Guns

[mr_geez]

Today's NRA press conference was beautiful. I hope you all caught at least some of it.

So did they blame video games and movies for Sandy Hook massacre? Oh you bet they did.

"And here’s another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal. There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people. Through vicious, violent video games with names like 'Bulletstorm,' 'Grand Theft Auto,' 'Mortal Kombat,' and 'Splatterhouse.'"

about movies:

"Then there’s the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho"
and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like propaganda loops on
"Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that
portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have
the nerve to call it "entertainment."


Not only though..

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/things-the-nra-blamed-for-the-sandy-hook-massacre

Damn, I wonder what were the odds at my local bookie for those topics to pop out in their speech . I could have made some extra cash in the last day of the world.

 

[Dennisch]

Yeah, it's called giving up.

It's called working together to make it better for everyone.

A start to do what?

A start to do this :

And of course, we need to have better ways to identify and treat these kinds of mental illnesses.

I totally understand the difficulty of the situation, but the time has come to think outside of the box, and stop this trend of people wanting to go out with a bang.

 

[sumbrownkid]

This is playing out like the Colombine disaster where media and parents and agencies started looking for easy scapegoats.

If violent video games have a clear link to violent crime, then shouldn't the rates of violent crime match up with the rates of those that play violent games regularly?

 

[FoolKiller]

It's called working together to make it better for everyone.

You didn't say work together. You said if the NRA supported the governmrnt's ideas, which it is their goal to prevent. How would one side giving in be working together?

A start to do this :

How does testing for a gun purchase help mental illness as a whole? If they are to the point of buying a gun, with an intent, it's nearly or already too late to help them. They are on the point of suicide or worse already.

And why tie it to gun purchases? We only care about helping the guys trying to legally obtain a gun? What about the guys using knives, bombs, or just jumping off a bridge? We don't approach mental illness properly as a whole. Tying change to guns will only catch a fraction of the problem.

I totally understand the difficulty of the situation, but the time has come to think outside of the box, and stop this trend of people wanting to go out with a bang.

How is a knee-jerk gun control action thinking outside the box? We've been trying that crap for decades.

 

[Dennisch]

I should have worded it differently. The NRA and government need to work together to come to a solution, instead of shooting down the ideas they both come up with.

And for the mental unstable getting the help they need, that is something for the health thread.

The knee-jerk reaction, are you meaning my idea of the mental check before obtaining a gun license? If so, why?

You guys need to start somewhere, but it seems all you guys want to do is put even more guns out there, to protect everyone.

Again, I am all for gun ownership to protect yourself, and even carrying it with you, but putting an armed guard at a elementary or something just seems the wrong way. But if nothing can change this is what is needed in the USA.

 

[FoolKiller]

And for the mental unstable getting the help they need, that is something for the health thread.

It is a counterpoint to the idea of requiring it to purchase a gun. If the mental health system is broken adding it as a hurdle to buy a gun is useless at best and undeserved harassment of honest citizens. Never mind you are basically revealing medical records to gun salesmen.

The knee-jerk reaction, are you meaning my idea of the mental check before obtaining a gun license? If so, why?

Because instead of getting to the root of the problem (why did he do it-could we have helped him) it jumps on the tool he used. To begin with, it wouldn't have prevented anything. He didn't own the guns. And in the future someone may be prevented from using a gun, so they use knives, bombs, etc. Maybe only five kids die then. Is that acceptable? No. You have to start at the root of the problem or you still have the same number of killers.

Reducing a body count is not acceptable when you haven't even begun to attempt to reducing the number of attacks. It's like taking aspirin for pneumonia. You feel better, but death is still coming.


This sums up my thoughts on the NRA.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

I trust my neighbor a lot less than I trust the government.

Obviously, that's where defending your property comes in, and I'm absolutely all for that. But to an extent, I like being in a situation at the moment where I'm not obliged to buy a gun just in case the guy next door has one too and decides to rob my house.

Incidentally, the only large-ish crime I've been on the receiving end of before was car theft, and any sort of weapon I'd had then wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference. The car was stolen from the street outside my old first-floor flat and was gone before I got to the window.

In the UK, because we're starting from a different position from you guys, it would lead to exactly the scenario I described before - all the general scumbags would think "great, we can own guns!", wave them around everywhere to assert their "authority", and immediately making it more dangerous for everyone else. Of course, Average Joe could then arm himself too, but then you end up with a nation full of guns when it didn't really need any of them in the first place.

Again: I can appreciate why there are many in the US who approve of gun ownership, but implementing something similar in a country which doesn't have the same culture would be counterproductive.

Perfectly understandable.

In the US, there's a lot a surly people who own guns; career criminals, narco-gangs, and garden variety thugs. The thing is; they didn't obtain them legally. During our old Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), these seedy characters would still be obtaining rifles/hi-cap mags where law abiding citizens couldn't. Even crazier, the magazines often recovered from crime scenes had "Law Enforcement Use Only" stamped on them. Kinda makes you go "hmmmm..." as the only people who could obtain those were law enforcement officers. I've never been in any sort of trouble in my life, yet my government deemed me too irresponsible/dumb/dangerous to own those tools. Yet people who are on parole were getting them days after being released from prison. Makes you wonder why they were let out in the 1st place...

These sorts will never turn in their weapons or attempt to buy them legally. Criminals care as much about laws as Obama cares about his oath of office. (do you have oaths of office in the UK? If so, the simile is interchangeable)

In the US, we have tens of millions of people who do own/buy/use weapons legally. In all honesty; gun owners tend to be a polite bunch. You'll see more egos and general asshattery at a track event than you will at a sport shooting event. But while motorsports has its birthplace in the UK - my country was conquered by gun wielding religious nuts. Yes...I'm proud of that. It took guns and thousands of lives to free us from British rule. It took guns and hundreds of thousands of white lives to free blacks from slavery. And it took guns and millions of lives to rid of the world of the Axis powers of WWII. Americans are taught this, actually...the images of heros using their weapons as tools for good is pretty much beat into our brains since birth. Maybe it's different in the rest of the world but to your garden variety American; a gun, big or small, isn't a big deal. If anything, we think they're pretty neat.

Guns are ingrained into the American psyche and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. The crimes committed by a concealed carry permit holder are WAYYY lower per capita than the average citizen. Gun people are good people who don't robs stores, shoot up public places, or run around like lunatics. If anything, gun enthusiasts tend to keep their opinions to themselves unless asked, are quite non-confrontational, and are really just normal people not looking for any trouble.

This is a cultural thing (really).

While I'm sure your opinion on the people of your country not being ready for a drastic change in gun laws hits the nail on the head, the same can be said for the USA. We'd go absolutely bat**** if there was some sort of Soviet-esque gun grab. There's approx 1 gun for every American in circulations (300million-ish) and if 1/2 of 1% of those people put up a fight...oh dear. The US can't handle a couple thousand cave-dwelling Arabs with AKs, I don't even want to imagine what would happen if a million or so US citizens put up a fight. From our cold dead hands indeed...

 

[homeforsummer]

Yep, I can certainly understand that line of thought. I don't doubt that if I ever move to the U.S, and I hope to at some point, that at the very least I'd go to a range on occasion and see what it's all about.

There are certainly criminals here who get hold of guns illegally. I think most UK shootings these days are inner-city gangs, with the odd nut-job on the side like the one who recently took out two police officers when they went to his house.

Plenty of people legally own guns too - often farming or country types who use them for ingrained country pursuits like shooting pheasants.

There's just sort of a hazy middle ground here which I wouldn't want to see filled with guns - the sort of people who habitually kick off on a Saturday night, get drunk, cause trouble, fight in the street, hang around intimidating people etc - people who might sail through legal channels no problem, but are probably best kept well away from something which could be used to cause even more trouble.

And yes, the U.S. is beyond the stage where it can really disarm people, with so many guns in circulation.

 

[ExigeEvan]

This will sound a bit silly, but...

If criminal gangs can drugs using advance chemical processes, would it really be that difficult to manufacture "illegal" magazines?

 

[Dennisch]

As seen in the various threads, something needs to be done in the US of A. Banning guns is a silly statement and will never happen. And again, the gun is only a tool. Other tools stay available for those who want to do harm. In an extreme case, look at 9/11.

Putting armed security everywhere doesn't seem to be the prefered choice either.

Now Foolkiller stated that the mentally unstable need to get help before they are nuts enough to go on a rampage.

How would this ever be put into practice without breaking laws or violating rights. There are a lot of people in an enormous country with so many fire arms.

This goes so much further than just gun laws, I've just realized.

I am sorry if this sounds foolish or something but I still think the USA is a great nation that can overcome everything and anything.

 

[FoolKiller]

Now Foolkiller stated that the mentally unstable need to get help before they are nuts enough to go on a rampage.

How would this ever be put into practice without breaking laws or violating rights.

You may need to go back and look at all my comments on mental health again. I point out the issue is from legal design as is, and suggest deregulation to help make mental health more accessible and allow a system that doesn't require multiple steps to get there. I also recommended the medical community come up with suggested regular testing dates, like we do for oral and vision health. It is recommended that we get a colonoscopy at 40. That is not breaking laws or violating rights.

Keep in mind, I come from a system where we aren't completely used to just regulating every little change. We are unfortunately going in that direction, but not yet.

When I suggest a change a new regulation is the last thing on my mind.

 

[Zenith]

This will sound a bit silly, but...

If criminal gangs can drugs using advance chemical processes, would it really be that difficult to manufacture "illegal" magazines?

They're stamped aluminum, springs, and (sometimes) injected plastic. Not hard to manufacture.

We already have such a huge amount of magazines, both legal (for the time being) and illegal. I don't think that there will be a profitable market for new, illegally produced magazines. Certainly no reason to transform a warehouse from a meth lab to a magazine plant.

Maybe the magazine supply will start to drop if an AWB is in place for a long time.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

They're stamped aluminum, springs, and (sometimes) injected plastic. Not hard to manufacture.

We already have such a huge amount of magazines, both legal (for the time being) and illegal. I don't think that there will be a profitable market for new, illegally produced magazines. Certainly no reason to transform a warehouse from a meth lab to a magazine plant.

Maybe the magazine supply will start to drop if an AWB is in place for a long time.

We'll get "illegal" magazines the same way we get cocaine; from Mexico.

The US supplies the Mexican police/military will all their arms. Thousands of Mexican LEOs have defected to the cartels and brought their weapons with them. Add in the fact that Obama made it his policy to allow thousands of OTC weapons to enter Mexico illegally; Mexico has plenty of guns to go around.

Besides, in most places in the US you do not need to show ID in order to buy 1 or 100 magazines. Case of beer? Yes. Cold medicine, drain cleaner, or a pack of cigarettes? "Papers please..." But a box full of P-Mags? They might ask if you want the receipt in the bag or not, but nothing else.

The sheer number of magazines in circulation has to be staggering. No way the gov't will get anywhere close to eliminating them. And once they become rare enough, or their "street price" rises enough, they'll flow over the border just like drugs & human trafficking.

 

[JJSCHMITTY2000]

This forum is not only extremely long, but is also very interesting. Hence why I upt my own opinion in.

Obviously, guns in the United States are never going to be banned altoghether. At least I hope they aren't. If they are, well, it's a bad day for the NRA. However, the majoriry of the people on this forum (from the poll, at least) support strict(er) laws on gun control, so there needs to be a happy meadium on those laws. Taking away our second amendment rights would be total crap, I mean, would President Jefferson approve of that?

 

[BrutherSuperior]

This forum is not only extremely long, but is also very interesting. Hence why I upt my own opinion in.

Obviously, guns in the United States are never going to be banned altoghether. At least I hope they aren't. If they are, well, it's a bad day for the NRA. However, the majoriry of the people on this forum (from the poll, at least) support strict(er) laws on gun control, so there needs to be a happy meadium on those laws. Taking away our second amendment rights would be total crap, I mean, would President Jefferson approve of that?

If 99% of the US voting public asked for violating the rights of 1%, would that be OK? No, of course not. Our republic is set up so that the rights of the majority are protected against the tyranny of the majority.

The 2nd amendment gives "we the people" the right to have the same weapons as the military. Weapons that can be carried anyway. That's the litmus test the courts have been using; does a particular gun have a military history.

The purpose is so we can revolt and/or be a checks & balance against a government which uses force to take away our freedoms or does not enforce a rule if law. Think tanks rolling over college protestors, the Japanese concentration camps of WW2, or the lawlessness if the LA race riots. SHTF can happen but it hasn't happened on a large scale. It never will because even if a fraction of gun owners put up a fight, Uncle Sam will have a HUGE problem.

 

[BobK]

From [url="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/newspaper-publishes-gun-owners-names-and-addresses/]ABC News[/url]:

A newspaper in New York has received a wave of criticism from its readers after publishing the names and addresses of all of the individuals with handgun or pistol permits in its coverage area.

Hundreds of residents in New York’s Westchester and Rockland counties were surprised to find their names and addresses listed on a map posted by The Journal News on Sunday. Users can click any dot on the map to see which of their neighbors has a permit for a gun.

In an article entitled "Sauce for the goose or, home address and phone number of Journal-News publisher", a blogger posted the names and addresses of the staff of the newspaper. Hey, turnabout is fair play.

Comments, anybody?

 

[hogger129]

From [url="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/newspaper-publishes-gun-owners-names-and-addresses/]ABC News[/url]:



In an article entitled "Sauce for the goose or, home address and phone number of Journal-News publisher", a blogger posted the names and addresses of the staff of the newspaper. Hey, turnabout is fair play.

Comments, anybody?

I think that what this newspaper did was violate peoples' privacy and I hope the organization gets sued for it. It's no different than if they would have published peoples social security numbers or medical records. What if a criminal now gets hold of this information and uses it to steal peoples' firearms? What if a criminal is injured while trying to steal someone's firearms and says the newspaper provided them with the information?

This is why registration is a bad idea. Not just because it ultimately leads to confiscation, but because stuff like this happens.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I think that what this newspaper did was violate peoples' privacy and I hope the organization gets sued for it.

Surely it depends if the list is in the public domain originally? If it was just a copy of a pdf off a local goverment website then legally I see no issue.

 

[hogger129]

Surely it depends if the list is in the public domain originally? If it was just a copy of a pdf off a local goverment website then legally I see no issue.

It wasn't public. They got it by filing a Freedom of Information Act request with the local government - who in turn had no right to release it.

The point is that this is private information the same as social security numbers, bank records or medical records and even if the government has access to them, they have no right to release it.

But that's idiotic New York for you.

 

[FoolKiller]

Well, we have often, using hyperbole, asked if knives should be banned too. Apparently some doctors in the UK think so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Doctors say knives are too pointed
A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.
A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.

The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.


Kitchen knives can inflict appalling wounds
In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon".

The use of knives is particularly worrying amongst adolescents, say the researchers, reporting that 24% of 16-year-olds have been shown to carry weapons, primarily knives.

The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established.

French laws in the 17th century decreed that the tips of table and street knives be ground smooth.

A century later, forks and blunt-ended table knives were introduced in the UK in an effort to reduce injuries during arguments in public eating houses.

The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

"The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime.

"We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect."

Government response

Home Office spokesperson said there were already extensive restrictions in place to control the sale and possession of knives.

"The law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches.

"Offensive weapons are defined as any weapon designed or adapted to cause injury, or intended by the person possessing them to do so.

"An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place.

"The manufacture, sale and importation of 17 bladed, pointed and other offensive weapons have been banned, in addition to flick knives and gravity knives."

A spokesperson for the Association of Chief Police Officers said: "ACPO supports any move to reduce the number of knife related incidents, however, it is important to consider the practicalities of enforcing such changes"

I'm a bit confused though. I have a suspicion these are the same guys who likely called for a strict gun control law in the UK because that would remove the tools of the violent criminals. If removing guns didn't end violence why do they think this will work? And why is making the knife just less lethal acceptable? The attacks will still happen, they all but admit it. And what happens if knife attacks become more targeted to kill with a slash, like in the throat or groin region? And what length is considered too long? Just ask any inmate, a small, easily concealed, shank is all that is required.

Better yet, if the tools of murderous attacks change according to legislation then why don't we look at the cause and not the tool?

I know, knives aren't the topic, guns are. But there is a point (until they ban them). Violence continues no matter the available weapon. No amount of violence will be considered OK, so clearly no removal of weapons will be enough.

Get to the root of the issue. Why do people kill?

And if we want to consider that, then lets start here:
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/25/fathers-disappear-from-households-across-america/

In every state, the portion of families where children have two parents, rather than one, has dropped significantly over the past decade. Even as the country added 160,000 families with children, the number of two-parent households decreased by 1.2 million. Fifteen million U.S. children, or 1 in 3, live without a father, and nearly 5 million live without a mother. In 1960, just 11 percent of American children lived in homes without fathers.

I don't agree with the entire article, as it wants to claim violence in general is on the rise (it isn't) and that the male role model is the difference (studies suggest two-parents of any gender combination creates the greatest jump in stability), but as this is becoming a growing issue outside just low income, minority groups (a plausible cause of inner city issues?) is when we are seeing the more large violent outbursts. Middle and upper class teens and young adults with a sense of entitlement not having their emotional needs and wants met sound a lot closer to your average public shooter description.

I also find it interesting that present but emotionally absent fathers are considered as being possibly not much better. It could explain a few of the anomalies in the killer profile.

Now why don't we study this kind of connection? Why not start here instead of guns and pointy knives?

 

[Joel]

So what, are they going to ban everything that professionals don't find "useful"? The bit about 10 chefs saying certain knives are impractical doesn't make much sense to me. Should the Canadian government round up and confiscate all the old leather pairs of hockey skates because they could be a weapon and the professional hockey players don't use them anymore? I'm sure there's tons of varieties of hammers and wrenches that contractors would find impractical, ban them too?

As for your second point, I think it's definitely the more important part of the discussion. The easy solution is to ban the guns and then ignore it when they start flowing across the border like drugs, but it's not going to stop anything. I liked your suggestion earlier about turning mental health evaluations into a regular thing like getting your prostate checked at 40. It seems like the easiest way to actally help these people.

 

[a6m5]

Get to the root of the issue. Why do people kill?

Unfortunately, you & I know that this will never even come up as a consideration to Obama. They would happily push a B.S. bill that media would eat up, will do more harm than good while taking away more rights from the people, but they will absolutely ignore the actual problem. I think we all see that it is their point to ignore the actual problem, disarming the Americans during the process.

Drugs, debt, this is all how U.S. Government "tackle" issues anymore. People are fed up, not at all surprised that nothing is getting done, but I really don't see the trend breaking, not until people start voting, but not for heavily sponsored candidates from heavily sponsored parties.

 

[Leo0308]

Well, we have often, using hyperbole, asked if knives should be banned too. Apparently some doctors in the UK think so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm



I'm a bit confused though. I have a suspicion these are the same guys who likely called for a strict gun control law in the UK because that would remove the tools of the violent criminals. If removing guns didn't end violence why do they think this will work? And why is making the knife just less lethal acceptable? The attacks will still happen, they all but admit it. And what happens if knife attacks become more targeted to kill with a slash, like in the throat or groin region? And what length is considered too long? Just ask any inmate, a small, easily concealed, shank is all that is required.

Better yet, if the tools of murderous attacks change according to legislation then why don't we look at the cause and not the tool?

I know, knives aren't the topic, guns are. But there is a point (until they ban them). Violence continues no matter the available weapon. No amount of violence will be considered OK, so clearly no removal of weapons will be enough.

Get to the root of the issue. Why do people kill?

And if we want to consider that, then lets start here:
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/25/fathers-disappear-from-households-across-america/


I don't agree with the entire article, as it wants to claim violence in general is on the rise (it isn't) and that the male role model is the difference (studies suggest two-parents of any gender combination creates the greatest jump in stability), but as this is becoming a growing issue outside just low income, minority groups (a plausible cause of inner city issues?) is when we are seeing the more large violent outbursts. Middle and upper class teens and young adults with a sense of entitlement not having their emotional needs and wants met sound a lot closer to your average public shooter description.

I also find it interesting that present but emotionally absent fathers are considered as being possibly not much better. It could explain a few of the anomalies in the killer profile.

Now why don't we study this kind of connection? Why not start here instead of guns and pointy knives?

I have little desire to get into this issue so I'll point out a few things then leave.

Placing controls on guns did not end violence in the UK and was never intended to. Instead it curbed gun violence and to be fair has been reasonably effective, especially in the case non crime related gun violence such as the school shootings which have sparked recent debates.

Drawing a parallel to knife crime does not really make sense beyond the broadest of terms as knifes can not be used to commit the same scale of incident that gun controls are designed to prevent. There is also the issue surrounding the type of knife and what are currently banned in the UK (many types already are and come with significant prison time).

Attempting to kick the argument away to 'why do we kill?' is also unhelpful as you might as well ask why do we get up in the morning. In other words it distorts the debate so far away from its focus that the answer can be any form of societal/historical/economic/racial answer the asker desires. It's a simple deflecting tactic employed by a viewpoint which is unable to defend their own position with any credibility (see recent NRA statements for an example of this).

Just stick to guns and ways of ensuring that anyone who is willing to use them are not allowed to have one in their possession.

 

[FoolKiller]

Attempting to kick the argument away to 'why do we kill?' is also unhelpful as you might as well ask why do we get up in the morning. In other words it distorts the debate so far away from its focus that the answer can be any form of societal/historical/economic/racial answer the asker desires. It's a simple deflecting tactic employed by a viewpoint which is unable to defend their own position with any credibility (see recent NRA statements for an example of this).

Just stick to guns and ways of ensuring that anyone who is willing to use them are not allowed to have one in their possession.

So instead of looking for a cause you just want to treat symptoms? Would you just prescribe aspirin to someone with constant migraines or a decongestant to a guy coughing and struggling to breathe? Compare me to the NRA all you want, not long after I made it clear their comments were idiotic, but I am not pointing at things and assigning fault. I am saying we have a bigger problem than access to guns when it is clearly sociopaths using them, even in areas with strict control laws.

Restricting guns is kicking the problem down the road until they find new ways to kill. Are you fine with saying, "Well, he didn't have a gun, so he only killed three young children." I'm not. All you are really saying, whether you intend to or not, is that some death is OK.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Instead it curbed gun violence and to be fair has been reasonably effective, especially in the case non crime related gun violence such as the school shootings which have sparked recent debates.

I don't see how it has really helped, with an ever-increasing number of illegal guns in areas of London and Manchester where gang culture is growing. In truth, there has been very little measurable effect in the reduction of gun crime due to the stricter gun controls.

An interesting statistic is that between April 2010 and March 2011 there were 3,105 recorded offences involving handguns alone (which are practically completely illegal here). The most available firearms in the U.K (Air weapons) were involved in 4,203 recorded offences. Wait, what? One of the most restricted gun types in the U.K was involved in almost as many offences as the least restricted!? Isn't that strange...

Then we have the darknet issue, which will very likely bring some extremely dangerous weapons into the U.K while the destination, origin and people involved in bringing said weapons here remain almost undetectable.

I'm 'into' guns (in fact, i'm currently patiently waiting for a shotgun fitting) and while i'd make only a handful of changes to current gun legislation, there is no real proof that the various changes in gun law (1988, 1997, 2006) have achieved anything positive.

 

[a6m5]

Attempting to kick the argument away to 'why do we kill?' is also unhelpful as you might as well ask why do we get up in the morning. In other words it distorts the debate so far away from its focus that the answer can be any form of societal/historical/economic/racial answer the asker desires. It's a simple deflecting tactic employed by a viewpoint which is unable to defend their own position with any credibility (see recent NRA statements for an example of this).

NRA announcement last Friday was ridiculous, but I don't think you are deflecting anything by looking for more effective solution, instead of another band-aid that will not hold. Maybe we need to look at mentally unstable people, maybe criminals. Then we could potentially adapt our existing gun control to keep them out, or even weed them out? Maybe more strict protocol on secure storage of firearms? Just a couple off the top of my head.

Just stick to guns and ways of ensuring that anyone who is willing to use them are not allowed to have one in their possession.

I'm sorry, I know this word gets tossed around little too much on internet, but that's utter ignorance.

Get to know the culture, firearm owners, criminals, etc. in this country. Your request is a pure fantasy. Smuggling is a walk in the park in the U.S. There are enough firearms around, unregistered, they will never come close to achieving your goal. Also, only guns that the Government will have fairly easy time confiscating would be from the law abiding, by-the-book people. And this is not including how many firearm parts & capable would-be-gunsmiths are out there, who are able to put one together without much hassle.

Granted, I think Connecticut shooting would've been avoided by such gun ban. But that's like saying without 9-11, I think World Trade Center might've been saved. Maybe, or they might have blown up a mall with a tactical nuke instead. *shrug*

 

[photonrider]

Confused. Is there another 'gun' thread around here? 'Real Guns?'
Any other 'GUN' threads?
Where actually would we talk about guns, types, ammo, and gun-related events, activities, policies, controls . . .

And what best thread would one go to to be clearly understood when trying to make a point that the name of this debate shouldn't be 'GUN CONTROL DEBATE' but 'Firearms Regulations Talks' or something more to the point?
We're not talking about 'Control' again -that sounds like a nasty word, right.
We just want to 'regulate' a few things - maybe tweak those obviously present regulations that we have now and make them reflect more the times we are in, make it even safer for all concerned, even more efficient and enforceable than it already is.
Screaming 'Control' is not going to help things. Nor screaming 'Ban' or 'Prohibit' - these all smack of Big Brother.
But let the powers-that-be get together and find ways to make living with guns more safe. Regulate, with even more perception regarding the objects and their use in society, the sales, and ownerships, and the types of guns that can be purchased by which particular individuals - as well as maybe more serious fines, etc, for careless storage, use, etc.
Nor is comfortably saying: "There, there, everything's okay, the rules are fine right now, don't touch them, they were put together by Einstein, Johnson, Lincoln and Socrates. They work 100%. Amendments shouldn't be amended, etc, etc."

One day every gun will be manufactured to be fired, either by fingerprint actuation, or voice recognition, by only the person responsible for holding title to that gun - and there wouldn't even be keys that could be passed to another - like the keys to that killer Veyron.

Till technology catches up, we must evolve the present regulations, to catch up with changing sociological behaviors that pertain to guns.

Will that change the killing sprees? No. But some lives may be saved from bullets.

As for guns - we need them for now - if the first responders that got to the shooter in Webster, for instance, hadn't guns - they couldn't have stopped the problem so quickly.
And if the shooter had a bunch of people with him, and they were all armed to the teeth with that lovely gun from Eraser (a short technological walk from here in Time) then those first responders would have to have a bunch of EM-1 Rail guns, themselves.

I have a huge amount of guns at home. Most of them are from NZ, and all of them have the word Nerf on them.
I gave up on the real guns since I have nothing to hunt in the city . . . maybe milk and gas sometimes-and I don't need a gun to score that, just a smile and some cash, the smile actually being optional. And if I need someone with a gun, I'd call one of my cop friends. Or 911.

That's not to say I have anything against responsible humans playing with real guns. And I mean as responsible as a good cop, or firefighter.

 

[a6m5]

Confused. Is there another 'gun' thread around here? 'Real Guns?'
Any other 'GUN' threads?
Where actually would we talk about guns, types, ammo, and gun-related events, activities, policies, controls . . .

And what best thread would one go to to be clearly understood when trying to make a point that the name of this debate shouldn't be 'GUN CONTROL DEBATE' but 'Firearms Regulations Talks' or something more to the point?

Agreed. If any moderators or Admins are reading this, I think they warrant thread name changes?

Both "Real Guns" & Guns thread I think were created years ago, but they've become much larger discussion than their original thread starter ever intended.

 

[photonrider]

Actually threads, thread titles, and thread-duplication is not the point of that post - but hey!Whatever floats one's boat. 👍

I was more or less addressing (again! ) in that post about the title of the 'Gun Control Debate. And trying to look at it as a Firearms Regulations Talks.

I guess someone is now going to jump down my throat here and start an argument with themselves about there already being regulations.. . . .

 

[a6m5]

Boy, good luck with that one, Harry. We have so many new members joining the discussion, and their stances are all over the place.