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

[T.J.Newton]

No doubt but I bet thread not 20 children gunned down

20 children killed at the same time by one person or 20 children over a course of a few months by 20 different people, outcomes still the same only its to complicated and not sensational enough for the media to cover(just like the 1000s of women and children killed, raped and mutilated by tribes/gangs every year in Africa)

[Steve Moss]

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.

Actually, we are. It's the highly publicized war on drugs. And there is some evidence that legalizing marijuana and cocaine would result in a dramatic reduction in our murder rates: http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2012/12/empirical-evidence-suggests-a-sure-fire-way-to-dramatically-lower-gun-homicides-repeal-drug-laws.html

An author has stated his views on gun issues, which I agree with: http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

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

Last I checked the local Methodists were raising money for their food kitchen, not to fund terrorism. It has nothing to do with one's religion; it's about a relatively few nutters justifying heinous acts in the name of religion.

Several centuries ago we did it via our Crusades. We've matured since. Now its the Islamists. Until they come to their senses (or die off) we'll have to fight them. Might as well get on with it.

[DE.]

There's a documentary called The Power of Nightmares by Adam Curtis that I'd recommend to you Steve, if you haven't already seen it.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Last I checked the local Methodists were raising money for their food kitchen, not to fund terrorism. It has nothing to do with one's religion; it's about a relatively few nutters justifying heinous acts in the name of religion.

Several centuries ago we did it via our Crusades. We've matured since. Now its the Islamists. Until they come to their senses (or die off) we'll have to fight them. Might as well get on with it.

Ok, first let's forget the notion that all, or even a majority of, mosques are funding terrorism. If you'll let go of that misconception then I'll refrain from further detailing the terrorists funded by the US government.

Second, the most active terrorist group in North America in the past 100 years is the KKK, a Christian group. It was a Christian group that was plotting to poison water supplies in Chicago in 1988. Ask doctors at abortion clinics who they're more worried about, Muslims or Christians. Army of God, Christian Identity, Lambs of Christ, Hutaree and the Covenant, the Sword and the Arm of the Lord are all Christian terrorist groups that have been active in the US . Timothy McVeigh may have claimed to have strayed from his faith, but he still took a Catholic sacrament before his execution. Don't pretend that there aren't Christian nutjobs out there, because not only do they exist, but the south-eastern US is their natural habitat.

Third, with the Westboro Baptist Church and Terry Jones still floating around, I'm struggling not to laugh at the idea that Christianity has "grown up". Yes, there are Muslim hate-preachers, but they have a Christian equivalent. However, it serves a purpose to pretend that the Muslim extremists are the voice of Islam, whereas nobody claims that the Christian extremists speak for everyone in their faith.

Lastly, the Crusades may be over, but we're still determined to control the Middle East, riding roughshod over the will of the local population. Last I checked, no fighting against Muslims has actually been done on American soil, and every time Muslims in their own countries appeal to America for some help in throwing off backward regimes the silence is deafening. What America wants to do is maintain reliable client states, but people in the Middle East can't be trusted to choose the pro-US candidate so we leave them to live under dictators who will gladly keep buying American weaponry, basically giving back the profits they made from oil without benefiting their people in the slightest. The most amusing part is that America truly believes in its own greatness when it is average in just about every category, except "defence" spending.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, most American citizens fund their continued existence through working as many hours as they possibly can or relying on asset inflation. Corporations are allowed rights, but unions aren't. The people who mismanaged the economy into oblivion are allowed to get even richer and keep right on their old course at the expense of the rest of the public. The same institutions that not so long ago wanted the government out of their business when they lobbied for deregulation now want government money to pay for their failed gambles. Then Fox News tells us that the white man has lost America, wrong, big business has lost popular support in America, but it's ok because no matter which party runs the country they will always be dictated to by their corporate sponsors. Guns are only a small issue in the great American trainwreck.

[Steve Moss]

Jeru- you've lost it.

Islamists kill because they are on a divine mission. There is no equivalency between their well supported, well funded organized and systematic imposition of heinous warped religious views on their neighbors, and exporting their murdering ways to foreign lands, to the occasional Christian nut-job who is put down by other Christians.

And if the Mid-East populations are crying out for USA help, perhaps they should consider that it might behoove them to reliably "choose the pro-US candidate".

As to America's economic policies, I'll keep ours. You can keep yours.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Jeru- you've lost it.

Islamists kill because they are on a divine mission. There is no equivalency between their well supported, well funded organized and systematic imposition of heinous warped religious views on their neighbors, and exporting their murdering ways to foreign lands, to the occasional Christian nut-job who is put down by other Christians.

And if the Mid-East populations are crying out for USA help, perhaps they should consider that it might behoove them to reliably "choose the pro-US candidate".

As to America's economic policies, I'll keep ours. You can keep yours.

Ok, so if we assume that Islamist terrorists are super-devout Muslims who believe in their mission then how do we explain the womanising and alcohol-abuse of fellas like Mohammed Atta and Ramzi Yousef? You can't contend that they're religious and at the same time acknowledge your own country's intelligence reports that show them to have broken fairly basic Islamic laws. And why couldn't those guys be written off as "the odd nutjob"?

In the Middle East the violence is more along tribal or class lines (depending on which particular example you choose), but again it isn't religious zealots that are behind it. Certainly there aren't any states in the region forcing Islam on their neighbours. The only expansionist state in the Middle East happens to enjoy total, almost unconditional US support...Israel.

You want people over there to support the US, perhaps Washington could consider the impact they have on them when making decisions. Crazy idea, I know. But when it comes to extremism, take a look at how many radical clerics come from Saudi Arabia. How many 9/11 hijackers were Saudis? 15. How many Iraqis? 0. Now explain to me how American foreign policy lines up with those facts.

As for choosing the pro-US candidate, I thought America supported freedom? Oh right, the freedom to choose what America tells them to choose. But that's not really freedom, is it? And this is exactly the problem I have with America, they say they want to spread freedom and democracy, but it's just not true and it can never be so while the government continues to maintain the policy that dictators are easier to manipulate than popular opinion.

It's the same kind of hypocrisy that led to the US branding itself "land of the free" while clinging to slavery. Anyway, rationalise away, tell me how US foreign policy is unimpeachable and how Christian maniacs are completely different from Muslim maniacs. I'm out.

[Steve Moss]

Why? What's the difference?

Good point. +1.

Ok, so if we assume that Islamist terrorists are super-devout Muslims who believe in their mission then how do we explain the womanising and alcohol-abuse of fellas like Mohammed Atta and Ramzi Yousef? You can't contend that they're religious and at the same time acknowledge your own country's intelligence reports that show them to have broken fairly basic Islamic laws. And why couldn't those guys be written off as "the odd nutjob"?

. . .

As for choosing the pro-US candidate, I thought America supported freedom? Oh right, the freedom to choose what America tells them to choose. But that's not really freedom, is it? And this is exactly the problem I have with America, they say they want to spread freedom and democracy, but it's just not true and it can never be so while the government continues to maintain the policy that dictators are easier to manipulate than popular opinion.

It's the same kind of hypocrisy that led to the US branding itself "land of the free" while clinging to slavery. Anyway, rationalise away, tell me how US foreign policy is unimpeachable and how Christian maniacs are completely different from Muslim maniacs. I'm out.

First paragraph: Every group of people will have the odd mentally unstable person amongst it ranks. The Middle East has far more than its fair share. Worse, they're feel empowered to spread the word of Allah via gun and bomb, and are doing so in numbers.

Second paragraph: The people in the Middle East (or anywhere else in the world) are free to have any government they like, though they might have to fight for it. If they want us to support it (i.e. money, guns and/or troops) they'd better be on our side. If the government isn't on our side, and acts in manner which could imperil our security or financial interests, then don't be surprised if we return the favor.

Third paragraph: America abolished slavery in 1865. And spent more than 600,000 American lives doing it. Since you used Iraq as an example, apparently Iraq still has black slaves: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/08/baghdad-black-i.html. America, by contrast, has a half black half white President (whose policies I despise, but he's still the President).

Every nation has had slaves at one point or time. Including yours, I presume. We've corrected our problem. Perhaps you should be lobbying Iraqi sheiks.

[thenodrog]

Crazy idea, I know. But when it comes to extremism, take a look at how many radical clerics come from Saudi Arabia. How many 9/11 hijackers were Saudis? 15. How many Iraqis? 0. Now explain to me how American foreign policy lines up with those facts.

Irrelevent. How many of them were muslims Jeru?

[dave birch]

Irrelevent. How many of them were muslims Jeru?

It sounds like you might know, Theno.

There's probably a shedload of followers of Islam that would say they weren't "true followers', but that didn't stop people being killed.

Whilst I like the US (for various reasons) I say, they live (and die) by the rules they set them selves. Unfortunately, those that can least protect themselves are those that suffer most.

At the moment, they have a disfunctional government. The most pertinant part of which is the Repubilcan side, when they can't even agree with their leader.

Just imagine if they could get their act together, how better the world could be; but, whilst that is a "should have been", it is not too late.

[ABBEY]

more killed by guns inc two firemen in USA.

guns mmmm

[Steve Moss]

Here's a USA Today summary article:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/25/newtown-sandy-hook-reflections/1787477/http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/25/newtown-sandy-hook-reflections/1787477/

more killed by guns inc two firemen in USA.

guns mmmm

Killed by guns? I was unaware that guns are sentient and capable of action. Thanks for clarifying.

[T.J.Newton]

Why do people in this country feel the need to get involved in USA's issues regarding guns, murder, crime ect..., but the same people don't even seem to acknowledge or show any interest in similar issues that happen on a daily basis in other country's?(genuine question, not a criticism).

[ABBEY]

wasnt aware anyone was killed by guns yesterday or today. Im not bothered what country anyone is in,anyone who owns a gun is a cowardly prat.

[jim mk2]

Here's a USA Today summary article:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/25/newtown-sandy-hook-reflections/1787477/http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/25/newtown-sandy-hook-reflections/1787477/

Killed by guns? I was unaware that guns are sentient and capable of action. Thanks for clarifying.

More people killed as a result of lax US gun ownership laws and a sick, violent society. Is that clear enough ?

[Steve Moss]

More people killed as a result of lax US gun ownership laws and a sick, violent society. Is that clear enough ?

The logic isn't clear to me. The USA is a sick, violent society, but the UK is healthy? Aren't you the society which can't watch a live football game with a beer as you folks can't be trusted to remain peaceful? Coin throwing? Throwing feces at one another?

I grant you a higher murder rate, but I suspect the UK is every bit as violent (perhaps more so) as the USA. We may be more prone to killing one another (though I believe most of the deaths are criminals killing other criminals) but I don't think the USA is sicker than the UK.

[DE.]

Have to agree Steve, neither society has a great deal to be proud of right now.

[Baz]

One thing the media can do is to stop making the shooters famous, that will only make more people want to do the same thing.without the publicity how many of these people would have done the deed? My guess is far fewer.

The only reason i can see for allowing gun ownership is for hunting. Theres absolutely no need for anything else, especially semi automated weapons. Why cant gun ownership be tied in alongside hunting licenses? That includes allowing only ownership of appropriate weapons for what you have a hunting license for. In This country we have had a number of gun / weapon amnesties, this would be a really effective time to try in the US, but there is a massive lack of willing to sort this as far as i can see.

The right to defend yourself with a gun is surely an outdated concept for a civilised society.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

One thing the media can do is to stop making the shooters famous, that will only make more people want to do the same thing.without the publicity how many of these people would have done the deed? My guess is far fewer.

The only reason i can see for allowing gun ownership is for hunting. Theres absolutely no need for anything else, especially semi automated weapons. Why cant gun ownership be tied in alongside hunting licenses? That includes allowing only ownership of appropriate weapons for what you have a hunting license for. In This country we have had a number of gun / weapon amnesties, this would be a really effective time to try in the US, but there is a massive lack of willing to sort this as far as i can see.

The right to defend yourself with a gun is surely an outdated concept for a civilised society.

When you're full of paranoia it's not an outdated concept. They've never really got over McCarthyism and the " reds under the bed ". The next logical step for gun owners in America is to demand the right to own RPG's just in case the next bad guy has an "Armalite " or an " AK-47 ". I was only thinking the other day if you never went to the airport in the U.K. you could go your whole life and never even see a gun. There must be a moral there somewhere.

[Mike E]

I'm sorry Steve but I don't think killing people with a gun is comparable to the throwing of a 2-pence piece. A 2p may blind someone (not condoning that either), but a gun being fired will most likely kill someone (and not even the person being aimed at, but anyone in that bullet's path).

The law allowing citizens to own guns is out-dated. That law was made at a time when it was necessary to own a gun in case you were called up to the military when your country was still young and fighting for independence. Even then it was a relatively rudimentary gun involving gunpowder and taking at least 10 seconds to reload each time. Not a time when military-issue (semi?)-automatic weapons are readily available.

If you had gun laws like ours in the UK, there'd be fewer deaths (for a start) and you'd more likely have mental health issues attended to upon arrest for a lesser crime such as battery.

The right to own a gun for no particular reason (just because you can) is as appropriate in the modern age as owning a slave, imo.

[T.J.Newton]

I'm sorry Steve but I don't think killing people with a gun is comparable to the throwing of a 2-pence piece. A 2p may blind someone (not condoning that either), but a gun being fired will most likely kill someone (and not even the person being aimed at, but anyone in that bullet's path).

The law allowing citizens to own guns is out-dated. That law was made at a time when it was necessary to own a gun in case you were called up to the military when your country was still young and fighting for independence. Even then it was a relatively rudimentary gun involving gunpowder and taking at least 10 seconds to reload each time. Not a time when military-issue (semi?)-automatic weapons are readily available.

If you had gun laws like ours in the UK, there'd be fewer deaths (for a start) and you'd more likely have mental health issues attended to upon arrest for a lesser crime such as battery.

The right to own a gun for no particular reason (just because you can) is as appropriate in the modern age as owning a slave, imo.

I could do with a couple of slaves(min wage applies!)

[ABBEY]

steve ...NFL isnt a saintly event though is it? I witnessed a panther get a right hammering in Denver for mouthing off.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/10/14/fan-stabbed-on-his-way-in-to-candlestick-park-for-49ers-game/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/raiders-fans-fight-bathroom-bills-fans-stands-brawl_n_1892861.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/nfl-fans-fight-browns-bill-redskins-brawl_n_1910567.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/brawls-shootings-erupt-at-nfl-game-14354676

[Steve Moss]

There are many incidents at USA sporting events. But its never risen to the level that the government has needed to crack down on fans, or that the fans (voters) would tolerate it. So all in all, the USA is more civilized in that regard.

And here's two good articles demonstrating that its the USA which has sensible laws regarding self-defense, while the UK has lapsed into some twisted law of nature model where the victims aren't even allowed to adequately defend themselves:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/gun-control-fails-say-statistics-from-gun-control-advocates/?singlepage=true

http://www.theguntutor.com/2012/12/28/it-was-the-kitchen-knife-in-the-parlor-with-professor-plumb-or-was-it-professor-plum-in-the-parlor-with-the-kitchen-knife/

[Stuart]

There are many incidents at USA sporting events. But its never risen to the level that the government has needed to crack down on fans, or that the fans (voters) would tolerate it. So all in all, the USA is more civilized in that regard.

And here's two good articles demonstrating that its the USA which has sensible laws regarding self-defense, while the UK has lapsed into some twisted law of nature model where the victims aren't even allowed to adequately defend themselves:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/gun-control-fails-say-statistics-from-gun-control-advocates/?singlepage=true

http://www.theguntutor.com/2012/12/28/it-was-the-kitchen-knife-in-the-parlor-with-professor-plumb-or-was-it-professor-plum-in-the-parlor-with-the-kitchen-knife/

This is the problem with the pro-gun lobby arguments though, Steve. When they start talking about flower pots as being as a deadly 'weapon' as a justification for owning a gun, people switch off.

Anything can be used as a weapon, yes, but it's a damned sight easier to do a damned sight more damage - even accidentally - with a loaded gun.

Whilst it's been a good and civil debate, it's also futile. You seem to firmly believe that because you are a responsible, careful gun owner who would only take out a gun as a last resort, that it makes high-powered weapon purchase and use by unstable sociopaths as a fair trade-off; and the death of innocent people as a result of the psychotic actions of a legal gun owner as an unfortunate price worth paying. I expect Lanza's mother was exactly the same.

For this reason I expect you will never change your mind if the things you are willing to accept in order to maintain your 'rights'.

It's only when the bad side of gun ownership - or things like cancer - come into people's homes, that they become campaigners or are even willing to consider taking action to prevent unnecessary death. I sincerely hope that you or your family never come to any harm as a result of owning guns, Steve.

I agree with the poster above who believes the law is out-dated but there is certainly no need for ordinary citizens to have an arsenal of automatic weapons in their home.

I'd probably still have a problem with a handgun because, to be effective against say, a burglar, it would need to be loaded and accessible in the middle of the night. However, I could understand the argument for self-protection, enshrined in a constitutional right.

The second amendment itself however was surely written in an age before the kind of modern weapons that are available could even have been conceived?

Why can't there be a change to the interpretation of the second amendment incorporated into 21st century gun laws - a modern interpretation into today's terms - rather than the emotive "you can't change the second amendment" / erosion of civil liberties argument?

[jim mk2]

And here's two good articles demonstrating that its the USA which has sensible laws regarding self-defense, while the UK has lapsed into some twisted law of nature model where the victims aren't even allowed to adequately defend themselves:

The twisted logic in this statement is breathtaking and sad because it means the US is beyond hope and more people will die. US is a sick society.

[Steve Moss]

I agree with the poster above who believes the law is out-dated but there is certainly no need for ordinary citizens to have an arsenal of automatic weapons in their home.

Why can't there be a change to the interpretation of the second amendment incorporated into 21st century gun laws - a modern interpretation into today's terms - rather than the emotive "you can't change the second amendment" / erosion of civil liberties argument?

No one has an arsenal of "automatic" weapons in their home, unless they are SWAT team members or the like. The anti-gun lobby's inability to distinguish between semi-automatic, automatic and revolvers is a stumbling block.

The way to reinterpret the Constitution is to amend it.