governing group and resist injustice; and
b) society needed an armed militia for defence in various wars or conflicts taking place in North America so that its citizens were living under physical threat; or its borders.

Compare that with now and I see:
Guns cost nothing like a year's income so all but the very poorest can own one. Gun ownership is now high. Portable gun technology now enables one person to commit a massacre.
On distrust of government I have seen no evidence of serious armed resistance by Americans against their government. There are small private armies and cults but they are under observation and politically ineffectual.
America has no war happening on its half of the continent. The bombings by terrorists/ guerrillas are unaffected by armed citizens. American wars are happening far away beyond the reach of citizens' portable guns. If a war moved closer it would be quite possible to issue guns and basic train a Home Guard, as other nations have done.
I therefore see no modern justification for the original Constitutional law. The situation now is totally different.

Next we have the need for weapons manufacturers to have buyers after the Civil War. So guns were promoted as desirable for American manhood.
By now Americans are deeply conditioned to guns being a normal part of life, just as most European countries, and Australia, are deeply conditioned to guns NOT being part of normal everyday life. To each the other looks mad and it is almost impossible to imagine the other's way of life.
As in the Cold War fear of the aggressive Other has been pushed and pushed by those tha\t make money from it. The more guns are sold the more scary it really is with possible killers on every side everywhere you go. So the marketing by weapons manufacturers (that it's sensible to own a gun) is made easier and easier.
Some Americans even say a gun is "nice" and circulate pictures of them publicly.

From what people say here it is possible for teenagers, or a mere 21yrs to own a gun with very flimsy controls. A bit of easy paperwork, a basic training. Far less than a driving licence and we know that people are not vetted or trained enough to handle cars.
Secondly young people, or non-gun owners, drug addicts, or the unstable, can pretty easily get access to guns through family members who own them legally. Many are hurt or die in accidents. Many more commit suicide with these domestic guns.
There are stories of fighting off a burglar with a gun but this could also be done with a lot of household objects, as is done in other countries. A statistic wasw quoted that showed a child is at higher risk of swimming pool death, than gun death. This seems to indicate an urgent improvement in swimming training; and public education not to let children swim unsupervised.

Huge numbers are dying by these guns. Thousands and thousands compared to other Western societies where between 40 and 100 die by guns, per year (adjusted for population). Massacres are now happening quite frequently.
It is argued the removing guns will not remove violence, which is true. But other weapons do not carry the death rate that guns do, and there is more chance of defence without also using the same type of weapon.

It seems clear to me that for America to become a civilised nation where its children are not at risk of lunatics with guns, home accidents with guns, and its citizenry are not to live in everyday fear of gun users, change cannot happen overnight.A large number of people are not going to suddenly change their thinking just because children get murdered in schools. They are too deeply immersed in gun culture to do that.

People heavily habituated to gun ownership will be as resistant to adopting a healthier way of life as smokers were. I can remember when everyone smoked everywhere I went - in homes bedrooms bathrooms lounge gardens; in bars, offices, shops, streets and parks. Cigarettes were sexy just as some now think guns are. Similarly you weren't a real man without your smoke and independent women proved it by smoking. You were odd, childish and inferior if you did not smoke and much disapproved if you objected to any of it.
Just as with guns there were huge corporations making big money from a lot of people dying. It was argued as a freedom issue just as guns are now.

Yet all that has changed over 35 years.Now it is normal not to smoke and there are few places left to do it. People are a lot healthier, and living longer.
It CAN be done. People CAN learn healthier habits. But it will take time and determination.

 

[Jake Bunce]

You're welcome to try.

*bang*

Ok you're dead. Evil has been stopped.

 

[Digital Doctor]

A 1994 ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004 included a ban on ammunition magazines that held more than 10 rounds. Recent shootings, including the one Friday, have involved firearms with much more capacity, allowing a shooter to fire many more shots before having to reload, which could allow someone to intervene.

Q: Why put an expiry date on an Assault Weapons ban. Nice job letting it expire Bush !

 

[Digital Doctor]

An AR-15 comes with a standard 20 round magazine. Is that too large? What about my Glock 17? The magazine capacity is 17 rounds of 9mm ammo. Too large? What number? And how is it not arbitrary?

Yes. The max should be 10.

 

[Fred Sherman]

Yes. The max should be 10.

Why?

 

[Cal]

The thing about gun control is regulation. What will you allow to be regulated next? Cars, Knives, Baseball bats, monkey wrenches? Where does the buck stop? That's the thing about taling away rights and freedoms...once you start the allowance of such....who ends it and how much will you lose before it stops? Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Stricter gun control is the same as marijuana being illegal.....and no one smokes pot do they lol. Leave our rights alone.

 

[Mert]

What i find amazing is the need of a gun to protect your family from burglars.
In Europe , we choose to hand that job to Cops.

But guns are a subject where you can never discuss with an American. They can discuss anything but guns.

I am just sorry for you American's , your culture is based on Guns...

What is more pathetic is they proudly show picture of their guns like showing their kids picture. It is absolutely crazy...

 

[Cal]

I am just sorry for you American's , your culture is based on Guns...

You obviously have no understanding of American culture, or have ever seriously looked into it either. Many people don't have guns, and honestly guns as a topic only come up after incidents like this. Besides if America ever became as dysfunctional as Europe I don't even know what we'd do. Go do some research...stat before saying dumb things like that.

 

[BGL]

1 - I don't get why the very people arguing for stricter gun control are not holding politicians accountable for Project Gun Runner and the other fiasco's like it.

Because it has nothing to do with the issue of common sense gun laws that we see effectively used in other developed nations that result in gun deaths in the 100's vs. US "Wild West" lack of regulation and gun deaths in the 10's of 1,000's.

 

[BGL]

An AR-15 comes with a standard 20 round magazine. Is that too large? What about my Glock 17? The magazine capacity is 17 rounds of 9mm ammo. Too large? .

Yes. Too large and too fast. These are combat weapons.