[Archived] Gun Law Debate: Please keep posts civil and conversational

[thenodrog]

For those interested:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

Quite a few home truths there Steve. Namely that our gun laws go no way to preventing criminals getting hold of them but rather normal law abiding citizens. However spontaineous acts of violence by deranged lunatics are obviously less likely.

Secondly, Jim, I'm surprised you haven't been banned (again) for trolling. You seem to disagree with everyone, which is fine, but you're downright rude and obnoxious in every single post you make. Why?

Prob cos you've resigned...... btw that reminds me whatever happened to Hemel Rover? Surely the most vindictive and skewed moderator of all time?

[jim mk2]

I don't disagree with Jim on this issue, the U.S. gun culture is madness. And I'm not a troll. A school room full of infants is massacred, will this fact change anything ? Of course not. They've got the right to carry guns. That's the debate over really.

Which politician is brave enough to take on the gun lobby? The fact that the gun lobby and the right wing are defending their "rights" to bear arms even before the Newtown children are buried shows the size of the task.

Obama says he will act but he has bigger battles on his plate trying to get the rich pay a fairer share of their taxes to avoid the fiscal cliff. In the end I suspect he will let the issue quietly drop out of the headlines and nothing will change until the next atrocity and the whole debate starts all over again.

[thenodrog]

Which politician is brave enough to take on the gun lobby?

Politicians should represent their electorate and thats that. Maybe in the US the pro gun lobby is in the majority, maybe it isn't but whatever the politicians must speak for them. It is why they were elected. The fact that they dont because of fear of getting pitched off their personal gravy train is to their eternal shame.

Over here the OTT reaction and smears of the press and media and the subsequent actions of Ted Heath are why the honestly held fears and views of the people of Wolverhampton et al will never ever be aired and debated in the Commons. The failings of our democracy laid bare for all to see.

[jim mk2]

Politicians should represent their electorate and thats that.

Politicians have a duty to ensure that the nation's children can go to school and not come home in a coffin - rather more important don't you think ?

[thenodrog]

Politicians have a duty to ensure that the nation's children can go to school and not come home in a coffin - rather more important don't you think ?

One follows the other I don't want to go over old stuff but that @#/? didn't need a gun, he could have wreaked similar havoc with a machete or an axe. In this country we used to identify and isolate people with pyschological defects who were deemed dangerous to society. No doubt a few escaped the net but how many lives were saved by our actions? Now we place the 'rights' of such individuals before the safety and rights of society in general.

Is this topical enough for you?

"Stephen Farrow, 48, a homeless drifter with a history of psychiatric illness,"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/psychopath-homeless-drifter-obsessed-with-religion-found-guilty-of-murdering-vicar-and-retired-teacher-8277349.html

I would like to see the psychiatrist who deemed him not to be a danger to society struck off and stood in the dock as an accessory to murder. Maybe a job for the H&S exec?

[jim mk2]

Missing the point. The US has a gun problem that the more intelligent members of its society are beginning to acknowledge. The only way to tackle it is through leadership from the top to tackle vested interests in the gun lobby and through legislation.

[thenodrog]

Missing the point. The US has a gun problem that the more intelligent members of its society are beginning to acknowledge. The only way to tackle it is through leadership from the top to tackle vested interests in the gun lobby and through legislation.

Follow Steve Moss's links and you'll have to admit they aren't the only ones. People and glass houses springs to mind.

[jim mk2]

Perhaps Michael Bloomberg has the political will to tackle this sick society.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57559682/mayor-bloomberg-on-u.s-gun-laws-what-kind-of-craziness-is-this/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/in-the-us-chances-are-mommys-got-a-gun/article6496972/

[Steve Moss]

Politicians have a duty to ensure that the nation's children can go to school and not come home in a coffin - rather more important don't you think ?

The US does not make the list of the top 5 countries with the most firearm related murders: http://www.top5ofanything.com/index.php?h=66db25e2. Perhaps you should direct your ire there, first?

And on that point, of the world's top 5 mass murder sprees, US is 4th: http://www.top5ofanything.com/index.php?h=db8a4490. Where's the outrage? While commented upon, I don't remember a similar strand of vitriol directed toward Norway when Breivik committed his murders. Is there something else at play here?

[Adam C]

Politicians should represent their electorate and thats that.

Democracy can be defined as rule of the people, by the people and for the people. The electorate consists "of the people", democratically elected representatives are referred to in "by the people" while "for the people" refers to the need for politicians to legislate for the common good, not just for those that elected them. Politicians have a conscience and a brain capable of independent thought, and in many cases have knowledge or experience which may give them a greater insight into certain issues. That is why we elect them and often how we choose from many candidates. Sometimes in the UK MPs are allowed to vote "according to conscience" on controversial issues; I am not sure if it works the same in the US but I am sure they have an equivalent.

that kean didn't need a gun, he could have wreaked similar havoc with a machete or an axe.

With a gun all you have to do is point at something, flex your finger, and it is gone. It is far, far easier to wreak havoc with a gun than a machete or an axe. While all three are deadly weapons only a gun would allow a maniac the speed of action to massacre a room full of children. Bear in mind that this guy had more than one gun allowing him to keep firing without reloading. I think a sensible solution would be threefold -

Limit ownership of guns to one per household - This fellas mum was a survivalist with a home full of weapons. Not only is this unnecessary for home defence it shows an unhealthy obsession with killing machines. If this guy had only one gun he would not have been able to keep on killing so many.

Make ammunition prohibitively expensive and/or limit the amount purchasable - Similar to the point above, how many Americans need a mini-arsenal in their homes?

Bring the ban on automatic weapons back - I think the US used to have this ban but repealed it. It makes no sense for private citizens to be allowed to hold these weapons. They are no use for hunting and are over-powered for home defence. I have heard the argument that Americans need to have the right to bear arms in case of invasion - no privately-trained militia could stand up against a modern army, regardless of what calibre guns they are wielding.Anyway America is unlikely to be invaded given that it is a huge landmass and maintains the largest army, navy, airforce, and missile stockpile in the world.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

I thought automatic weapons were still banned. The ban on a whole range of semi-automatic weapons wasn't repealed, it just expired in 2004.

I'm not sure of the idea that a militia can't stand up to an army. The US spends more on its military than the next 5 highest-spending nations put together, but the 'insurgents' in Iraq are still there after 9 years of fighting. In Afghanistan it has been 11 years, and still the Taliban linger. Those militias aren't especially well armed, their enemy is the greatest power on earth, yet they have survived through determination. In Syria one of the most professional armies in the Middle East is having so much trouble putting down a disorganised uprising that they have long since resorted to crimes against civilians.

[Adam C]

The US does not make the list of the top 5 countries with the most firearm related murders: http://www.top5ofanything.com/index.php?h=66db25e2. Perhaps you should direct your ire there, first?

And on that point, of the world's top 5 mass murder sprees, US is 4th: http://www.top5ofanything.com/index.php?h=db8a4490. Where's the outrage? While commented upon, I don't remember a similar strand of vitriol directed toward Norway when Breivik committed his murders. Is there something else at play here?

According to this website

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

The US had 0.037 murders per 1000 in 2009, the only year I could get stats for. That places it above Mexico and in 4th place, just behind Zimbabwe. I'd be sceptical about the research that goes into the "top 5 of everything" website in the first place but as we are using it as a method of comparison it is very strange that a economically and industrially advanced nation like the USA is anywhere near the top 5. Mexico and Colombia are paralysed by drug wars and plagued with the powerful armies of drug cartels. Zimbabwe is a military dictatorship with massive social and economic problems and a violent recent history. Thailand has a military coup every few years it seems, and while a growing economy there is not anywhere near the level of education and prosperity of the US. Taking another modern western democracy for comparison the UK had 0.0007 firearm murders per 1000 citizens in 2009.

[jim mk2]

The US does not make the list of the top 5 countries with the most firearm related murders: http://www.top5ofanything.com/index.php?h=66db25e2. Perhaps you should direct your ire there, first?

And on that point, of the world's top 5 mass murder sprees, US is 4th: http://www.top5ofanything.com/index.php?h=db8a4490. Where's the outrage? While commented upon, I don't remember a similar strand of vitriol directed toward Norway when Breivik committed his murders. Is there something else at play here?

You seem disappointed the US is only 5th....never mind, keep up the good work and I'm sure you'll be top of the league soon.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

This was the just latest instalment of the the price the gun owners of America are prepared to pay. Nothing will change because not enough Americans want change. I had powerful air guns as a teenager, I liked going shooting. I was the member of a local .22 rifle club. By the time I was 21 I'd realised it was a pretty pointless exercise.

I equate it to our own Alcohol Abuse culture. This will without a doubt kill more people in the U.K. than guns will in the U.S. but nobody will tackle it because deep down not enough of us want to change our foolish ways. I also speak on this subject with some authority being a regular beer drinker.

[jim mk2]

Excessive drinking and bad behaviour in the streets in very much a cultural problem here. Read history books and it goes back hundreds of years. A bit of research shows the alcohol-related death rate in the UK has hovered at around 18 deaths per 100,000 men since 2003, which equates roughly to about 1,100 deaths in a population of about 60m.

Research also shows (year to March 2009 figures, a bit out of date but still relevant) the number of murders in Britain was 648, of which 39 was by firearms.

By contrast, the number of murders in the US was 15,241, of which 9,146 was by firearms. Since Britain's population is roughly 20% that of the US, this is equivalent to 3,240 US murders and 195 by firearms.

The telling figures here are the 9,146 / 195 death by firearms difference between the US and Britain showing conclusively that fewer gun owners per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita overall.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Steve,would you agree that if Obama took away the right to bear arms of the citizens of USA there would almost certainly be a civil war waged against the government...is this what really frightens the senate so much?

[ABBEY]

Anyone who owns a gun and are not military or a huntsman etc should be ashamed . Guns are for losers

[Steve Moss]

Steve,would you agree that if Obama took away the right to bear arms of the citizens of USA there would almost certainly be a civil war waged against the government...is this what really frightens the senate so much?

Obama lacks the power to take away guns. President doesn't equal king. So yes, if he decided to try to abolish guns, then I suspect there would be some response. I doubt it would be a civil war though, more likely impeachment and/or court action. Even the mass of Democrats wouldn't tolerate such a usurpation of power.

If getting rid of guns were truly on the agenda, then:

1. They'd have to get the US Supreme Court to reverse their decisions, unlikely.

2. Enact federal legislation making guns illegal (unlikely, as the vast majority of the states would oppose it).

3. Pay fair market value for 200 million firearms (ranging from $200 to $2,000 per gun), which is not necessarily cost effective.

So I don't think much of any realistic chance of gun control in the USA, thankfully.

[jim mk2]

So I don't think much of any realistic chance of gun control in the USA, thankfully.

With attitudes like this there's not much hope. 20 dead children clearly don't matter.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

So I don't think much of any realistic chance of gun control in the USA, thankfully.

Honest comments but I'm slightly surprised by the above..do you own firearms yourself?

[Jeru tha Damaja]

With attitudes like this there's not much hope. 20 dead children clearly don't matter.

At least people are talking about them and trying to make a change. Clearly they matter a little more than the dead children in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Is the law in the US going to change?

Probably not. The political balance in Washington right now makes it practically impossible for anything to be passed without the approval of a significant number of Republicans. They've been obstructing just about everything regardless of importance, so to ask them to throw away one of their most cherished rights is completely ridiculous (and that's before we allow for the existence of gun-loving Democrats). Even passing restrictions of what weapons can be bought, who can buy them and how easy it should be will be a monumental task in the position that the President currently finds himself.

Just to give an idea of how awkward the Republicans have been lately, their leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, proposed a motion to allow the President to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally. His idea being that the Democrats wouldn't agree to undermine the authority of Congress by giving away power like that. The Democrats called his bluff and agreed to vote on it, so McConnell raised an objection to his own proposal and, as usual, the Senate came to a grinding halt.

[thenodrog]

I've not really thought this through much but shouldn't gun control be down to individual states rather than the national govt? I imagine bringing in gun control would be much easier in Connecticut at this moment than in say texas, Wyoming or Washington State.

After that who is going to man up and incarcerate the lunes, the paedo's, the psychopaths etc etc who are walking about amongst us? Thats the real issue here that is getting watered down by firearm control I would have thought.

[jim mk2]

At least people are talking about them and trying to make a change. Clearly they matter a little more than the dead children in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Is the law in the US going to change?

Probably not. The political balance in Washington right now makes it practically impossible for anything to be passed without the approval of a significant number of Republicans. They've been obstructing just about everything regardless of importance, so to ask them to throw away one of their most cherished rights is completely ridiculous (and that's before we allow for the existence of gun-loving Democrats). Even passing restrictions of what weapons can be bought, who can buy them and how easy it should be will be a monumental task in the position that the President currently finds himself.

Just to give an idea of how awkward the Republicans have been lately, their leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, proposed a motion to allow the President to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally. His idea being that the Democrats wouldn't agree to undermine the authority of Congress by giving away power like that. The Democrats called his bluff and agreed to vote on it, so McConnell raised an objection to his own proposal and, as usual, the Senate came to a grinding halt.

The US is talking about it but nothing is likely to change for the better because of entrenched attitudes of the people like the US poster on here. No one is saying the US kids are more important than those who have died in Iraq etc but the the last time I looked the US is not engaged in a war on its own territory. Perhaps we shouldn't judge the US and let them get on with killing themselves because of their beloved constitution says they can and, at the end of the day, owning and shooting guns is good sport.

[Steve Moss]

Honest comments but I'm slightly surprised by the above..do you own firearms yourself?

Yes.

Individual liberty means that some psycho will abuse his or her rights from time to time to the extreme harm of others. If you think surrendering rights is the answer, then I'm sorry for you.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

I have no wish to be around firearms Steve,as you well know they are designed for one thing only and that's to Kill...please DONT feel sorry for me!!