Guns

[cphbullet]

Guy with concealed carry may have deterred Oregon mall shooter.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

Are you 🤬 serious this is getting ridiculous.

 

[FoolKiller]

Actually, I rarely see any policeman at all. The only time I see any police is rushing about in cars or if I go into Manchester city centre.

The thing is I live in a low-crime area. While I accept this makes me perhaps naive..I do wonder why people just accept high crime rates? Why not work on bringing crime down rather than arming yourselves? I realise I say that as if no one is doing anything and people are just buying guns instead, I do realise people try to do both..and crime rates can be high no matter what the police (or others) do for a number of reasons.

I just feel I'd prefer to live in an area with low crime and there is no necessity for guns...than to accept a high crime rate and add to the mess by arming the average person. That is what seems backwards to me.

You guys keep using examples that I obviously have no experience of. I'm not going to truly appreciate that kind of thing unless I suffered from it too...so I'm always going to be biased from the side of living in a safe area.

I used to live in a low-crime area, and technically still do, but things have changed. We used to have only one or two murders in the city I live in a year. The past two years have seen over 20 murders. A friend recently ran back into her house, after her family was in the car, and found a man in her basement with her iPhone and iPad in his hands. He dropped them and ran. For an entire year there were rumors of gang and drug related things moving in, but no officials would publicly admit it. After there began to be blatantly planned murders and body disposals it became clear there was no crime of passion or opportunity going on. Police have finally admitted to working on a theory that gang elements have moved in from Detroit. And I have quit using my local disc golf course because there have now been three bodies found in that park.

While I would love to say I am in a low crime area and have no need for self-defense (I don't own a gun), the simple fact is that criminals are like pests, they can move in at anytime. You can be safe one day and be found dead in a ditch, five miles from where you were killed, the next. And when your local police barely have any presence, because it wasn't needed before, who will protect you then? How long before police figure out they have an entirely new situation on their hands? And then how long before they get outside training and increased manpower to handle it?

http://www.bbbs.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=9iILI3NGKhK6F&b=6470175&ct=9134155&notoc=1

I'm putting that link because it outlines the issue of "who's going to pay?" Indeed, I agree with you that these kinds of programs would decrease many of the problems faced by youth. BBBS itself has had its successes (http://www.bbbs.org/site/c.9iILI3NGKhK6F/b.5962351/k.42EB/We_are_here_to_start_something.htm). But say there were funding cuts, where would the money come from? Could we assume private actors would fill the gap?

Considering that not all groups rely that heavily on public funding (but hey good job looking up the funding of the one group I specifically named and ignoring the bit where I said that there were many others), and that there are multiple groups with various levels of government affiliations, not to mention just everyday philanthropist efforts, it can be handled. As I mentioned before, my point right now is not about who will pay, but about how the gun debate is pointless.

I agree on how government has overextended itself when it comes to monitoring and detaining people (whether they're US citizens or not) and drone killing children in the Mid-East. The problem outlined by pro-gun control people, however, is that it seems that taking down the government is the last reason people give for owning firearms. It seems the reasons given for firearms ownership are: personal defense, recreation, and hunting... with a "oh yeah, I almost forgot to include: defense against the government. Lulz."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

Meaning that most of the guns out in America are primarily for self-defense. And not to denigrate that as a bad reason, cause I'm sure people are going to say "self-defense" is a natural right. Sure, it is. But when it comes to defense against one's government... someone here astutely asked "when [will you take your country back]?" Good question.

What's funny is that we tend to forget the other actor in this government v. people fight: the manufacturer of weapons. When both government and the people go at it, who's going to supply the weapons for each side? I don't really think the supplier will even care which munitions go for which side, especially if their endgame is max profit. It's the manufacturers that advocate in favor of lax gun control AND give governments the guns they can eventually use on their own people. It's like empowering the citizen while beefing up the entity the empowered citizen should rebel against. The way I see it, it's a money issue, not so much a human rights one ("I have the right to own a gun").




Could be the fact that Americans are just crazy. We do live in a violent culture. Hollywood, history, games. People try to think of themselves as impenetrable to the images thrown at us ("oh, we're not that stupid to fall for media's repetitive brainwashing"). I'm not so sure people are that impenetrable. At the end, you're right. We should raise our kids right. But we can't always be there for them. When we're not, who will be there to set them straight? TV?




Maybe have your wife and daughter armed with guns, thus preventing the rape in the first place? Seeing as how when it comes to rape, women are the ones who are the most vulnerable. Yet, we can go back to the previous point: culture. Obviously we don't live in a utopia, but it seems rather backwards citing the possibility of rape as the main reason for arming oneself. Put it this way: in regards to the topic of rape, what do we tell our daughters if they plan to go out at night? Be careful, watch what you drink, watch what you wear... That's our culture, right. We already know what they expose themselves to if they do certain things or dress a certain way. We draw these conclusions from our own violent culture (we are a part of it, after all) and recommend caution accordingly. Arming oneself is hardly safety. An armed woman makes her a harder target; but at the end of the day, she's still a target. Maybe we should be making sure men don't go raping instead, rather than giving the burden of avoiding tragedy to the potential victim. Culture shift. Maybe that is what we need.

Um, you are aware I am refuting individual points and none of what you quoted from me above was my suggested answer, right? I mean, I have to assume you know as that would only have required reading the conversation back a small bit more and seeing I had a whole post on how the gun debate is pointless because it won't ultimately solve anything.

Trying to refute my individual responses to other members by constantly bringing up culture shift is wasting your time when you could have just quoted this post and told me that you agree with me.

I mean, you even quoted me referring to my point in that post. Did you not bother going back to see what I was talking about before responding?

As for not being able to always watch our kids, your answer is in my post I linked to above. It sure as hell isn't TV. That entertainment as a babysitter mentality is likely part of the problem.

 

[arora]

As for not being able to always watch our kids, your answer is in my post I linked to above.

This is going to be the selling point for gun control from this point on, in a very aggressive way. The first point is that we are not able to raise our own kids, the second point is that we cannot always protect them. Here are a few quotes From Obama's last speech.

It comes as a shock at a certain point where you realize no matter how much you love these kids, you can't do it by yourself, that this job of keeping our children safe and teaching them well is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community and the help of a nation.

And by a nation, he means intrusive federal gov.

Can we honestly say that we're doing enough to keep our children, all of them, safe from harm?

In the coming weeks, I'll use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens, from law enforcement, to mental health professionals, to parents and educators, in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this, because what choice do we have? We can't accept events like this as routine.

Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?

If we cannot take responsibility to properly raise our children the state will. If we cannot properly protect them, the state will treat us as children. Keep in mind these clowns cannot even balance their own checkbook.

 

[FoolKiller]

If he hopes to argue that intrusive government controls into how we raise our children is what we should hope to take away from this tragedy he will have to explain why we should trust our government to protect our kids when this tragedy happened inside a government run facility.

But, his administration lives by the "let no tragedy go to waste" strategy.

I'm actually more afraid that he will hope to use this to bring back up regulating games and other media. He did hint at gun control already.

But he may learn an important lesson:

The 1st Amendment is free speech. The 2nd Amendment is gun ownership.
There is a reason why they are in that order. You first fight with your mind and your voice. You stand up and say when your government has gone wrong, argue with logic, ideas, principals.

When they stop you by taking away the 1st Amendment, then you invoke the 2nd.


That's for the, "When will you fight your government" crowd. I thought it was pretty obvious, seeing as how that is why the amendments were put into the Bill of Rights in that order, but people kept asking. There you have.

When they try to silence our voice is when we make a much louder noise.

 

[arora]

If he hopes to argue that intrusive government controls into how we raise our children is what we should hope to take away from this tragedy he will have to explain why we should trust our government to protect our kids when this tragedy happened inside a government run facility.

I'll take that a step further, and I know people will not like it but oh well. These school systems create or greatly contribute, to these things. I'll explain.

There is some reason the kid returned to his old school for this is there not? Now of course I do not and will probably never know his motives or much other truth about it. It would not surprise me if he was diagnosed with ADD or some other issue and given mind altering drugs at a young age(it's enforced by law in many cases), it would not surprise me if he was ostracized from a young age. It would not surprise me if he was shuffled through and out of the system as smoothly as possible so the schools look good and increase their funding.

I could be completely wrong in this particular instance but these things do happen. have we ever learned the full story about the 14 year old who blew up in front of his school?

BTW I agree with the rest of your post, goes without saying I would think 👍

EDIT: damnit I keep forgetting my obligatory vid

​

How can you have your pudding if you don't eat your meat?

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

The 1st Amendment is free speech. The 2nd Amendment is gun ownership.
There is a reason why they are in that order. You first fight with your mind and your voice. You stand up and say when your government has gone wrong, argue with logic, ideas, principals.

When they stop you by taking away the 1st Amendment, then you invoke the 2nd.

That's for the, "When will you fight your government" crowd. I thought it was pretty obvious, seeing as how that is why the amendments were put into the Bill of Rights in that order, but people kept asking. There you have.

When they try to silence our voice is when we make a much louder noise.

If that were true then the other 8 amendments in the Bill of Rights would have come before the right to bear arms...

Come on.

 

[Schwartz]

If that were true then the other 8 amendments in the Bill of Rights would have come before the right to bear arms...

No, not at all. It is certainly true. Let's assume they had put those 8 other amendments before the right to bear arms. Now let's say the government repeals the first amendment (freedom of speech, press, etc.). Then, the government decides to repeal the (current) 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments. You don't like this, so you decide to tell the government that you don't like it. But unfortunately, you can't because you have no freedom of speech to do so.

So then, the government proceeds to repeal the (current) 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th amendments. Now you have no basic rights at all, except, of course, the right to bear arms bear arms. Good luck.

Once the government takes your rights to, as FoolKiller said "Argue with logic, ideas, and principles" you can't do or say anything until they take away the rest of your rights. The time to invoke the second amendment isn't when you have no rights, it's when you have no other way to tell the government you're not happy.

You can't protect the Bill of Rights without freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech is protected by the 2nd Amendment. So yes, the 2nd Amendment is the 2nd most important one because it gives the people a tangible power to fight the government if they can't fight the government intellectually.

 

[Ibonibo]

If the egyptian population can overthrown a goverment peacefully without arming the whole nation, in a country led by greed, corruption and misabuse of police and military force, where lot of illegal weaponary exists, where no freedom of speech, religion, has realisticly existed, I just don't see the point that the civilized and intellectual population of the US to need to have the right to have arms against the gov.

Now you will come up with Syria and Libya. But all those arabic revolutions only one turned really sour. The others pretty muchh did it peacefully.

We are not in 1800 anymore. 200 year old laws need to be reworked. You are a country in peace now. For a long time. The civil war is over, King George is dead. Those laws or amendements come from the same area and people that claimed "negros"* are not human beeings, that slavery is a right, that woman have no rights,.... All well reflected ideas.

Also you seriously think you would stand a chance against the Army? Because until the moments come, you don't know which side the Army will take. They vowed to protect the country from enemies both from within and out of the country. I just don't see even with the heavier armory you can get, how you would stand aginst tanks, drones, bombings.

I even bet, those who would plan something like that would win a free Cia sponsored holiday in Cuba.

And the armed people in Washington pics: that seems to be a lot of people (precieved as hillbillies wanting to keep their guns by the rest of the world). Also weren't people protesting against the black beeing part of US society. now you have a black president. Weren't people protesting against gay marriage... Times changes, laws and mentalities should follow.

And again I also think most of you don't understand what the world is asking. Nobody (or nearly) asks for a ban. But rather more control. It's okay to have a glock for self defense but an M416? Do you face a bulgular or a group of Djiadists??
And yes the rest of the world cares, has a say, it's also our world. The US keeps putting their peppers grains everywhere in the world, so the world has a right to do the same, especially when innocent 5 year old are slaughtered.

Make gun control as an Idiot test. If it filters out 2% of black sheeps it would already be a start.

Pro guns (very liberal pro guns) seems to be the 1-2% of the world, thinking they are right and the rest 98% of the world are wrong.
Maybe think again,... probably the 98% are right and the 2% are obnoxiously wrong. You like your 200 year old pratices... 200 years ago, the 1-2% who would not understand would be send to a asylum...

And don't cite Galileo now...

* used as the historical term

 

[Liquid]

If the egyptian population can overthrown a goverment peacefully without arming the whole nation

Do not look up videos of the Egyptian revolution on the internet.

Do not.

 

[Ibonibo]

^How many deaths?
Now how many deaths are in Syria, where the conflict is fought with weaponary?

DO think again.
Tunesia?
Saudi Arabia?
...
All peacefully (opposed to an armed conflict which would have the outcome of Syria = civil war)

I don't say there were no casulties in those countries, but an armed conflict would have been exponentially worse

 

[FoolKiller]

If that were true then the other 8 amendments in the Bill of Rights would have come before the right to bear arms...

Come on.

Read the Bill of Rights. You will find the first two allow the citizens to protect the rest.

If the egyptian population can overthrown a goverment peacefully without arming the whole nation, in a country led by greed, corruption and misabuse of police and military force, where lot of illegal weaponary exists, where no freedom of speech, religion, has realisticly existed, I just don't see the point that the civilized and intellectual population of the US to need to have the right to have arms against the gov.

Hundreds dead, thousands injured, riots, etc. In comparison to others this could be seen as "peaceful" but only because the pro-Mubarak police commander that ordered attacks on protestors was removed by the military. It should also be noted that Mubarak was found guilty if complicity in the deaths of the protestors. Had the military been loyal to Mubarak, instead of acting as an intermediary, it would have been much worse.

We are not in 1800 anymore. 200 year old laws need to be reworked.

Do you think that I want to give our government a precedent for removing rights hard coded into our founding documents? The moment a precedent is set they just keep going it. That is how I knew that after tobacco laws went into effect unhealthy foods would be next. And they were, using the same arguments that got tobacco laws passed.

It is clear our government would like to remove the 4th Amendment. Why should we give them an opening?

You are a country in peace now. For a long time. The civil war is over, King George is dead. Those laws or amendements come from the same area and people that claimed "negros"* are not human beeings, that slavery is a right, that woman have no rights,.... All well reflected ideas.

So because they were wrong on some controversial issues they must have been wrong on everything. This is a tired and broken argument.

They had a choice between letting slavery stand or not having a united front against Britain. It was a hotly debated issue. That should tell you something. They also did not hard code things such as slavery and a lack of women's rights into the Constitution. Again, they knew it would change in time. They then added a process for granting new rights into the Constitution. They knew times would change and made it possible. They never, and I agree, felt there would come a time when government and men in power would never be corruptible. I think the fact that our president has actually ordered the deaths of US citizens, illegally detained and tortured US citizens, and is asking for unlimited power to indefinitely detain US citizens shows just how right they were on that point.

Also you seriously think you would stand a chance against the Army? Because until the moments come, you don't know which side the Army will take. They vowed to protect the country from enemies both from within and out of the country. I just don't see even with the heavier armory you can get, how you would stand aginst tanks, drones, bombings.

They vowed to support and defend the Constitution of the United States from enemies, foreign and domestic. The Constitution. You don't think there wouldn't be a point where, in the event of legitimate revolt over Constitutional violations, that a number of troops wouldn't join the resistance, and walk out with some of their weapons? If the complaints were legitimate would it not be unreasonable to hope that many of them would side with the resistance?

As for how do you fight the army; this is said in every revolution. The US won their revolution in large part due to a number of local farmers hiding in the woods and leading guerrilla style attacks.

And of course, I am sure Timothy McVeigh wasn't the only guy who knew how to take a van full of everyday household items and blow up an entire building. If a bunch of cave dwellers in the desert can cause trouble for a decade just imagine what a well-armed and educated group of US citizens could do.

Also, do not forget that each state has its own military groups which answer first to the state governor. The governor can tell them to aid national needs, such as the war or disaster response, but the president cannot command them until that happens. That is another one of those outdated ideas by our founding fathers.

I even bet, those who would plan something like that would win a free Cia sponsored holiday in Cuba.

If so, then their motivations are completely legitimate as it violates multiple other 200-year-old, outdated rights amendments guaranteed by our founding fathers.

Seriously, your arguments here are better justification for unlimited firearm ownership. Got to fight an army and resist being swept away without due process? You shouldn't need guns. That's outdated and an idea by slave owners. Just use some pea shooters or yell really loud. That's more civilized today.

And the armed people in Washington pics: that seems to be a lot of people (precieved as hillbillies wanting to keep their guns by the rest of the world). Also weren't people protesting against the black beeing part of US society. now you have a black president. Weren't people protesting against gay marriage... Times changes, laws and mentalities should follow.

We heard it here first, folks. Gun ownership is equal to bigotry. In fact, those bigots exercised their 1st Amendment right to free speech, so protesting in general is the same thing.

"I really want an orange."
"Really? I mean, you hate apples and the guy you buy your oranges from sells apples too, so eating an orange is just like eating an apple."

And again I also think most of you don't understand what the world is asking. Nobody (or nearly) asks for a ban. But rather more control. It's okay to have a glock for self defense but an M416? Do you face a bulgular or a group of Djiadists??

You are the one talking about fighting an army and being taken way by the CIA.

But if the legal backing is to have the ability to fight a way overboard government, even if it is 200 years away, I see no issue with it. Similarly, if you are just a collector of guns, because you understand and recognize the craftsmanship, I also see no problem with that.

And yes the rest of the world cares, has a say, it's also our world. The US keeps putting their peppers grains everywhere in the world, so the world has a right to do the same, especially when innocent 5 year old are slaughtered

.
Get your facts straight, then we will talk about how much say you get in US politics. And if you all want the US out of your business then ask us. I personally wish we would drop all of our international minglings. We send so much money overseas its ridiculous. I will be more than happy to support pulling all funding and military bases. But don't come running if someone drops some bombs on you or your economy goes belly up.

And if your true concern is psychopaths killing kids then why not be asking why we don't have better systems in place to identify and help them before this kind of thing happens.
Further, your proposed gun restrictions would not have prevented this specific tragedy. All three guns being reported were semi-automatic. Connecticut bans selective fire weapons and all three were legally owned, so that means just one shot at a time. He wasn't wielding weapons you would see as the primary weapon on the front lines. It also appears that he was too young to own or carry a handgun in his state and that he may have tried to purchase a rifle of his own and was turned down after he refused a background check and waiting period.

So, this kid was within your suggested additional controls, because that is what Connecticut state law is. Your solution wouldn't have done anything to stop this.

And if you want to keep saying the guns were the problem, then I will grant you that they likely made it easier to kill so many. But the guns didn't make him want to kill. He was crazy. He would have still killed. How many kids is acceptable? Or should we instead be discussing how to identify these guys and get them treatment before they snap and hopefully have no deaths?

Make gun control as an Idiot test. If it filters out 2% of black sheeps it would already be a start.

You mean like the current law that prevented this guy from buying his own gun?

Why do I get a feeling that you don't actually know what the gun laws are in the US?

Pro guns (very liberal pro guns) seems to be the 1-2% of the world, thinking they are right and the rest 98% of the world are wrong.
Maybe think again,... probably the 98% are right and the 2% are obnoxiously wrong. You like your 200 year old pratices... 200 years ago, the 1-2% who would not understand would be send to a asylum...

Well, if the majority agrees it must be right. <points to your comments about slavery> The majority can be wrong, often. Just look at political leaders if you disagree. The rest of the world would like to limit my freedom of speech too. Europe does it, right?

Sorry, the majority made Justin Bieber and Coldplay into stars. I need no other evidence that it is not uncommon to be the only sane person in the room.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Sorry, the majority made Justin Bieber and Coldplay into stars. I need no other evidence that it is not uncommon to be the only sane person in the room.

No truer words can be said, especially with today's generation.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Read the Bill of Rights. You will find the first two allow the citizens to protect the rest.

So the freedom of religion allows citizens to guard against excessive bail?

There is reaching... and then there's reaching.

The Bill of Rights is based off of Madison's articles which is based off the Virginian Rights which is based off of English legislation.

Unless you have some more proof other than your opinion and "read it"...

No.

 

[FoolKiller]

So the freedom of religion allows citizens to guard against excessive bail?

Freedom of speech and press allows public protesting of excessive bail.

But you actually knew what I meant, didn't you?

Or do you think preventing excessive bail helps protect gun ownership?

Unless you have some more proof other than your opinion and "read it"...

I'll admit that my understanding of the purpose of the numeration might be incorrect, but it does not change that the 1st and 2nd are designed to allow us recourse against an overbearing government that refuses to recognize our rights. And I know the history of where they came from. The fact that it was narrowed down from 20 amendments and the 2nd survived should be a sign of just how important our founders felt it was, and how real they believed the threat of any government, including the one they created, becoming tyranical was.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Freedom of speech and press allows public protesting of excessive bail.

But you actually knew what I meant, didn't you?

Yes, I knew what you meant; but I enjoy playing games... The point I was making was that its not as objective as it was made out to be.

Or do you think preventing excessive bail helps protect gun ownership?

No, as I never stated that I even believed they were in a certain order for any reason. They are all rights. While you can argue certain ones protect against the repeal of others, it comes down to the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit; which is what is really being protected (from the rule of the government in this case).

I'll admit that my understanding of the purpose of the numeration might be incorrect, but it does not change that the 1st and 2nd are designed to allow us recourse against an overbearing government that refuses to recognize our rights. And I know the history of where they came from. The fact that it was narrowed down from 20 amendments and the 2nd survived should be a sign of just how important our founders felt it was, and how real they believed the threat of any government, including the one they created, becoming tyranical was.

Agreed.

 

[FoolKiller]

No, as I never stated that I even believed they were in a certain order for any reason. They are all rights. While you can argue certain ones protect against the repeal of others, it comes down to the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit; which is what is really being protected (from the rule of the government in this case).

Look at them and you can clearly see they are clumped together. The first two give you the right to fight a government that overreaches. Three and Four protect property rights. Five through Eight guarantee fair and proper treatment in prosecution, trial, and punishment. And Nine and Ten protect unnamed rights.

I find it hard to believe that is coincidence.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Look at them and you can clearly see they are clumped together. The first two give you the right to fight a government that overreaches. Three and Four protect property rights. Five through Eight guarantee fair and proper treatment in prosecution, trial, and punishment. And Nine and Ten protect unnamed rights.

I find it hard to believe that is coincidence.

I am not denying that; there is going to be some coherence to the actual amendments considering they were based off of (and almost copied verbatim) those proposed in the respective articles.

The problem lies in the reasoning for their order, which was suggested to be "you fight logically first and then with guns." Which was far from the actual intent of either the first or second amendment. The point I brought up with freedom of religion should highlight this pretty well.

If that is your, or others, analysis of it then fine; but that doesn't make it a concrete fact.

 

[Maccer_42]

I used to be one of the people who thought the USA had a gun problem and that some form of control would lower the amount of these tragic events of mass shootings in schools etc. But not to the point of full on ban all guns and that will fix the problem, just that some form of control on how guns are able to be accesed might help. But after reading some of this thread and the other threads about the recent shootings and seeing the logic some people use to explain why banning guns or having increased gun control doesn't solve the problem it just makes it worse has made me realise just how naive and stupid I was, especially as the USA has so many guns it would be impossible to just make them all dissapeer.
It seems clear to me now that banning guns outright or having gun free zones is not the way to go and will only make the problem worse as the problem isn't with guns themself but how people choose to use them, and finding a way to control that seems to be a near impossible task without the government forcibly controling every single persons action in their life, and no one wants that to happen.

I don't know what the gun crime rate in England or the UK is but i'm guessing it's lower than the USA though that could be due to our lower population, but I've seen posted in other threads that the UK has quite a high voilent crime rate, I do now wonder what effect intruducing guns legaly into the UK would have. Would it lower the voilent crime rate but increase the gun crime rate as the people that chose to be voilent will now use guns insted of their fist's and knifes etc? Or would it lower both due to the fact if everyone has a gun it makes it harder to get away with a voilent crime without being stoped.

 

[homeforsummer]

I don't know what the gun crime rate in England or the UK is but i'm guessing it's lower than the USA though that could be due to our lower population,

The stats being sprayed around at the moment suggest gun crime in the UK is significantly lower per capita, as well as just lower in general. But...

but I've seen posted in other threads that the UK has quite a high voilent crime rate,

...this I think is correct, at least in certain cities. Again, I don't have the figures on me, but I recently read that violent crime rates are higher in London than they are in New York City.

I do now wonder what effect intruducing guns legaly into the UK would have. Would it lower the voilent crime rate but increase the gun crime rate as the people that chose to be voilent will now use guns insted of their fist's and knifes etc? Or would it lower both due to the fact if everyone has a gun it makes it harder to get away with a voilent crime without being stoped.

I expect, like the U.S, that the majority of people would keep them at home and virtually never use them.

My problem with legally introducing guns into the UK would be the sort of people who'd buy them anyway.

I'd assume that most people in the U.K. are anti-gun, because they've never had a reason to be pro-gun, and see plenty of stuff like school shootings through our media. Thus, most people wouldn't immediately rush out and buy a gun, having not needed one before and being largely against the idea.

However, plenty of low-life scum would rush out and buy guns because they'd be legally allowed, and things would quickly get out of hand. Even if murder rates didn't go up, I'd not like to think about the amount of chavs etc who'd arm themselves and be even more stupid and threatening than usual.

I'd look at it in the same way the U.K. would react if we adopted Germany's unlimited autobahn stuff. A bunch of people would abuse the privilege, kill themselves and others, generally be idiots, and the U.K. being the U.K. would quickly ban it again, clamping down even harder than before.

I respect the U.S's gun laws, but I wouldn't necessarily like to see something similar in the U.K. If I want to be surrounded by guns I'd rather just move to the U.S. than have them flood into the U.K.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

I respect the U.S's gun laws, but I wouldn't necessarily like to see something similar in the U.K. If I want to be surrounded by guns I'd rather just move to the U.S. than have them flood into the U.K.

You are surrounded by guns, it's just the government is in possession of them instead of your neighbor. In the US, we don't really trust our government much, especially when it comes to protecting us, and is why gun sales have been BOOMING for the past couple of years.

In the US, the government has an agreement with the people to represent them, their interests, and respect their rights and liberties. In the unlikely event that the government flips the people the proverbial bird and uses military power to revoke our interests, rights, and liberties there could be possibly 310 million guns pointing back saying "...not so fast."

The right to own guns is not only a checks & balance system against tyrannical government, it's a check and balance to protect our right to life. There's bad people out there, can't regulate that out of any society, and sometimes these people want to do grave harm. We have an inalienable right to kill someone who is trying to kill us or our family. Guns make that job a lot easier...only caveat is that it makes doing great harm easier for evil folks. That's the price we pay in America.

With that, Americans also have a right to choose what sort of weapon they feel most comfortable with; big dog, tai kwon do, .44 magnum. We also have the choice to be defenseless; no one forces anyone to buy a gun unless it's for work (think cops). While it's true we have a police & military force, that's really law enforcement as any immediate threat will have to be dealt with with you. Police cannot be omnipresent, as such Americans have it ingrained within them that the 1st plan of order is fighting back. Not all of us...but most.

Lastly, many Americans remember what happened after hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and now Sandy. Lots of looting, general lawlessness, FEMA concentration camps, highways filled with cars that ran out of fuel, and no way leave/resupply. Very quickly things got ugly; people couldn't get what they needed and resorted to crime/desperation. The government didn't help and people took it upon themselves to defend their homes & family. Others learned from this and stocked up on a few weapons and SHTF food supplies. Other examples of SHTF and the government being nowhere to protect people were the LA riots, where "assault rifles" saved the lives of a lot of Korean business owners trapped in their stores, and various race riots across the country (I witnessed one for the Jena 6 that got really ugly). If a pack of rioters broke into my apartment to trash it, I would have been trashed as well. But since I had a gun I at least had a chance. I don't think that's paranoia, nor did I buy any of my weapons for 'personal protection', but instead of being absolutely terrified of what was going on outside I just patiently waited for police to arrive...which was probably a good 20-30min. Lots of fighting, looting, and stuff was set on fire in that 20-30min.

 

[Dennisch]

I heard that Obama announced that he was going to make serious work about banning AR's and such, is there any news about that already?

 

[sumbrownkid]

I heard that Obama announced that he was going to make serious work about banning AR's and such, is there any news about that already?

It's not just him, it's along the party lines in general, and a lot of the public.

The Assault weapons ban of 1994 is being brought back to fore and Biden thinks any changes to it that include updates to the ban list should be passed through Congress without much difficulty.

So if you're wanting a single shot AR, now's your chance to get them. I think the nation is pressing towards harsher control than freeing it, but that's just my useless opinion.

 

[Dennisch]

Yeah, I saw the statement made by the NRA on CNN, and one would think that if they would support the Governments ideas, deals can be made a lot quicker.

 

[homeforsummer]

You are surrounded by guns, it's just the government is in possession of them instead of your neighbor.

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.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I don't think harder gun control would do anything, in fact it will only make crimes worse. Criminals will get guns regardless.

What needs to be done is smarter control, not harder control. Pro-active legislation is needed not reactive legislation.

 

[Dennisch]

Mental check ups before giving someone a license, and a license required for anything that can hurl lead at high speeds.

Would be a start?

 

[sumbrownkid]

Mental check ups before giving someone a license, and a license required for anything that can hurl lead at high speeds.

Would be a start?

Mental check ups should be used, but I'm uncomfortable for saying that for some reason.

The issue with mental check ups is the costs (who takes that burden, or who is willing to should I ask?) and added regulations that will make the bureaucracy only worse.

Then you get that one psycho who manages to fool the mental experts and go on his paranoia spree with a high powered gun.

It's a slippery slope, or at least in my eyes.

 

[Dennisch]

Mental check ups should be used, but I'm uncomfortable for saying that for some reason.

The issue with mental check ups is the costs (who takes that burden, or who is willing to should I ask?) and added regulations that will make the bureaucracy only worse.

Who will pay? The one that wants a gun. Current situations makes this acceptable. I think.

Then you get that one psycho who manages to fool the mental experts and go on his paranoia spree with a high powered gun.

It's a slippery slope, or at least in my eyes.

But what if you stop 10 psychos from getting guns this way, and they commit suicide with a rope, instead of going out with a bang?

And yes, the slope is very slippery.

 

[sumbrownkid]

If it can prevent greater harm than I'm up for it, but the exams must be thorough.

It's not easy to tell if a person has Multiple personality disorder or is delusional or has an active imagination.

In another thread, I mentioned the SOP system from MGS4 in the gun control discussion we were having. Cool in theory, but hard to make practical.

It's one of those things that require many more years of research and experimentation. And not to mention a huge debate with human rights that will ensue.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yeah, I saw the statement made by the NRA on CNN, and one would think that if they would support the Governments ideas, deals can be made a lot quicker.

So, you think that if the NRA gave up their principals and said the government, whom they disagree with, has ideas they will accept that deals will be made faster? Yeah, it's called giving up. It isn't a deal, it's a one-sided victory for gun control.

All that said, I am currently angry at the NRA over their speech today. They scapegoated media in a horrible attempt to deflect attacks on guns. If you want to defend the 2nd Amendment you can't attack the 1st. Next time I get one of their unsolicited calls or emails I'll tell them about it too.

Mental check ups before giving someone a license, and a license required for anything that can hurl lead at high speeds.

Would be a start?

A start to do what? This kid had his Mom's guns. Most of these guys aren't using guns they personally own or guns they obtained illegally.

Perhaps we need to work on a change in our medical community that doesn't rely on general practitioners to notice and diagnose a mental illness before referring them for help with a mental health professional. Maybe we could develop a recommended mental health checkup on an occasional basis when puberty kicks in. I've had to do a psych eval before, and while they are relatively simple they could be embarrassing and uncomfortable for some people and making it mandatory to purchase a good could have problems.

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

But ultimately, gun control of any kind would not have stopped the Sandy Hook thing. The going theory is the guy resented the kids, thinking his mother loved them more. If that was his deal he wouldn't need guns to take out his aggression on them. Columbine taught us that kids can make homemade explosives and Oklahoma City taught us you can blow up a whole building with household chemicals.

Don't kid yourselves into believing guns are the only reason he was able to kill so many kids. He planned this out in advance, we know because he did try to buy a gun a few days before, and if guns weren't an option he would have made a different plan.