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

[Adam C]

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 The ban on a whole range of semi-automatic weapons wasn't repealed, it just expired in 2004.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

I am not 100% up to date on American firearms law, thanks for the correction.

With reference to your point on militias I know that in Afghanistan and Iraq the US army has not wiped out the insurgents but surely it could be considered that they have "won" the war there given that they control (or are in a position allowing them to control) the entire country. Iraq and Afghanistan were conquered in a matter of weeks despite the best efforts of the local forces to repel the US. The fact that militias still exist there and fight a guerilla war against the invading forces does not mean that they defeated the invasion or have won the war.

I think Syria is a different situation as well being a civil war rather than an invasion.

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.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Just wait until the US forces have been gone for a couple of years, then tell me that they've beaten the Taliban.

America can only remain in control there as long as they continue fighting. It is a war that they will always be winning, but will ultimately never win.

[Mike E]

The right to bare arms is virtually a right to shoot whoever you like. Ofc, you'll be reprimanded if you shoot someone, but it's almost encouraging it. In the UK you either obtain a gun illegally or go through fairly stringent tests to ensure you are suitable to legally own one. That's much safer for all concerned surely?

How many shootings are done on a whim? I'd bet most of them, but I'm willing to be proven wrong on that. If you don't have a gun, you use your fists or a weapon that is easier to flee from like a knife or golf club. It's far safer than owning a gun.

Even if you own a handgun and aim at someone who is 8ft away, if under pressure or feeling angry/emotional, you only have about 50% chance of a hit. If that person is moving/running away you run the risk of shooting an innocent bystander. That's why I hate the idea of having a right to carry a gun.

If someone breaks into my house, my weapon of choice is a sand wedge (heaviest golf club). I wouldn't feel safer with a gun. I'd actually be afraid to shoot in case the bullet goes to the guys head or heart rather than the broken bones he'd get from a golf club.

[jim mk2]

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.

And I'm sorry for you living in a country where you think the way to answer to your gun culture is to have more guns. You live in a sick society.

[Gav]

And I'm sorry for you living in a country where you think the way to answer to your gun culture is to have more guns. You live in a sick society.

So do we, just ask the 300+ victims of the Jimmy Saville affair, and he didn’t need a gun.

[T.J.Newton]

Would restricting ammunition not be easier to push through.

[Steve Moss]

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.

What you are espousing is the federalism doctrine, which is largely dead letter. I wish it wasn't the case. I would be perfectly content to live in a country, for example:

Where Utah could forbid abortions but allow guns.

Or where California could allow abortions but forbid guns.

Or Wyoming where both abortions and guns were allowed.

Or any other combinations of rights.

It was what the Founders intended, as the Bill of Rights was only intended to restrict the federal government, not the States. But for a variety of reasons (some good- such as prohibiting slavery, and some bad- such as Washington's desire to centralize government thereby increasing its power), we've moved away from it and it only survives as a remnant.

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!!

That's the beauty of having an individual right. If you don't want to exercise it, don't. If you don't want to be around guns, don't.

Just wait until the US forces have been gone for a couple of years, then tell me that they've beaten the Taliban.

America can only remain in control there as long as they continue fighting. It is a war that they will always be winning, but will ultimately never win.

I actually agree with this, in the main. It doesn't mean I'd throw in the towel if I were President. If we're going to win, it will be a 50+ year battle and while its being waged, we have to educate today's infants, provide opportunity, minimize corruption, instill Western values (to the extent that we can), and let the older more religiously entrenched generations die off.

I don't see it happening, but we should try. Somethings are just evil and need to be opposed, even if we ultimately lose.

And I'm sorry for you living in a country where you think the way to answer to your gun culture is to have more guns. You live in a sick society.

All societies are sick to a greater or lesser degree. I believe America is actually the healthiest of societies (a couple of possible exceptions aside) and is far more so than Britain.

But you are free to express your opinion as I am to express mine.

Though that isn't accurate, as I understand in the UK there is no free speech right.

I also understand:

If you defend your property from a burglar, you'll likely be convicted.

If a murderer, pedophile, rapist, mugger or burglar is convicted, they'll be out far too soon.

You can't drink beer in view of a game, as the authorities think the citizens won't act like rationale human beings.

I could go on. But it appears to me that far too many in the UK (and also in the USA, I admit) value their benefit check far more than their personal liberties.

Which is us is right, history will tell us. In the current culture war we're engaged in, which is more likely to stay true to Western values, the USA or UK?

I love Britain. Its the homeland of my ancestors and my visits have always been enjoyable. I like the sights and I feel comfortable around the people. But I do worry for its future.

Would restricting ammunition not be easier to push through.

This has been discussed by gun control advocates as a backdoor way to enact gun control. The few jurisdictions which have tried it (by, for example, imposing a $5 tax per bullet) have quickly backed down in the face of voter ire and NRA lawsuits.

For those who think assault rifles have no legitimate purpose, here's an article on the king of assault rifles, the AR-15. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/foghorn/the-truth-about-the-ar-15-rifle/

[47er]

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.

No, that's the spin opponents of gun control are coming up with. Would they substantially increase spending on mental health? No they would not, they want smaller government and "freedom".

The clinching argument for gun control is the number of Americans killed by guns compared with other countries--------1 million since Martin Luther King was assassinated.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

I actually agree with this, in the main. It doesn't mean I'd throw in the towel if I were President. If we're going to win, it will be a 50+ year battle and while its being waged, we have to educate today's infants, provide opportunity, minimize corruption, instill Western values (to the extent that we can), and let the older more religiously entrenched generations die off.

I don't see it happening, but we should try. Somethings are just evil and need to be opposed, even if we ultimately lose.

Don't tell the rest of America that you want to let religion "die off"! Or is Christianity different?

Anyway, it isn't religion that America is at war with, it's anyone who stands in the way of their interests. It doesn't matter where we're talking about, Washington believes that it has the right to intervene anywhere in the world to impose its will, with or without the pretence of helping the local population. Democracy is something that is tolerated as long as people vote "the right way", but when people elect someone who doesn't line up with American interests they find themselves either in a difficult situation or quickly displaced.

If America truly supported democracy and human rights (I assume those are encompassed by "Western values") then they'd stop supporting some of the worst dictators in the world. We heard all about the horrors of the Taliban, yet nothing of the crimes of the Saudi or Jordanian governments. Why? Because the regimes in Saudi and Jordan are useful gangsters. The public there aren't pro-America, but the dictators are, so the US backs the human rights abusers that serve their interests and to hell with the people.

Similarly, the people of Palestine voted in free and fair elections for Hamas. This is Hamas that has repeatedly called for a ceasefire and a two-state solution. If you want to bring up their original charter then I suggest you also look at the approach that Netanyahu's Likud party maintains toward Palestine, the only real difference being that Likud holds true to their policy where Hamas wavers. The US refused to acknowledge Hamas' victory and continues to deal with their preferred leader, Mahmoud Abbas.

In Honduras, Manuel Zelaya's elected government was overthrown by a military coup. The US ambassador in the country told Washington that it was an illegal coup d'etat. Popular demonstrations broke out demanding Zelaya's return. The interim government was denounced by various human rights groups, including Amnesty International, for their heavy-handed response. America defended Latin American democracy just as staunchly as they have for 200 years...they recognised the illegal, human rights abusing government.

The point is, if you're going to talk about spreading your values, try living by them first.

[jim mk2]

I do worry for its future.

We're fine thank you, bit of a financial problem caused by the greed of big business but nothing that can't be sorted by a change of government out at the next election.

I love the US too, have visited many times, love its friendly people.

But i could never live there.

I couldn't live in the same country as the Republican party. I couldn't live in a country that executes its own citizens. And I couldn't live in a country that allows its children to be killed and celebrates violence.

[SydneyRover]

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

First article: The mental health argument is undoubtedly a secondary discussion to have. However it is not the primary issue here. Mental health provisions don't vary massively between the US and other developed nations, whereas the US is the only developed country in the world where shootings like this happen on a regular basis. There's only one factor which discriminates the US between all other developed nations here, and that's the gun laws.

They cite a study which showed 38 out of 61 mass shooters displayed signs of "mental illness". Well, frankly, no s**t surely. Mental health problems are commonplace though. If I see ten patients in an average shift in emergency, at least two or three of them will have signs of "mental illness", from anxiety to depression to schizophrenia (less common granted). The Aurora gunman did have potential signs of violent mental illness, but no information put out about Adam Lanza so far suggests he was anything other than an possibly autistic, socially awkward loner, someone who people would have thought had signs of mental illness, but not signs he was going to shoot up a school. Mental illness exists everywhere, not just in the US, and is notoriously difficult to treat. What differs however is the capability of said individuals to get their hands on lethal weapons.

The ideas that schools should not be gun free zones - absolute madness. Look all around the world at other developed countries. Do they need guns in their schools? Or do they, in fact enact laws to make sure that these things don't happen?

Second and third articles : The key point here is that gun violence is still considerably, considerably lower in the UK than in the US. In fact it's considerably lower in every other comparable country in the UK than it is in the US. Why do you think that is? Gun violence figures will wax and wane and do depend on other factors, but the most relevant statistic is comparing the UK and the US figures.

I don't believe gun control measures have an immediate effect. They surely would take a generation before we start seeing the real effects due to the number of guns in circulation already. Case in point - the recent shootings. Had the US enacted strict federal gun control laws five years ago, would the shooting still have happened? Probably - Adam Lanza's mother would still likely have had those guns she kept in the house. If strict gun control laws had happened thirty years ago, would the shooting have happened? Probably not, assuming those guns were legally acquired in that time period.

Also the third article was comissioned by the Countryside Alliance pro-gun movement. You do have a thing for your biased sources don't you?

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?

This is spectacularly missing the point. Why on earth compare the US with countries like Colombia and Zimbabwe with known civil unrest, guerilla rebels and huge socioeconomic problems?

The countries the US should be comparing itself with are the UK, France, Germany, Australia, Japan etc.

This is an incomplete list but it is fully referenced:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Sort by "homicide", as it initially includes suicides, and IMO suicide rates by firearms are less relevant as those determined will often find something. The US is 17 times more than France. 41 times more than Australia. 90 times more than the UK.

Why would the US homicide rate by firearms be so much higher? Additionally there's other data (that I looked at last time I was discussing this) that non firearms death rates are roughly the same otherwise, so the argument that they would have just killed by other means holds no weight.

As to your second link, that is absolutely irrelevant.

There was little ire directed at Norway because gun massacres hardly ever happen there.

There is much ire directed towards the US because gun massacres happen on a frequent basis and yet nothing is done about it.

I would have thought that much was obvious?

[Stuart]

There are some great comments in this thread,

Proof that BRFCS posters can debate an emotive subject and keep things civil.

I will not attempt to pretend I know the first thing about complex gun laws but one thing which seems clear to me: if Lanza's mother wasn't able to legally keep guns in her house he wouldn't have had access to them. He may still have stabbed his mother to death but is likely to have been overwhelmed at the school with far fewer fatalities - if any.

That said, there was a bloke in the UK recently went on a rampage running people down in a car. We haven't had any discussion about banning cars - prossibly because it was so unusual and there was iirc only one fatality. There's no outrunning or dodging a bullet - particularly thise fired from an automatic weapon - outside of the movie screen.

What brings it home for me is that my youngest isn't much younger than the children featured below. Apart from the centre girl who survived by playing dead, the children below were all murdered in cold blood in their classroom - a place where the should feel safe.

Perhaps I've been manipulated and brainwashed by a media-driven anti-gun agenda, designed to rob law-abiding US citizens of their rights.

It doesn't feel like it.

[SydneyRover]

That said, there was a bloke in the UK recently went on a rampage running people down in a car. We haven't had any discussion about banning cars - prossibly because it was so unusual and there was iirc only one fatality. There's no outrunning or dodging a bullet - particularly thise fired from an automatic weapon - outside of the movie screen.

I realise you are not making this point, however frequently this is a point I see pro gun people make - not so much that people run each other down in cars, but that since cars are responsible for more deaths than guns, why not just ban cars?

Like I said, I know you're briefly playing devils advocate so this isn't directly addressed to you, but it's such a ridiculous comparison to make that it really exposes the twisted logic of the pro gun lobby.

[ABBEY]

Take away laws , rights and traditions . WHY would anyone want to have a gun? Penis extension ? No idea .

I would rather not have a beer at a game than send my kids to school or the cinema where they don't return because some bloody idiot shoots them . Maybe if these gun wielding nutters where aborted first then .........

Makes me angry that anyone woould still defend wanting a gun.

[jim mk2]

Take away laws , rights and traditions . WHY would anyone want to have a gun? Penis extension ? No idea .

I would rather not have a beer at a game than send my kids to school or the cinema where they don't return because some bloody idiot shoots them . Maybe if these gun wielding nutters where aborted first then .........

Makes me angry that anyone woould still defend wanting a gun.

You love US sport so why not embrace all its culture including guns - after all, it's their constitutional right to kill each other ?

[ABBEY]

You really are a cretin .Do you embrace Thatcher and Jimmy Savile ?

[ABBEY]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="El Tombro" data-cid="1350703" data-time="1356008941"><p>

<br />

The police have the right to kill in certain situations. Nobody else does. The right to bear arms does not mean you have a right to kill. It <em class='bbc'>does</em> mean that there's a higher risk of death to people.<br />

<br />

You really are manipulative.</p></blockquote>

Manipulative ? I'd use the word Troll.

[Steve Moss]

The police have the right to kill in certain situations. Nobody else does. The right to bear arms does not mean you have a right to kill. It does mean that there's a higher risk of death to people.

You really are manipulative.

The police don't have the right to kill either. Both police and citizens have a right to self-defense, however.

Some states have the power, subject to significant checks and balances, to execute the most heinous murderers. That's the closest I can think of to a right to kill in the USA.

You are correct that there is statistically a higher risk of death. If one parses the numbers that risk is significantly connected to being involved in the drug culture, as opposed to your average tax paying citizens.

[jim mk2]

I see the the NRA is "shocked and saddened" over the Newtown deaths but they are more likely to be "shocked and saddened" that their grasp as a powerful and influential lobby group for the gun industry is starting to wane. The American left's wholesale assault to turn the US into another Europe is only just beginning - thankfully.

[Steve Moss]

According to the Criminal Procedure Act they can (in certain situations).

According to wiki, that's English law.

And thinking about it, perhaps similar to the USA. Racking my brain, I know in some situations police snipers can pull the trigger, but even then its a defense of others justification which civilians also possess.

[T.J.Newton]

Although I don't know much more about american gun culture than most average brits I believe Gun Control is only 50% of the problem the other 50% is addressing mental health issues(particularly in men under 40), both need to be addressed equally or its just pointless, even if theoretically guns became illegal to own and millions of licensed gun owners had there guns handed in/destroyed there would still be millions of guns out there illegally and some mentally ill nut-job that has is mind set on getting his hands on one wont have to much of a problem.

[T.J.Newton]

Take away laws , rights and traditions . WHY would anyone want to have a gun? Penis extension ? No idea .

I would rather not have a beer at a game than send my kids to school or the cinema where they don't return because some bloody idiot shoots them . Maybe if these gun wielding nutters where aborted first then .........

Makes me angry that anyone woould still defend wanting a gun.

Why do millions of people in this country binge drink , take drugs and smoke heavily, heavy Drinking particularly is the catalyst for most violent crimes, injuries and serious health problems in this country, yet we all(mostly) still do it, condone it and even brag about it.

My point being just because we(humans) know something is wrong or bad for us and society doesn't tend to stop us from doing it , especially if it is something that has been hard-wired into our culture and way of life over 100s of years.

[ABBEY]

true ,but it doesnt make want to go and shoot kids or anyone. Im an all dayer tommorow eound Manchester but i can guarantee you i wont be shooting or stabbing anyone.

[T.J.Newton]

true ,but it doesnt make want to go and shoot kids or anyone. Im an all dayer tommorow eound Manchester but i can guarantee you i wont be shooting or stabbing anyone.

I believe you and the same goes for 99.9% of people, but it only takes 1 unhinged person(I'm sure somewhere in the country there will be deaths this christmass where drink and drugs have played a decisive role).

[ABBEY]

No doubt but I bet thread not 20 children gunned down