NOT ANOTHER GUN CONTROL THREAD

[Tommycat]

How about we compromise then(something politicians are unwilling to really understand)? Make it a requirement that the original purchaser is held liable if the firearm he purchased is used in a crime(If he is unable to prove that he made a reasonable effort to secure the firearm, say it was not in a properly installed and locked safe), and that ALL sales must go through an FFL(for a background check). Lets also add in that if a person has had more than 3 incidents of their firearms being stolen, they are placed on the denied list for NICS. In exchange allow private ownership of machine guns again.

[mimartin]

Lets also add in that if a person has had more than 3 incidents of their firearms being stolen, they are placed on the denied list for NICS

I would go for that if instead of denied they are placed in prison for 10 years hard labor. You have to be joking… How is that a compromise? Someone may have assisted in murder and robbery by criminal activity and you want to just put them on the denied list after they do it 3 times. Sorry according to federal law now, from the 1960’s, they should be on the denied list after doing it the first time because they are a criminal. How is that a compromise? That would actually opening another loophole in the law as it stands now.

 

I would hold people to the reasonable person standard. In most states you must file a police report for any insurance claim involving theft or robbery. The courts have ruled that to be a reasonable standard. What is so difficult about reporting a theft loss? If your TV is stolen you would not call the police? Why is a firearm any different? I would really like to know what is so difficult about reporting a that a deadly weapon was stolen? You say a gun is a tool and I agree, if my band saw is stolen I will report it, what would make a "resonable person" not report a firearm stolen?

[Xavier1985]

Aaaand again:

 

The founding fathers wanted us armed to prevent our government from pushing us around like yours does to you.

 

The US is not a socialist nanny state yet, though we seem to be getting closer all the time.

 

the usa is no different to any other western world country, except that is one of the youngest and feel like they have something to prove. We over here in the uk don't get pushed around any more or less than the americans do... this was true even back in the "founding father" days, just didn't want to pay the kings taxes, but they ended up paying their own tax, amusing.

 

i'll never be convinced of being pro-gun owner ship, especially arming people to the teeth, that is just immature and ignorant. if there is a problem with massacres, handing out more guns will not resolve the issue, it would just make it easier for the suspect to do what they will do.

 

i went to Vegas a few years ago, even the car valet people have pistols, how ridiculous, et they will be arming MacDonald's employees next. That is one of the most off putting things about the USA, their fetish for guns.

 

but as i said before, ban and make automatic and some semi automatic weapons, anyone who has an arsenal of weapons has intent, if you only wanted to own a weapon for protection, you would only need a small pistol or something to that extent. Anything bigger or more powerful and it goes beyond defence and into the realm of intent.

[Totenkopf]

Intent to what, though? You're assuming that gun enthusiasts want to launch a revolution vs their govt?

[Tommycat]

I would go for that if instead of denied they are placed in prison for 10 years hard labor. You have to be joking… How is that a compromise? Someone may have assisted in murder and robbery by criminal activity and you want to just put them on the denied list after they do it 3 times. Sorry according to federal law now, from the 1960’s, they should be on the denied list after doing it the first time because they are a criminal. How is that a compromise? That would actually opening another loophole in the law as it stands now.

 

I would hold people to the reasonable person standard. In most states you must file a police report for any insurance claim involving theft or robbery. The courts have ruled that to be a reasonable standard. What is so difficult about reporting a theft loss? If your TV is stolen you would not call the police? Why is a firearm any different? I would really like to know what is so difficult about reporting a that a deadly weapon was stolen? You say a gun is a tool and I agree, if my band saw is stolen I will report it, what would make a "resonable person" not report a firearm stolen?

You missed the parenthesis of the previous line. IF, even after they have made all reasonable efforts to secure their firearms(Locked in a properly installed safe when not in use), they have their firearms stolen three times THEN they are placed on the permanently denied list. It happened to a friend of mine. His gun safe was broken free from the foundation by the use of a nearby bulldozer. You would have him do 10 years hard labor for someone else wrapping a chain around his gun safe? Again, it's about REASONABLE EFFORT. It's not opening a loophole, in fact it's closing the current loophole. As it stands now, the guy simply reports that his guns were stolen from under his bed, and he's free to go buy more. Oh hey he bought more AK's. whoops stolen again. darn thieves. Buy more AK's Whoops stolen again. It's like they know he has them under his bed or something. In your haste to dismiss my post as not compromising, you must have missed this section.

 

Make it a requirement that the original purchaser is held liable if the firearm he purchased is used in a crime(If he is unable to prove that he made a reasonable effort to secure the firearm, say it was not in a properly installed and locked safe), and that ALL sales must go through an FFL(for a background check). Lets also add in that if a person has had more than 3 incidents of their firearms being stolen, they are placed on the denied list for NICS.

 

So that covered all of your reasoning.

1) Straw buyers cannot simply hand off their purchases to a buyer and claim their firearms were stolen without having to show an extreme effort was made to get them.

2) IF you buy a gun and it is used in a crime, YOU are liable. Which means that YOU MUST REPORT IT STOLEN BEFORE IT IS USED IN A CRIME! So I have no idea where you get off with that tangent about not reporting it stolen.

3) They cannot just sell it on the street and keep the money, as that sale HAS TO GO THROUGH AN FFL. That prevents people from saying, "Yeah I sold that to a dude I met at the gun show. What was his name? I dunno."

 

Of course this could all be a moot point anyway as the 3d printing technology gets better. You could print your own gun. Then there's relatively inexpensive CNC milling machines that could easily be adapted to make firearm frames(which are the only parts that have to go through an FFL). Ain't technology grand?

 

the usa is no different to any other western world country, except that is one of the youngest and feel like they have something to prove. We over here in the uk don't get pushed around any more or less than the americans do... this was true even back in the "founding father" days, just didn't want to pay the kings taxes, but they ended up paying their own tax, amusing.

 

i'll never be convinced of being pro-gun owner ship, especially arming people to the teeth, that is just immature and ignorant. if there is a problem with massacres, handing out more guns will not resolve the issue, it would just make it easier for the suspect to do what they will do.

 

i went to Vegas a few years ago, even the car valet people have pistols, how ridiculous, et they will be arming MacDonald's employees next. That is one of the most off putting things about the USA, their fetish for guns.

 

but as i said before, ban and make automatic and some semi automatic weapons, anyone who has an arsenal of weapons has intent, if you only wanted to own a weapon for protection, you would only need a small pistol or something to that extent. Anything bigger or more powerful and it goes beyond defence and into the realm of intent.

Um, life in the colonies wasn't exactly all roses and sunshine. We had to pay taxes on goods from England as well as having high tariffs on our goods. And look at the third amendment. It was put there because British troops could come into your home, eat your crops, slaughter your livestock and even have their way with your wife and daughter, and you couldn't do anything about it. While taxation gets the primary focus, it wasn't the only thing. And it was taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. The colonies had NO SAY in Parliament. And they kept raising the taxes on things in the colonies, but we had no say in the matter.

 

Gun ownership does not cause massacres. The worst massacres in history were caused by means other than firearms. Bath Michigan. 38 children killed in a school. No gun was used. Weapon of choice? Dynamite. Oklahoma city. 168 souls, including 19 under 6. Weapon of choice? explosives(home made). And of course New York 9/11. 3000+ lost. Not a gun in sight. weapon of choice? Aircraft. Crazy people intent on killing massive numbers of people are far less concerned with the weapon they need than how to do the most damage.

 

Valets in Vegas had firearms? I never noticed that. Maybe it's because I don't let my knickers get all knotted because someone has a firearm. Or maybe it's because I rarely valet my car. But I would understand it, as they are sometimes in vehicles that are very expensive, and often have to run out to a darkened lot with the keys to that car in their hands.

 

And the whole "Arsenal" argument is just plain silly. A rifle is more accurate than a pistol. Plain and simple. A rifle also has less overspray than a shotgun. There are a ton of people who like to collect things. Some like firearms that look a certain way.

1 AUTOMATIC WEAPONS ARE REALLY HARD TO GET.

2 IF YOU HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE FEDS TO GET ONE THEY CAN RAID YOUR HOME AT ANY TIME.

3 YOU CANNOT BUY ONE THAT WAS REGISTERED AFTER 1 MAY 1986 UNLESS YOU ARE LAW ENFORCEMENT

4 THERE HAS BEEN ONE CRIME COMMITTED WITH A LEGALLY OBTAINED AUTOMATIC WEAPON BY A CIVILIAN SINCE 1934

(2 if you include the cop)

there... maybe NOW people will see it.

[mimartin]

I am on that because the NRA is against requiring people to report stolen guns. Someone buys a gun for someone, it is used in a murder, police trace it back to person that bought it, they say it was stolen and case is done. That is way the system works now. Chicago is trying to get this changed, but the NRA is against it.

 

As to your friend, I am against that still, but for another reason. If he did what a reasonable person would have done in protecting his weapons and they were still stolen and he reported them stolen, then I would be against him not being able to purchasing more guns. Hell, he probably actually needs them for protection more than the rest of us and he did nothing wrong to have one of his rights taken away. He was responsible and others violated his rights, then government should not step in and further remove his rights. Only thing the 3 times would do is make more people not report stolen weapons until the police knocked on the door.

[Tommycat]

I am on that because the NRA is against requiring people to report stolen guns. Someone buys a gun for someone, it is used in a murder, police trace it back to person that bought it, they say it was stolen and case is done. That is way the system works now. Chicago is trying to get this changed, but the NRA is against it.

 

As to your friend, I am against that still, but for another reason. If he did what a reasonable person would have done in protecting his weapons and they were still stolen and he reported them stolen, then I would be against him not being able to purchasing more guns. Hell, he probably actually needs them for protection more than the rest of us and he did nothing wrong to have one of his rights taken away. He was responsible and others violated his rights, then government should not step in and further remove his rights. Only thing the 3 times would do is make more people not report stolen weapons until the police knocked on the door.

And I said it was a compromise. You inferred it was NOT a compromise. Hence why I'm a little peeved at your response that supplanted the NRA stance over mine. I may be a member of the NRA, but that does not mean that I agree with everything they say. And I write them to tell them when I disagree. I disagree on their "NO" stance on background checks on all firearm sales. I disagree on not requiring persons to report stolen firearms. Though I agree in that I feel that we SHOULD be able to have any small arms that can be used to defend ourselves(note that does not extend to portable nukes, as even if you could CCW a nuke, you cannot use it to defend yourself from an attacker). US V Miller states we cannot have arms that have no military use, yet we are limited to not being able to use firearms that are used by the military?

 

Actually I believe that if you have those firearms stolen 3 times you must be doing something wrong. One time having your safe ripped from the foundation I can understand. 3 times becomes suspicious. Maybe have a timeframe. 3 times in a year? I mean if you end up setting up a method for allowing the straw buyers to set up a "Steal from me" house, then you have the same problem.

[mimartin]

Actually I believe that if you have those firearms stolen 3 times you must be doing something wrong. One time having your safe ripped from the foundation I can understand. 3 times becomes suspicious. Maybe have a timeframe. 3 times in a year? I mean if you end up setting up a method for allowing the straw buyers to set up a "Steal from me" house, then you have the same problem.

not always true... Let be honest certain area in the Nation like certain neighborhoods you are 10000 times more likely to shot yourself than to ever be robed or murdered by someone outside your family or friends. The only reason to have a weapon there is to for sports, hunting or to make up for other inadequacies in someone's life.

 

However, some live in neighborhoods that have extremely high crime rates where having a weapon could mean the difference between life and death. So I am not willing to take away someone right to defend their home just because they live in a bad neighborhood. Sorry look at the statics once your home is robed once, if they got some good stuff they are very likely to come back in a few months after you had a chance to collect from the insurance company and replace the items. Someone has a safe, has it locked, I am not willing to tell them they lost the right to defend their family. I work in the insurance industry and any adjustor will tell people once they are burglarized to expect a return trip. We are in the business to make money so if we had a easy answer for this problem, we would definitely tell our policy holders.

 

I am sick in tired of criminals and stupid people doing stupid stuff and then forcing changes that make the innocent suffer. Just like the stupidest thing ever the 1,000,000 plus people on the watch list because a few idiot flew planes into buildings.

 

 

Gun stolen report it, no problem....Gun stolen don't report it, gun used in crime traced back to you, go to jail for aiding and abetting. Jail time depended on what crime was committed. No ifs ands or buts. Detectives are not stupid, someone constantly reports thefts that were not thefts they will see the pattern and they are already laws on the books to handle that. No new acts of congress or presidential orders need to fix that. Police just need to have their hands untied and given the ability to enforce the laws.

[Xavier1985]

You missed the parenthesis of the previous line. IF, even after they have made all reasonable efforts to secure their firearms(Locked in a properly installed safe when not in use), they have their firearms stolen three times THEN they are placed on the permanently denied list. It happened to a friend of mine. His gun safe was broken free from the foundation by the use of a nearby bulldozer. You would have him do 10 years hard labor for someone else wrapping a chain around his gun safe? Again, it's about REASONABLE EFFORT. It's not opening a loophole, in fact it's closing the current loophole. As it stands now, the guy simply reports that his guns were stolen from under his bed, and he's free to go buy more. Oh hey he bought more AK's. whoops stolen again. darn thieves. Buy more AK's Whoops stolen again. It's like they know he has them under his bed or something. In your haste to dismiss my post as not compromising, you must have missed this section.

 

 

 

So that covered all of your reasoning.

1) Straw buyers cannot simply hand off their purchases to a buyer and claim their firearms were stolen without having to show an extreme effort was made to get them.

2) IF you buy a gun and it is used in a crime, YOU are liable. Which means that YOU MUST REPORT IT STOLEN BEFORE IT IS USED IN A CRIME! So I have no idea where you get off with that tangent about not reporting it stolen.

3) They cannot just sell it on the street and keep the money, as that sale HAS TO GO THROUGH AN FFL. That prevents people from saying, "Yeah I sold that to a dude I met at the gun show. What was his name? I dunno."

 

Of course this could all be a moot point anyway as the 3d printing technology gets better. You could print your own gun. Then there's relatively inexpensive CNC milling machines that could easily be adapted to make firearm frames(which are the only parts that have to go through an FFL). Ain't technology grand?

 

 

Um, life in the colonies wasn't exactly all roses and sunshine. We had to pay taxes on goods from England as well as having high tariffs on our goods. And look at the third amendment. It was put there because British troops could come into your home, eat your crops, slaughter your livestock and even have their way with your wife and daughter, and you couldn't do anything about it. While taxation gets the primary focus, it wasn't the only thing. And it was taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. The colonies had NO SAY in Parliament. And they kept raising the taxes on things in the colonies, but we had no say in the matter.

 

Gun ownership does not cause massacres. The worst massacres in history were caused by means other than firearms. Bath Michigan. 38 children killed in a school. No gun was used. Weapon of choice? Dynamite. Oklahoma city. 168 souls, including 19 under 6. Weapon of choice? explosives(home made). And of course New York 9/11. 3000+ lost. Not a gun in sight. weapon of choice? Aircraft. Crazy people intent on killing massive numbers of people are far less concerned with the weapon they need than how to do the most damage.

 

Valets in Vegas had firearms? I never noticed that. Maybe it's because I don't let my knickers get all knotted because someone has a firearm. Or maybe it's because I rarely valet my car. But I would understand it, as they are sometimes in vehicles that are very expensive, and often have to run out to a darkened lot with the keys to that car in their hands.

 

And the whole "Arsenal" argument is just plain silly. A rifle is more accurate than a pistol. Plain and simple. A rifle also has less overspray than a shotgun. There are a ton of people who like to collect things. Some like firearms that look a certain way.

1 AUTOMATIC WEAPONS ARE REALLY HARD TO GET.

2 IF YOU HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE FEDS TO GET ONE THEY CAN RAID YOUR HOME AT ANY TIME.

3 YOU CANNOT BUY ONE THAT WAS REGISTERED AFTER 1 MAY 1986 UNLESS YOU ARE LAW ENFORCEMENT

4 THERE HAS BEEN ONE CRIME COMMITTED WITH A LEGALLY OBTAINED AUTOMATIC WEAPON BY A CIVILIAN SINCE 1934

(2 if you include the cop)

there... maybe NOW people will see it.

 

you give the list of the lost, which in itself is a sad read and their loss will always be remembered, but in america there were 12,664 murders in 2011. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.. that is ONE year, one SINGLE year as opposed to in the uk there were 550 murders and a very small percentage were gun related.

 

i will never be convinced gun ownership is a good idea and arming those who are not professionals, like valet parking attendants or even school teachers is just "typically american" as we say, amusing really.. so uncivilised.

 

guns were made for one thing, no matter how you dress it up or try to endlessly justify it, they are made for one purpose and the statistics show this.

 

There is a huge gun problem in america, you cannot deny this, the whole world see's it and shakes their head and with organisations like the NRA, they just make it easier for criminals or those who have a mental break down to gain the means to kill.

 

one of the posters mentioned that all massacres or most were from stolen guns, the killing at that primary school, the man used his mothers guns (yes, she had an arsenal, ridiculous) after killing her with them. The Batman shootings, i believe the man there actually owned most of his guns, saw a documentary on it on the BBC, even though he had failed x amount of the restrictions etc he still managed to buy fire arms.

 

lets face it, there are 2-4 massacres in america every year with no decline in the past 40-50 years involving guns, each of which have atleast 10 fatalities minimum.. that should be enough to have some form of ban or referendum or what have you..

 

the NRA say "guns don't kill people, people do" that s very true, but very ignorant at the same time.. guns were made for killing, it is what they are made for and sold for, wrap it up as self defence if you wish, but if you kill in self defence, you still have killed. People will always try to kill one another, the best thing to do is try to minimize the casualty list.

[Tommycat]

@mim: You make a good point. But how do we give the police the power to arrest the people they know are straw buyers. Of course universal registration might work, but I would demand that any registration information be SEALED except as required in an investigation requiring a warrant for that information. I don't want the Journal news advertising where all the guns are. Granted, in Texas, that would look like they painted the map red.

 

@xavier: You fail to take in to account that in the US guns were used for defensive purposes(on the lowest estimate) roughly 700,000 times per year. In those murder statistics(which are actually not the murder statistics, but homicides, including Justified homicides) the majority are gang violence. I believe it's 75%(again on the low estimate). We have 20 times the number of heavy population centers as in the UK. AND your violent crime and crimes against women have gone up sharply since the banning of firearms(our rape has gone down 6% England and wales had gone up 11%). The majority of mass killings have occurred in areas that were labeled "Gun Free" with nobody to enforce it. If guns were the problem, why hasn't there been a mass shooting at a gun show? Removing guns from an area can work, but you have to have someone armed to enforce it. Like at the airport.

 

Do you truly think you can remove guns from a society that was founded on guns? We have by low estimates over 300,000,000 firearms(using 0's to show how large that number really is) in the US. We have 90,000,000 legal firearm owners(again a very low estimate). A firearm is a relatively simple machine. I can make one in a shop in about 2 hours(4 if I want to make a semiautomatic, 6 to make an automatic. Give me about 36 hours and I can actually manufacture a fully functioning M4). And that's to make one that fires gunpowder rounds. A lethal air rifle is not that hard to manufacture either.

 

Guns are an equalizer. They make a 90 lb woman able to beat a 200 lb man.

 

Also, it was the Brady Campaign(anti-gun group) that pointed out that most firearms used in massacres(which they called 2 or more people dead, including the shooter) were gained illegally. Generally through people lieing on their application. Oh that's right it's a crime to do that.

[Xavier1985]

as you said, the country was founded using weaponry and guns were used for defensive purposes to defend the freedom the country once had, which, n turn, didn't last very long until a centre of government was formed, effectively taking most senses of the word of freedom, away.

 

freedom isn't free, as they say.

 

all past tenses, guns are tools for killing, nothing more, nothing less. sure they can be used as a deterrent, but that only goes so far, arming everyone just makes everything ergh.. uncivilised.

 

we can throw figures at each other, but they are just figures, they neglect to take into consideration a varity of other factors, education, employment, drugs, alcohol. America has one of the worst gun crimes in the world, the uk has a pretty bad violence related to alcohol issue..

 

equal rights does not mean giving a weak person a gun and giving a strong person a gun, that is just barbaric.

[Tommycat]

as you said, the country was founded using weaponry and guns were used for defensive purposes to defend the freedom the country once had, which, n turn, didn't last very long until a centre of government was formed, effectively taking most senses of the word of freedom, away.

 

freedom isn't free, as they say.

 

all past tenses, guns are tools for killing, nothing more, nothing less. sure they can be used as a deterrent, but that only goes so far, arming everyone just makes everything ergh.. uncivilised.

An armed society is a polite society. Strangely enough that was true back in the old west(not the wild west, that's Hollywood, where Johnny Ringo was in a hundred places he never really was). Are police in the UK uncivilized because they carry firearms?

 

we can throw figures at each other, but they are just figures, they neglect to take into consideration a varity of other factors, education, employment, drugs, alcohol. America has one of the worst gun crimes in the world, the uk has a pretty bad violence related to alcohol issue..

 

equal rights does not mean giving a weak person a gun and giving a strong person a gun, that is just barbaric.

 

The US does not have a gun problem. 300000000 firearms in circulation(again super low estimate), and roughly 9000 homicides works out to .00003 % of firearms used in murder. Statistically, you're more likely to get run over by a drunk driver than murdered with a firearm. And that statistical likelihood drops even lower if you aren't a member of a gang(I think it gets down to the same likelihood of being eaten by a shark). And if we take it even further, to the "assault weapons" that number drops to the same statistical likelihood of being bitten by a shark in Poland(350 since the end of the Federal Assault Weapons ban).

 

And honestly you are claiming that WE have a problem. You point out how few mass murders you have had since your ban. How many did you have before the ban?

 

I didn't say it was equal rights. Simply that it places them on equal footing. Assuming of course there is no difference in training. If a 90 lb woman has a firearm and a 200 lb man has a firearm, who has the advantage? If a 90 lb woman is facing off against a 200 lb man, who has the advantage.

[mimartin]

The US does not have a gun problem. 300000000 firearms in circulation(again super low estimate), and roughly 9000 homicides works out to .00003 % of firearms used in murder. Statistically, you're more likely to get run over by a drunk driver than murdered with a firearm.

 

 

•In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

 

In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour

 

correct me if I am wrong, but guns take more lives in the US than drunk driving, at least in 2010.

[VeniVidiVicous]

It's more than a little hypocritical that the same administration that thought it was a good idea to "gunwalk" thousands of assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels wants to prohibit legal ownership of the same type of weapons by law-abiding American citizens.

 

No, that actually fits the idea that the firearms were able to be legally purchased here in the US by people who could pass the NICS check. What's hypocritical is that this administration sent Arms to Libyan Rebels but thinks we shouldn't be able to purchase the same arms they GAVE AWAY.

 

I'm guessing that the Libya move was considered beneficial to US foreign policy.

As for the Mexican Cartel move, everybody likes drugs right?

 

In regards to how any of that affects a US citizens gun rights, it doesn't in the governments eyes I imagine.

[Q]

When a government doesn't have a problem with breaking its own laws, it's time for that government to be replaced by one that does, and that's what the gun control issue is all about, really.

correct me if I am wrong, but guns take more lives in the US than drunk driving, at least in 2010.

Actually, it's people taking lives in both cases.

 

I KNOW: LET'S BAN TEH PEOPLE!!!!!111!1!111ONE [/kneejerk]

[VeniVidiVicous]

@Q:

 

Well I think when it comes to foreign and domestic issues they can view them as two separate things where one has absolutely nothing to do with the other, hence doing something abroad which you wouldn't do at home is a non-issue.

 

Whether that's hypocritical is another discussion.

[Q]

The "gunwalking" originated on US soil.

[Xavier1985]

@TommyCat

 

the average policeman in the uk does not carry a gun, an armed society is an uncivilised and ignorant society.

 

we have armed units, just incase something is to occur (bank robbers, terrorists and the like) but they are only called when the situation requires them. To arm everyone is to live in fear, fear is not the tool of democracy.

 

And the usa does have a gun control problem, 2-4 massacres per year every year screams problem to me, you try telling the parents who lost their children in the stupidly high amount of school shootings that there isn't a problem, throw what ever statistics you like, it is a way to detatch yourself from the reality, when even one child dies from a fire-arm incident, then there is a huge problem, end of.

[Q]

You're doing a wonderful job of living up to your stereotype.

 

Far be it from me to stop you. Pontificate on.

[mimartin]

When a government doesn't have a problem with breaking its own laws, it's time for that government to be replaced by one that does, and that's what the gun control issue is all about, really.

Sorry no, that is what people want to say, but even if you had machine guns, tanks.... you are not taking down a government that spends more on defense than the other 13 countries in the world with guns people have in their home. Fortunately the founding fathers thought of that and gave us another method of change the government, less deadly too. VOTE. Sorry the American people seem to vote against most of your ideas, but other people have their own opinions.

 

So Q. beside my petty misplace use of words, do you agree with Tommycat that you are less likely to be killed with a gun involved than involved in a death involving a car and impaired driver or are you just trying to cherry pick to and take the discussion off the real problem. Idiots that shouldn't have guns are killing people and themselves with them. I said straight off I don't want to ban guns, but you are sounding more and more like the NRA's solution give everyone a gun and let the last person standing win.

[Q]

So, you're admitting that we live under an unassailable oligarchy, now, which is not at all what the founding fathers intended? Good. I agree. Democracy here is an illusion, so what's the point of voting when you're forced to choose between bad and worse? What a joke. Voting has become nothing more than humoring a feel-good farce.

 

Gun ownership isn't about taking over the government; it's about taking as many of the jack-booted government thugs with you as you can when they finally come for you. They're not nearly as likely to come for you as long as there's a fairly good chance that they're going to get shot.

 

As to your second point: Why can't we just shoot the idiots when they enter a crowded place and open fire? And if people want to kill themselves, why can't we just let them?

[Tommycat]

@TommyCat

 

the average policeman in the uk does not carry a gun, an armed society is an uncivilised and ignorant society.

 

we have armed units, just incase something is to occur (bank robbers, terrorists and the like) but they are only called when the situation requires them. To arm everyone is to live in fear, fear is not the tool of democracy.

I'm asking if the armed police officers suddenly become uncivilized simply for carrying a firearm. You seem to believe that simply having the firearm on them makes them uncivilized. I beg to differ. Or maybe we have different definitions of civilized. I tend to believe that "civil" is part of it. I have found that places that are disarmed have a greater chance of being uncivil than places that nobody knows if you are armed.

And the usa does have a gun control problem, 2-4 massacres per year every year screams problem to me, you try telling the parents who lost their children in the stupidly high amount of school shootings that there isn't a problem, throw what ever statistics you like, it is a way to detatch yourself from the reality, when even one child dies from a fire-arm incident, then there is a huge problem, end of.

And the emotional "for the kids" argument. Again, I point out that the firearm is NOT what causes these mass killings. How many people could he have killed if instead of a gun he used a tanker full of fuel? These parents instead would be crying over the fact that their child was so burned that the only thing left was ashes and a strip of cloth. The worst mass killing in a school in the US had NO firearms involved. The problem is that we make these schools into targets. The only thing those "Gun Free Zone" signs keep out are the sane people who wouldn't turn their guns on kids.

 

Again, I point out that there are no mass killings at gun shows. And don't tell me it's because they check them to make sure they are not loaded, because quite frankly that little zip tie wouldn't stop a determined killer anymore than a "Gun Free Zone" sign. Our problem is NOT the gun. With the majority of violence being gang related and drug related, I'd say that's what we should work on cleaning up.

[Astor]

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved as it's not for us Johnny Foreigners to tell you how to solve the 'problem' of guns and gun control - though to me it seems the recent cases are more a failing of a woeful lack of intervention on the part of the mental health services, but I'll leave it at that.

 

the average policeman in the uk does not carry a gun, an armed society is an uncivilised and ignorant society.[/Quote]

 

Our population may not be armed, but we're just as uncivilised and ignorant.

 

we have armed units, just incase something is to occur (bank robbers, terrorists and the like) but they are only called when the situation requires them.

 

Or when the NHS need to break into your home while you're out at work to remove someone for their own safety. Oh, and they'll charge you for the privilege, too. And yes folks, that is based on a real life experience.

 

To arm everyone is to live in fear, fear is not the tool of democracy.

 

Have you followed any recent elections on either side of the Atlantic lately? Fear, justified or not, is used on a daily basis by those who seek to lead us.

 

And the usa does have a gun control problem, 2-4 massacres per year every year screams problem to me, you try telling the parents who lost their children in the stupidly high amount of school shootings that there isn't a problem, throw what ever statistics you like, it is a way to detatch yourself from the reality, when even one child dies from a fire-arm incident, then there is a huge problem, end of.

 

But it's not our problem, it's theirs, though as I say, I'm not convinced the problem starts and ends solely with gun ownership.

[mimartin]

As to your second point: Why can't we just shoot the idiots when they enter a crowded place and open fire? And if people want to kill themselves, why can't we just let them?

So cherry picking is the answer, you are just looking at only the parts that fit you argument. How many of the 31,076 deaths in 2010 were from people entering crowed places and opening fire? Compare that to the unintentional shootings or even those 5 years old and under that died from unintentional gunshots. I am pretty sure we can also say a kid 5 year old and under is not responsible for a accidental shooting. Well considering this thread maybe I should not assume that.

 

I have never written anything in this thread that people should not have the right and ability to defend their-self.

 

I am just not willing to

 

 

and pretend there is not a problem like some of you seem to be.

 

So no, I don't want the person, that would leave a gun out so a small child could get hold of it, to open up on a crazy in a crowed place. If they are so irresponsible with their weapon, what makes you think they will not add to the body count rather than limiting it? People have just watched too many Rambo, John Wayne, Dirty Harry movies...John Wayne is dead, unless you have real training or are willing to die to protect others run away not towards. In that situation you must pick your target and be absolutely sure that is your target and you have a shot, if not you are just a wanna-be hero that accidentally killed a innocent.

[Tommycat]

I think we're kind of in agreement mimartin. I place others' lives above my own, and would rather defend them than worry about myself. Perhaps it's me projecting my own mentality on others that makes me feel that allowing people to carry is acceptable. Besides, from what I understand, if you are shooting at a bad guy and miss and kill someone else, you're still liable for that as 1)reckless endangerment, 2) second degree Manslaughter, 3) possibly murder.